Lindemann Chapter 5 (Week 9 Throwback)

Finally, my bread and butter chapter: What do Teachers Need to Know About Linguistics?

Human beings are hardwired for language; our minds are designed for it so much that by the time they are 4 or 5 years old, all babies are more ore less fluent in the language spoken around them. But this isn't really leading to a good point in my mind, so I'll hop to something else.


As I mentioned earlier (while talking about a later reading, somewhat ironically), learning to be an effective writer can in someways be paralleled to learning to become an effective speaker of another language. Aaaaannnnnddd nope, there's nothing here either, nothing on point anyway. Let's hop to something else.


Okay, okay, okay, Laura and Amanda were just talking about (several weeks ago) about language change and stereotypes in writing and whatnot. Language change is one of my very favorite things to think and talk about because I love it so much and because it makes so many people so angry which is probably another reason I love it so much. Recently, last year I believe, the word "irregardless" was recognized by some dictionary or other as an official word that means "regardless" and so many people were so angry about it and I loved it because language change is an unceasing, unloving, uncaring beast that moves slowly and inexorably forward, picking up and discarding words as they are used and disused, caring naught for proper grammar or usage. It's fascinating. It's a slow process, but even with how slow it is, writing change is even slower, as Lindemann sort of hints at.

This fits in to what Laura was talking about in her lamentation on the state of the youth, which, as she suggests, is similar to the same one that has been written by every generation about the one that follows it. (I myself write similar lamentations on the regular, looking forward to the day when I can be Old Man Edwards that kids make up scary stories about like in The Sandlot. But that's all by the way.) What is considered well spoken is what is determined to be well spoken by the public at large. Most people who grow up in a particular society have multiple ethoi, and generally have a sense of what is formal language and what is informal language. The key, then, is teaching and showing the situations in which such language is appropriate and when it isn't. It will probably change.

It's really just a different kind of literacy, the same as any other I would think. Which kind of ties into what Amanda was talking about with Standard American English and slang and whatnot and being kind of unsure about when and where to slip between these various points on the formality spectrum. It seems to me that for a lot of us (and the younger generation) we're in a position where we understand what's classically formal and informal and appropriate and inappropriate, but we also understand that a an increasing number of people are more and more OK with less formal language and formerly ultraserious situations, or else we recognize that being hyperliterate and wellspoken doesn't preclude being postmodern or multimodal, mixing "high brow" and "low brow." Text speak, I think, is just an extension of a process that's been happening in earnest in academia (certain sections of it, anyways) for a few decades. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm not even saying you have to accept it and can't fight against it, I just think that in order to go forward you have to at least acknowledge that it is a thing.

To paraphrase the great poet whoeveritwas, "you can't stop it, you can only hope to contain it."

Meyers (week 10)

What a long winded essay to talk about how work is assigned in school, and how it reflects the social class structure in our society. The goal then is to have assignments that are relevant and reflect the society in which the students live. How can we do that, and make sure that students learn all the skills that will get them hired later in life?

An interesting quote that stood out to me is that “Schools are not only teaching academic knowledge, they teach work according to schedule, acceptance of authority, and competition among individuals and between groups” (156). Reminds me of Jean Anyon’s “Social class and the hidden curriculum of work.” Schools not only teach knowledge, but they also teach certain skills that perpetuate social classes in society. How then, can we make sure that all schools are equal and that all students have access to these schools. It’s not news that students in more prominent communities, even if they don’t understand the teacher, will be able to get support from parents through tutoring or such. But for students who do not have those resources (tutoring or parents), how can they overcome their class status in order to succeed. What skills are being taught in different schools?

Another one that stands out to me: “The attack on tradition shifts our focus from the conflicting goals of the school in society to the simpler issue of the competence of individual teachers and the practically of specific methods” (163). IS THERE A RIGHT AND WRONG WAY TO EVALUATE TEACHERS? I get evaluated twice a year, for forty five minutes, and I swear there’s like 32 indicators I need to hit in order to be an “effective” teacher. Is that really being effective and serving the students and the community, or am I just putting on a dog and pony show so I don’t get fired?

Learning to Learn (Week 10 Throwback)

I'm a huge fan of group work. Of in-class group work, I should say. I prefer to do presentations alone because...actually, it's almost entirely because I'm a champion procrastinator, and group projects have to be done well ahead of the day of presentation so everyone knows what everyone's responsibility is. And, in these situations, I end up doing less work because we spread it around, so it actually ends up as less work. A fair trade of for not procrastinating.

ANYWAY, I like in class work, workshopping and whatnot like we did with the literacy autobiographies, that was a good time. I understand that, as Shari and Sara mentioned, that a lot of students don't like group work for a variety of reasons: some don't feel comfortable, some are worried about doing all the work, some aren't temperamentally suited for such a situation, etc., but I think that it's a net positive for all involved.

As "Accommodating Student Learning Styles" mentions, some students prefer one-on-ones with the teacher, or at the very least being lectured to on high by the wise man who, admittedly, is paid to impart said knowledge. Some students prefer the Socratic method and figuring it out for themselves. Both good, but I would weight it in favor of Socratic method and peer to peer workshopping-type work in-class. Certainly the teacher can help you to acquire the tools to use to begin your journey to effective writing kingdom [what the hell kind of sentence is that?], but in having to read writing of your peers and explain why it's effective or not, and trying to figure out ways to make it more effective, you develop these skills more intuitively. Of course, it's not a simple wild west type situation; the teacher obviously gives directed guidance and flits between groups to keep people on task, and of course the teacher has the final say, but not before the students themselves do the real work. The teacher is more of a facilitator. Learning effective group work strategies is important, because as it says at the end of the article:

 "[F]reshmen need to learn how to learn. Introverts and concrete sequentials should learn how to adapt their personality and learning style so they can participate productively in group work--they will have to do so often as undergraduates and, eventually, as professionals."

English as a Skill

From the UCLA senate definition of a university course:

A university course should set forth an integrated body of knowledge with primary emphasis on presenting principles and theories rather than on developing skills and techniques.

From the American Heritage Dictionary  definition of skill: “An art, trade, or technique particularly one requiring use of the hands or body”(347). 

The distinction is that a skill is developed over time- historically and by mistake-through drills and error finding. Rose does a great job in explaining the origins of “remedial” and it’s interesting to think how “remedial composition” is associated with dyslexia and psychology yet, as Rose points out, the modern politics of skill see composition as a tool for exploring other, deeper levels of thought and academia. A skill. A tool that can be picked up. I like playing around with this metaphor. If writing is a tool, there are so many tools for a particular purpose and then a different gauge for the purpose.  What is expected is that the student has to have academic writing, let’s say a screwdriver, as their only tool in their tool box? Hell no. Composition isn’t perfect, it’s a process we do to varying degrees and it’s different every time depending on the purpose, and for that matter it depends on the writer’s state of mind. But to see writing as a tool or a skill has its merits, its own value. Rose lays it out pretty clearly: writing is necessary for all students across virtually all fields of academia. But I its seen, maybe, as more of a parlor trick: let’s say you’re doing a parlor trick or presenting something for show and tell. What makes the trick successful is that you don’t make any mistakes; in fact, everyone is expected not to make any mistakes and have this trick at-the-ready before entering the parlor. But like any good magician, sleight of hand is a skill that is developed over time and will be much different with age; so it is with writing: “Writing seems central to the shaping and directing of certain modes of cognition, is internally involved in learning , is a means of defining the self and defining reality, is a means of representing and contextualizing information(which has enormous political as well as conceptual and archival importance), and is an activity that develops over one’s lifetime”(348).  Writing =thinking=meaning.

Writing: Aspect of Other Things or a Thing Itself?

I used to think that swimming and running weren't actually technically sports, just strenuous aspects of other sports. You're only doing one thing for the entire duration. To my high school mind (and really, if we're being honest, to my current mind) it didn't become a sport until you had to run or swim while also doing something else. Running with a ball in your hand without dropping it while trying to not get hit by giant men (or while knowing full well that you will be hit and hit hard by those same giant men) is a sport. Running to catch something and throw it, running and not getting caught, these are what sports are made of.

This was a lengthy prelude to talking about Mike Rose's article. Like Sara and Laura I think that writing should be taught with a more whole language approach. Writing should be judged, or I guess evaluated to use a term with a less negative connotation, based on how well it does what it is trying to do. That is, if it is making an argument, then: how well is the argument structured? what is the central claim? what's the evidence to back it up? what's the evidence against the claim and how does it fit into the claim? how well is the ethos established? etc. Grammar correction should enter into it only when effectiveness of the piece takes a significant hit. Or something like that.

What I think Rose is railing against in the piece is the view by other academics, he mentions specifically a chemistry professor, who consider writing the way I consider running: as simply an aspect of other, more important tasks (like chemistry, or public policy or, like, I don't know, magazine ad copy). There should be, he's saying, more emphasis on the thing itself, as writing that's effective because it's good writing and not simply a "transcription skill" that gets what's in your head onto the paper and into other people's heads.

If we view writing as another language, then we can approach it the way we do in TESL. At lower, basic levels of confidence you do some drills to drive home specific points, but never more than 5 to 10 minutes at a time. It's mostly done through communication and using the new language (or writing) to try to accomplish a specific goal (like Sara's Ethical Dilemmas SI), and being corrected only to make accomplishing the goal easier or more direct. And as the competence level of the students increases, you can start using finer and finer brushes to work the details. I guess it's the difference between impressionism and photorealism, if we consider those two modes of expression to be on a kind of clarity continuum.

Lower Levels: not too much on details

 

Upper levels: sharp focus

Rose in Review: He's right, but it shouldn't take so much writing to explain the necessity of writing

"The more I think about this language and recall the contexts in which I've heard it used, the more I realize how caught up we all are in a political-semanticweb that restricts the way we think about the place of writing in the academy."

--This is in reference to calling writing a "tool" or "skill." This is one section where I don't find a reason for such fervor. Language, use of language, reading and writing are all skills and tools we use to communicate. I agree that english classes have come to quantify 'skill' through negative attention, "This paper is a B because there are too many spelling errors though the content is good," but there has to be some structure by which we first teach mechanics. Later skills, higher level writing should build on these foundational skills, but should be marked only for missing points of interest, not spelling mechanics. 

"Because skills are fundamental tools, basic procedures,there is the strong expectation that they be mastered at various preparatory junctures in one's educational career and in the places where such tools are properly crafted. In the case of writing, the skills should be mastered before one enters college and takes on higher-order endeavors. Yes, the skill can be refined, but its fundamental development is over, completed via a series of elementary and secondary school courses.

Thus it is that so many faculty consider upper-divisionand especially graduate-level writing courses as de jure remedial...(348)."

But the meat of this essay: Being Remedial

"And the political dimension is powerful-to be remedial is to be substandard,

inadequate, and, because of the origins of the term, the inadequacy is metaphorically connected to disease and mental defect" (349). To which he answers, 

"To be literate means to be acquainted with letters or writings. But exactly how such acquaintance translates into behavior varies a good deal over time and place" (350).

There are so many factors in this modern world, and old academia is terrible at recognizing those factors. Teach them grammar, semantics, use, metaphor, but also teach them how to think for themselves. Teach them WHY things are good, not only that they ARE good.

We are making robots, bad, illiterate, lazy, ignorant robots, ...not well spoken or even interesting writers. 

One more good Rose quote:

"One could argue that though our students are literate by common definition, a significant percentage of them might not be if we shift to the cultural and belletristic definitions of literacy or to a truly functional-contextual definition:that is, given the sophisticated, specialized reading and writing demands of the university-and the general knowledge they require-then it might be appropriate to talk of a kind of cultural illiteracy among some percentage of the student body" (356).

Since when are skills taboo?

As a whole I did enjoy reading Mike Rose's "The Language of Exclusion."  I thought it gave relevant background information on how composition classes came to be and he problems that these courses are facing in universities today.  I did, however find something odd about Roses claim that writing should not be taught as a skill.  He states: "English as a "skill" or "tool subject" that all students had to master in order to achieve in almost any subject and to function as productive citizens. "  So what's the problem with that?  To me, writing has been, and always will be, a skill to master.  There are people who are geniuses in their field, but have difficulty writing a coherent research project, let alone a well formulated argument on their research findings.  Writing, as a skill, can help these kinds of people to relay their ideas to the masses.  Not a whole lot of people can sit down and read charts, making complete sense out of them.

I do think that too much time in Composition classes is spent reviewing the mechanical/grammatical dimensions of language, but I still think they are valuable "skills" that will benefit all learner.s.. not just English majors.   These kinds of skills however should be "taught primarily as a means to learning, analyzing, and criticizing theories and principles." For me, this makes sense for thematically centered courses.  For instance, the class I SI for is spending the entire semester on Ethical dilemmas. Yes the class as a whole needs basic remedial work in regards to grammar, but the professor does no simply give them grammar lessons every day.  He uses their work from the class to show how better mechanics could improve their argument.


Call me crazy, but I am a firm believer in bringing 21st Century skills into the classroom in order to better prepare students for the challenges they will face in the competitive, global world they will enter upon graduation. So what's so wrong with enabling students with these "skills"?  Bringing  technology and whole-person literacy into writing lessons help to enhance the learning experience, they make the material more relevant and engaging for students. And in doing so, teachers  have the ability to assist their students in becoming better, well-rounded people.  So my question is, why is calling writing a "skill" such a bad thing.  Writing is a skill.  One that everybody should spend time working on.  It will do nothing but aid them in all aspects of life in the future.