Williamson
The Williamson article was a nice read, but it was a bit redundant. Perhaps we have just been discussing the issue of grammar so much, it just feels redundant. I was surprised to learn that studies have been showing that grammar is ineffective in helping students learn how to write for 80 years now. I thought it was more a "new" idea. I guess I thought if it had been around that long, it would have been implemented. How wrong could I be? haha...
I think the teaching of grammar in school persists partly because it is a tradition, and partly because it does seem common sensical that teaching it would help students in the long run. Teachers tend to repeat lessons that they themselves have had in the past. (It makes sense. They did well with the information. They think their students will do with the same information.) However, most of them don't realize that it wasn't the lessons that helped them, but something else. (Although what that something else exactly was, I don't know.) Plus, it does seem to make sense that correcting students mistakes would teach them not to make those mistakes. (It doesn't, but it seems like it should.)
Williamson is probably right that it will take a great many more years for the teaching of grammar to really transform in schools. Schools, just like most big institutions are resistant to change. They are also resistant to self-reflection, I think. Teachers don't like to look at what they are doing and examine it critically. They would rather blame the students, or the school itself for their ineffectiveness. I don't mean to sound critical... haha. All people have this tendency to blame others for their problems. It is a human thing.
4 comments:
I hear what you're saying, Ashley--it seems we've been reading and discussing the concept of form over function for a while now. Williamson's piece, though shorter than several others we've read, could be summed up in six words: Write in order to write better. And so on.
It's a valuable message, so I don't mind being hit over the head with it--but I do wonder . . . If form over function is the way to go in writing, can't we assume it'd be the same in teaching? Meaning: instead of reading about how to teach writing, shouldn't we just do it?
Ashley--I agree with you about the article being a bit redundant, and that grammeer is ineffective in helping students learn how to write, as it should be. I don't think that grammer is a tool to learning how to "write" better, but an instrument in learning how to communicate. Let's face it grammer is not for the writer but for the reader. All those indications, periods when to stop, when to pause, ect, help the reader follow the content. It creates flow and coherence. Sure, a good writer can use those things to make a narrative better, tricky even; but the reason we teach it to students in schools is because ultimately it is necessary to the written text because it assists the person reading it. At least in my mind it is a way of explaining why we had to sit there and learn it.
Becca--I thnk that dialogue in classrooms is important, especially what you said about students articulating an argument. This is useful not only in an academic setting but in "real world" applications where they will be expected and sometimes caught off guard with the need to articulate themselves, be it a decision they made or a reason why they think something needs changed. It cannot hurt to make them talk in this way. Part of being a grown up is knowing what type of discourse belongs in what type of setting.
Mel--I agree with you that teaching can really be learned by doing rather than reading, perhaps we should blog about what happens next in the saga when we are all thrust in that role next semester.
It does seem like we’ve been talking about grammar for a long time! I think it was one of the first issues that came up in class, so I think it’s been popping up throughout the semester. But, considering most people’s preoccupation with grammar or all those “tip of the iceberg” issues we discuss, maybe it’s appropriate that we devote so much time to grammar’s role in writing and public perception of writing. So maybe it’s okay to be preoccupied with being preoccupied!
It surprises me how grammar-saturated we are, even among ourselves. After my classes today, a classmate gave me something she wrote and asked me to look it over and give her my opinion. I was excited—I like doing things like that! But then came the “you’re a literature student, right? Well, don’t read it with a red pen!”
*sigh*
I know she was teasing, but it still stings a little!
Anyway, as Mel said about Williamson’s topic, “write in order to write better.” I also started to think about the chapters from Mayher’s book, where he addresses the role of spoken language in language acquisition.
When tracking language discussing how language can be developed in school, Mayher mentions that “children need to talk meaningfully with each other in school” (129). I realize this relates to young school kids, but—since we’re all dealing with college writing—I wondered if some of the same ideas can be applied to older students. Or, is it too late to make a major impact on the language skills of college-age students? He wrote about “teacher talk” again, and how little students really get to speak in class. Would more group activities, like peer responses and draft workshops, contribute to students’ language skills by giving them an opportunity to practice articulating arguments? Or, since we are all older and carry on conversations outside of school, does in-school talk make a difference?
Post a Comment