I know this a old discussion, but I've been thinking about conferences. This will probably apply only for me and Lauren (we share the Wick office on the third floor), but our office space can only be described as wildly impractical for holding student conferences.
My lit professor at CSU this semester holds his office hours at the CSU food court, as opposed to his office in Rhodes Tower (anyone whose been to the campus knows that it's a pain to get to professor's offices in that building). I had a conference with him earlier this semester there, and I think the setting worked really well. Neither of us had a detailed plan of what we were going to cover (just a general idea), but we ended up hanging out for about an hour easily. The thing I've realized looking back was that there were plenty of times during the meeting that both of us were silent. We were either looking at our notes or books or thinking about responses. Oddly enough, even during the silences, it wasn't awkward. I think that the setting allowed us to be comfortable enough during those times when neither of us spoke, and I think that it would have been a little more uncomfortable if we were in an office setting.
That in mind, I was thinking about possible places to hold my office hours. The food court here at Kent is a little more busy (especially during lunch hours) so I figured that was a bit impractical. The second floor of the Student Center seems to be a proper place, and there's also the library. I was just wondering what you guys thought.
I'll also talk to Cathey Fahey-Hunt, another office mate of mine that teaches creative writing, where she holds conferences, since she has the same problem as Lauren and I.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
To Err is Inhuman
Another set of articles about grammar, and I’m still left without any real answers. But are there any real answers?
I felt guilty going over these readings because while I hate prescriptivism—as shown in class—(that dash is for Mel)I do have a few pet peeves, and errors tend to jump out and distract me like so many wayward deer on the highway. Perhaps it’s because, as a writer, I’m snobbish and don’t want to let people into my exclusive social group. This is very possible. Completely disregarding the work that I do in school, I probably churn out 3000 words a week on various profitable and unprofitable projects in my spare time – this isn’t bragging; I’m obviously a sick, sick, man. So when I see a mistake published in writing, it’s a sort of affront to what I do, partially because I’m a harsh judge on myself when it comes to checking for what I perceive as errors. Right now, I’m glad I recognize this, because it’s going to put things in perspective when it comes to grading students’ papers. As Pam said in class, I think we react differently to a published mistake than we do to a mistake in a student paper, holding the implicit belief that the writer of the published work should “know better.”
Perspectives aside, I’m a little concerned about what to do with grammar. There are some things I think will be learned in time, and some things I think cannot be learned unless taught in some fashion. The Practice in Context article kind of hinted at this idea by claiming that talking about grammatical issues doesn’t need to be done unless the student really isn’t getting it. I did agree with some parts of this article, like correcting grammar within the context of the work (I did this all of the time when I was a tutor). But some practices, like “responding with correctness” seem to tiptoe around the issue and may make you come off as a little condescending. I’m just speaking from personal experience, here.
A major theme of grammar seems to be insecurity, and dealing with those insecurities. I like to do this by discussing the roots of dying grammatical rules and how ridiculous they are (like split infinitives). But even I find myself stifled and insecure when it comes time to sit down and write an academic paper. I know that I can’t express myself completely, and I’m trapped within the restraints of a very rigid system. And I’m still finding out the many new ways my writing can be incorrect. But deep down inside, I know I’m right.
I felt guilty going over these readings because while I hate prescriptivism—as shown in class—(that dash is for Mel)I do have a few pet peeves, and errors tend to jump out and distract me like so many wayward deer on the highway. Perhaps it’s because, as a writer, I’m snobbish and don’t want to let people into my exclusive social group. This is very possible. Completely disregarding the work that I do in school, I probably churn out 3000 words a week on various profitable and unprofitable projects in my spare time – this isn’t bragging; I’m obviously a sick, sick, man. So when I see a mistake published in writing, it’s a sort of affront to what I do, partially because I’m a harsh judge on myself when it comes to checking for what I perceive as errors. Right now, I’m glad I recognize this, because it’s going to put things in perspective when it comes to grading students’ papers. As Pam said in class, I think we react differently to a published mistake than we do to a mistake in a student paper, holding the implicit belief that the writer of the published work should “know better.”
Perspectives aside, I’m a little concerned about what to do with grammar. There are some things I think will be learned in time, and some things I think cannot be learned unless taught in some fashion. The Practice in Context article kind of hinted at this idea by claiming that talking about grammatical issues doesn’t need to be done unless the student really isn’t getting it. I did agree with some parts of this article, like correcting grammar within the context of the work (I did this all of the time when I was a tutor). But some practices, like “responding with correctness” seem to tiptoe around the issue and may make you come off as a little condescending. I’m just speaking from personal experience, here.
A major theme of grammar seems to be insecurity, and dealing with those insecurities. I like to do this by discussing the roots of dying grammatical rules and how ridiculous they are (like split infinitives). But even I find myself stifled and insecure when it comes time to sit down and write an academic paper. I know that I can’t express myself completely, and I’m trapped within the restraints of a very rigid system. And I’m still finding out the many new ways my writing can be incorrect. But deep down inside, I know I’m right.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Experiment: Grammar Check
Today in class, I said that a student didn't necessarily have to know the difference between words like they're, there, and their because of how advanced modern grammar checkers are. I think that students should know the difference between these (and other) homophones, but I still wanted to check and see just how good grammar checkers are getting. Microsoft Word 2007 pointed out grammatical errors in the following sentences:
Their here for the party.
The police gave them back they’re cars after the night was over.
There not interested in learning proper English.
There are two many people here.
I asked her and she said it was to soon.
Let’s go out too the movies.
I looked around but I couldn’t figure out who’s coat this is.
Whose going to do their homework?
This raises a question: are students going to be motivated to follow the rules when a computer program can just point out the problem and fix it for them? It's a little scary that we now have programs that can recognize these errors contextually.
Their here for the party.
The police gave them back they’re cars after the night was over.
There not interested in learning proper English.
There are two many people here.
I asked her and she said it was to soon.
Let’s go out too the movies.
I looked around but I couldn’t figure out who’s coat this is.
Whose going to do their homework?
This raises a question: are students going to be motivated to follow the rules when a computer program can just point out the problem and fix it for them? It's a little scary that we now have programs that can recognize these errors contextually.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Making Fun of Grammar
Today, one of the web sites I write for has a really funny article about grammar, so I thought I'd post here and link the class to it. And if you need proof that it's funny, here's a quote.
When speaking, the noun is that thing which you speak about. That thing which is described by the adjective, you see, or that thing which is done by the verb. The basic basis of our talk, the noun helps us present an object into the mind of the listener. You yourself are likely a noun, though if you are doing a thing you are a verb, and if you are being some way you are an adjective. Likely, if you are sitting still, you are a noun.
Click here to read it. There are also a few other entries in this series. These articles are just for fun, but they're also very good satires of grammar. And you probably thought such a thing couldn't exist.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Mythological Grammar
For Wednesday, I'd like everyone to come to class thinking of one grammatical rule they feel okay about breaking, and one grammatical rule they can't tolerate seeing broken. Don't post about them here, just remember them for class. This is part of an exercise that me, Becca, and Brandon will be doing.
Please note that this message itself contains grammatical errors. Collect them all!
Please note that this message itself contains grammatical errors. Collect them all!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
More Grammar
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Grammar
Grammar
The Grammar articles really resonated with me. Mostly, because when I tell people that I am an English major, they ALWAYS reply with something to the effect of, "Oh, so you sit around and fix commas and stuff?" I am not sure why English and grammar have come to mean the same thing to people. It is probably because those concrete lessons stick out most to people when they think back on high school and grade school lessons. (Most people HATE grammar lessons, so they aren't easy to forget.) A lot of scholarship I have read of late, has made it clear that grammar exercises really do not help students to learn grammar rules. And, you know, I think that is true. Grammar laws are hard to understand because there are so many exceptions to the rules. (A word that is a noun, can also be an adjective... etc.) Plus, I think it is hard to understand grammar when it is separated from the context of writing, as I think it often is in school. I agree with the author of the first article, in that I think it should be taught always in the attempt to make writing better, not in the attempt to help students pass standerdized tests. (But, that is easier said then done. Teachers often HAVE to teach to the test.)
After reading about transformational gramar, and the other forms of grammar, I understand why teachers often just try to teach the basics, or traditional school grammar. It is simply easier to grade those kind of surface mistakes, than it is to teach students about Noam Chomsky's deep structure. At the same time though, I think Halliday's and Chomsky's views of grammar are better for helping students to understand the relationship between grammar and writing. (Halliday's especially...) Easier is not always better.
I don't know. Somehow, we need to make students realize, or make teachers realize maybe, that language is not stagnate. It is constantly evolving, at least until it is dead like Latin. Sticking to "divine" rules, and priviledging certain dialects, alienates people from the true study of composition. The way teachers teach grammar in High school and grade school, makes students think that the key to good writing is putting all your commas in the right place, and we know that isn't what composition is all about. A grammar free paper with no ideas behind it, is a waste.
The Grammar articles really resonated with me. Mostly, because when I tell people that I am an English major, they ALWAYS reply with something to the effect of, "Oh, so you sit around and fix commas and stuff?" I am not sure why English and grammar have come to mean the same thing to people. It is probably because those concrete lessons stick out most to people when they think back on high school and grade school lessons. (Most people HATE grammar lessons, so they aren't easy to forget.) A lot of scholarship I have read of late, has made it clear that grammar exercises really do not help students to learn grammar rules. And, you know, I think that is true. Grammar laws are hard to understand because there are so many exceptions to the rules. (A word that is a noun, can also be an adjective... etc.) Plus, I think it is hard to understand grammar when it is separated from the context of writing, as I think it often is in school. I agree with the author of the first article, in that I think it should be taught always in the attempt to make writing better, not in the attempt to help students pass standerdized tests. (But, that is easier said then done. Teachers often HAVE to teach to the test.)
After reading about transformational gramar, and the other forms of grammar, I understand why teachers often just try to teach the basics, or traditional school grammar. It is simply easier to grade those kind of surface mistakes, than it is to teach students about Noam Chomsky's deep structure. At the same time though, I think Halliday's and Chomsky's views of grammar are better for helping students to understand the relationship between grammar and writing. (Halliday's especially...) Easier is not always better.
I don't know. Somehow, we need to make students realize, or make teachers realize maybe, that language is not stagnate. It is constantly evolving, at least until it is dead like Latin. Sticking to "divine" rules, and priviledging certain dialects, alienates people from the true study of composition. The way teachers teach grammar in High school and grade school, makes students think that the key to good writing is putting all your commas in the right place, and we know that isn't what composition is all about. A grammar free paper with no ideas behind it, is a waste.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)