Blog #3, On Ann Raimes’ writing errors essay

Ann Raimes’ essay titled, Errors: Windows into the Mind, contends that teachers sometimes misinterpret the root cause of spelling and grammatical mistakes made by their students on writing assignments. The articles goes on to offer a variety of practical strategies that teachers can use to help students learn from their mistakes. 

Its a very practical essay giving specific examples of the kinds of problems that arise and offering advise on how to handle them. After being exposed to a good deal of education theory recently, it was great to get some practical advise from an experienced teacher like Raimes. But I couldn’t help but wonder if her advise was a bit dated? 

The essay is dated, December, 1991, so I presume that it was first published more than 20 years ago. A lot has changed in 20 years. My guess is that many, if not most, middle school and high school students are now writing their assignments on computers loaded with spelling and grammar correcting software. I wonder how these kinds of software programs are changing the writing process for students?

For example, I'm writing this essay on a mac application called Pages. Pages does more than just automatically spell check, it also underlines passages in green that it believes to be either grammatically incorrect or overly wordy. When you hover over the green underlined phrase with your mouse the word processing program offers suggestions on how to fix or improve you sentence. I wonder if these kinds of word processing programs help or hurt students? 

I have a young friend who says she’s a terrible speller because she grew up after the arrival of spell check. She’s not alone, many kids of her generation are bad spellers because they’ve never had to learn to spell, spell check programs demotivated them. So are spell check programs bad or good? I believe a good case could be made either way. 

Of course advanced word processing programs like Pages aren’t going to structure an essay for a student, or decide on its content. (At least not anytime soon.) So students will still need to learn to write. But I’m curious whether teachers are finding a decrease in simple grammatical mistakes, and if so, if its due to word processing software? (Pages just told me that I shouldn’t have started my last sentence with the word “but,” but I’m going to do it anyway!) 

Someday soon advanced word processing programs may correct all kinds of writing mistakes instantaneously. How will that effect teachers? More importantly, how will it effect students? Its certainly something to think about, and perhaps something to talk about in class. I’d love to hear some opinions as to the value or dangers of spell checking and grammar correcting software.   

Blog for week 3, Bazerman and Elbow readings. 

Both of this week's readings had to do with the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program in America. The first essay by Bazerman chronicles how WAC gained momentum in American education, it also explains some of the reasons why writing has increasingly been accepted as a vital vehicle for learning. 

  

WAC's seemingly simple premise, that we learn better when writing is involved, makes perfect sense to me. It also makes sense that english classes shouldn't be the only place where students learn to write, that every instructor of every subject should be demanding assigning writing. 

Bazerman talks about how an important aspect of the WAC  program involved getting teachers to write themselves, and to embrace the idea that something magic happens when one writes. I could see how a science teacher or a math teacher might resist this idea at first, but the arguments made in the second reading, as to why writing helps students learn, are convincing. 

In the second essay Peter Elbow points out how we've traditionally viewed learning. He says we've assumed input (reading) had to precede output (writing.) He then describes how in kindergarten classes kids are actually able to write before they can read. 

As a father of two elementary school children I've seen proof of what the author asserts. My girls have written several short books, with very bad spelling, but none-the-less comprehensible, before they could read. 

The idea of writing before you read may seem counterintuitive, but there's applications that come to mind. For example, instead of starting a unit on the solar system with a chalk and talk, why not assign an essay where students write what they know about each planet in the solar system? 

An assignment like this not only gets them writing, but it helps them come to realize how little they know. This hopefully will pique their interest in the subject. 

The writing exercise will also inform the instructor of prior knowledge and misconceptions that the students may have. Another essay on the same subject at the end of the unit can then provide students with proof of how much they've learned. 

On a personal note, I relate to the WAC philosophy because I've often noticed that information sticks in my brain better when I write about it. I'm delighted that programs like WAC are being embraced by educational policy makers. I think these two articles did a great job of explaining something I've always intuitively believed, namely, that writing engages, stimulates and personalizes learning. 

- Michael Kaas

Blog entry # 1, Sept 11, 2012

In this blog entry I'm going to briefly discuss two different education related essays. The first essay I'll comment on is, "Teach New Worlds/New Words," by Bell Hooks. 

While reading this essay I had a visceral reaction to it. Not only is this a very powerfully written piece, but it challenged many assumptions I had about the english language. I grew up learning what was, "bad english" and what was, "good english." Ms. Hooks challenged those labels and presented an explanation of why as to why segments of the American population don't speak standard english, which I had not considered. 

Hooks begins by quoting a poem that refers to standard english as, "the oppressor's language." I had never considered that people might refuse to speak standard english as a form of rebellion against those who oppress them. Hooks writes in a passionate style and although I didn't fully accept her arguments as fact, I still found her main thesis compelling. 

Hooks asserts that English has been used in this country to dominate the weak, the minorities, and specifically the Black community. She points out that Black slaves were forced to replace their native languages with their oppressor's, and that whites used standard english as a form of control. Hooks says, "they make it (standard english) a weapon that can shame, humiliate, colonize."  Hooks goes on to claim that as a response African-Americans developed their own vernacular version of english as a form of resistance, and as a way to reclaim their personal power. 

The biggest problem I had with the essay was that Hooks states her opinions as facts, and then fails to give proof to back up her claims. Hooks also doesn't state whether she believes this morphing of the english language was done consciously or subconsciously. Are we to assume that the early Black community in America consciously decided to disregard the rules of english grammar as an act of rebellion? Or was it an unconscious act? The author's failure to address this question weakens her argument since we're left to guess to what degree this transformation of the language was intentional or accidental. 

Hooks says, "For in the incorrect usage of words, in the incorrect placement of words, was a spirit of rebellion that claimed language as a site of resistance." I think this contention is plausible, but in all of American history is there no journal, no oral history, or any evidence at all left behind by those who helped create the black vernacular that this was indeed their intention? If not, then what is the proof of Hooks' claim? Did she just make up her argument from thin air? If we assume that Hooks believes that this rebellion took place unconsciously, then we must accept that she has great psychological insights, since she must be able to make statements about the subconscious workings of people she's never met and who are long dead. 

For me the value of the essay is that it made me reconsider how the forced acceptance of a language can be seen as a form of control and repression. Many Americans believe that those who don't use standard english do so out of ignorance. Hooks' contention that the creation of a black vernacular was a cultural choice does seem plausible when it is considered in a historical context. This essay will definitely change the way I view the english language. 

The second essay I'd like to discuss is, "Social linguistics and literacies: ideologies in discourses," by John Glee. This is a fascinating essay takes the reader on a surprising journey into the world of linguistics. Glee talks about how there is a story that we believe behind many words, and that the story that a word conveys is important. He claims that we as a society actually negotiate the meanings of words and that they have social and economic consequences. For example, what we accept as the meaning of the word sausage may affect what we end up eating. 

Glee covers a lot of territory in the essay. One of his most provocative assertions is the difference between how white america views black vernacular english and how linguists view it. He asserts that by breaking rules of english grammar the black vernacular in some cases actually improves the language's ability to communicate meaning. This is an idea that I found surprising, since I like many American felt breaking grammatical rules had no intrinsic value. 

Glee also says, "a change in a non-standard dialect, since it makes the non-standard dialect different from the standard, may enhance its ability to signal identification with a "local" community." This makes total sense to me, as it seems apparent that a common dialects can bind people together and help them to form a tighter group than they would otherwise have. Glee also states that, "both standard and non-standard dialects are marvels of human mastery. Neither is better or worse." This too was a new idea for me. 

What I would say to Mr. Glee though is that although non-standard english may not be worse than standard English, it is less useful if you want to get a good job in America and is usually a liability. I used to be a TV producer for CBS News. I once produced a story about an academy for underprivileged inner-city children. One of the classes offered was called, "speaking green." The idea was that speaking black vernacular english was fine, but one needed to be able to speak standard english as well. This is because standard english is the language of business, and if one wants to make money in America, one is going to have a much lower success rate if one can only speak black vernacular english, aka AAE, or ebonics. 

Certainly there are exceptions. If one is a rapper speaking AAE or black vernacular english is expected. But the exceptions are few. Glee argues that this shouldn't be the case, that the idea of "bad english" is wrong. He makes good arguments, but his arguments don't change reality. The reality is that if you can't speak standard english, (in addition to your local dialect), you aren't going to get a good job in corporate America, period. 

Should this be the case? I feel certain that Mr. Glee would argue that discriminating against people because the don't speak standard english is wrong. He may well be right. But teachers and students need to be realistic and its unlikely that American business is going to change its cultural model concerning ebonics or AAE anytime soon.

Thus I'd contend that speaking standard english in America might be seen as a prerequisite set by most employers. It well might an unjust rule, an unfair rule, and maybe an unwise rule. But employers, like society at large, asks people to conform to many different rules. Those who don't want to conform to these rules are usually not forced to, but they're far less likely to economically succeed than those who do. That's why I'd be willing to wagger that you'll never in your life hear our president speaking in the black vernacular.