I want to talk a little more about the letters written between graduate students and basic writers as described in Gail Stygall’s article “Resisting Privilege” as it is presented in Landmark Essays on Basic Writing.
On page 191, Stygall shows her readers one of the letters written by a basic writer, James, and then gives the response of Dee, the graduate student. Stygall notes the response Dee gives is almost three times as long as James’s and suggests Dee is “comfortable writing, even to someone she does not know” (192). It is also noted that James “asked no questions, while Dee feels it appropriate to ask eight questions” (192). Stygall goes on to point out that James’s handwriting is labored and “tortured,” and that Dee simply responds to James as a “teacher” by echoing him and asking him more questions about himself, thus requiring a reply.
However, I find Dee’s reply a little calloused and cold and I find Stygall’s analysis of James’s letter to be a little simplistic. If Stygall and Dee were to take a second look at James’s letter, they might see a more complicated letter than they previously thought.
The exploratory letter actually has a lot of questions embedded within it. Here is a list of questions I see within the letter:
1. Where were you born?
2. What are some of your interests?
3. How far into graduate school are you?
4. How many credit hours are you taking?
5. Where do you work?
6. What are your career plans?
James has written a perfectly conventional introductory letter in which he has described himself and the things important to him. When James asks Dee to tell him about herself, he intends for her to “echo” him, but his intentions are poorly met. While Dee seems comfortable writing to James about “feeling wimpy,” she does not echo him in a way that truly acknowledges his letter. Dee turns a letter that is supposed to be about her (a letter that should have echoed James’s by giving him more basic facts about herself) into a myriad of half-responses laced with more questions. The response letter seems to be less of a correspondence and more of a quiz.
I’m not sure how the barrage of questions will aid James, especially if he feels as though Dee has ignored his genuine attempt to learn more about her. What is it that makes Dee’s letter superior to James’s in Stygall’s eyes? Sheer number of words used? Dee’s ability to fill a page without really saying anything important or giving an actual reply? Why is it acceptable for Dee to write a letter filled with questions and ignore James’s true inquiries? Dee’s letter, to me, seems unfocused and misguided when read as a response to James’s.
It is clear that James and Dee both have different expectations of what an introductory letter should be and each is functioning within their own parameters of comfort. Which "comfort zone" is closer to our own and how do we move between zones to meet the needs of the other person? How do we step out of the rhelm of "teacher" and "student" and become communicators?
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
College Acculturation
In her article “Conflict and Struggle,” Min-zhan Lu talks about some of the ways in which teachers might view basic writers and help them develop into academic writers. While each theory has good points, there are also places where each can be seen as lacking.
For example, in the section about acculturation Lu relates the experiences of basic writing teachers’ feelings of “being in but not of the English profession” (138, LE) to those of the students they were teaching. The students were in academia, but not of academia. Herein lies the debate of how to assimilate the students into academia. Lu overviews a few theories about assimilation which range from moving students form “orality” to “literacy”(141) to the idea that a student’s anxiety about writing will go away over time as the student is assimilated to the world of academia (141).
Moving from “orality” to literacy is a great idea, if the student has an academic oral base. The idea assumes that the transition is easy and leaves out the possibility that the student has no academic “oral” base. Where, then, do we begin the transition? Can we as teachers teach an oral base before we begin an academic literacy base?
Also the idea that the anxiety over academic writing subsides after the students has made the transition is fair, but not completely correct. Academic writing can be scary even after the transition is “finished.” Several students as far up as PhD candidates and professors still worry and stress over their writing, the anxiety is still there and these people are considered far beyond the days of basic writing. It seems absurd to dismiss anxiety as “passing” while “students get comfortably settled in the new community and sever or diminish their ties with the old” (142). How then does this account for the anxiety of non-basic writers who are well within the “community of academia”? When and where is the line set for assimilation?
While I understand that Lu does not necessarily agree with these theories, and adds some suggestions of her own, it seems as though Lu is still trying to come up with better strategies then assimilation or accommodation as she looks into the future of her craft.
For example, in the section about acculturation Lu relates the experiences of basic writing teachers’ feelings of “being in but not of the English profession” (138, LE) to those of the students they were teaching. The students were in academia, but not of academia. Herein lies the debate of how to assimilate the students into academia. Lu overviews a few theories about assimilation which range from moving students form “orality” to “literacy”(141) to the idea that a student’s anxiety about writing will go away over time as the student is assimilated to the world of academia (141).
Moving from “orality” to literacy is a great idea, if the student has an academic oral base. The idea assumes that the transition is easy and leaves out the possibility that the student has no academic “oral” base. Where, then, do we begin the transition? Can we as teachers teach an oral base before we begin an academic literacy base?
Also the idea that the anxiety over academic writing subsides after the students has made the transition is fair, but not completely correct. Academic writing can be scary even after the transition is “finished.” Several students as far up as PhD candidates and professors still worry and stress over their writing, the anxiety is still there and these people are considered far beyond the days of basic writing. It seems absurd to dismiss anxiety as “passing” while “students get comfortably settled in the new community and sever or diminish their ties with the old” (142). How then does this account for the anxiety of non-basic writers who are well within the “community of academia”? When and where is the line set for assimilation?
While I understand that Lu does not necessarily agree with these theories, and adds some suggestions of her own, it seems as though Lu is still trying to come up with better strategies then assimilation or accommodation as she looks into the future of her craft.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Shaughnessy and handwriting
In class, we spoke about the reasons that Shaughnessy might have chosen to include handwriting in her chapter with punctuation. I think that handwriting is very much a part of a person’s overall experience. Shaughnessy recognizes that a person’s handwriting, whether “good” or “bad,” can give various insights into a person’s past or even present situation.
Just as handwriting can be subjectively good and bad, so can writing in general. There are certain things one looks for when assessing the quality of written paper including; subject matter, syntax, organization and other areas of written language. Likewise, one looks for a range of qualities when assessing the quality of handwriting including; correct formation of letters both cursive and printed, overall legibility and pen (or pencil) strokes.
As many people suggest, a person’s handwriting can add insight to the person as a whole. This is why I think it is important to assess the students' writing ability in handwritten form first. In looking at the form, if it is all block letters or very disjointed, the writer may be suggesting more than just the thoughts on the page.
Also the “correctness” of letter formation might have a direct correlation between the written letters and the ability to “form” an essay in the proper manner. This may or may not be true in all cases, but it certainly might give us insight when viewed as a correlation factor.
However, not all basic writers will have bad handwriting and not all 110 writers will have good handwriting. In any case, I think that Shaughnessy’s point is that handwriting is a tool of communication. If a person can not read another’s handwriting it blocks the communication. Poor handwriting can be seen as improper or uneducated, just as a poorly organized or poorly punctuated paper calls (negative) attention to itself, poor handwriting skills will avert the reader’s attention to the perceived incorrectness rather than the thoughts on the page.
While handwriting is becoming more and more unneeded as we infiltrate computers into society, it is worthy to note that hand written notes still exist and might mean more than ever if it is perceived as illegible. Therein lies the importance of handwriting.
Just as handwriting can be subjectively good and bad, so can writing in general. There are certain things one looks for when assessing the quality of written paper including; subject matter, syntax, organization and other areas of written language. Likewise, one looks for a range of qualities when assessing the quality of handwriting including; correct formation of letters both cursive and printed, overall legibility and pen (or pencil) strokes.
As many people suggest, a person’s handwriting can add insight to the person as a whole. This is why I think it is important to assess the students' writing ability in handwritten form first. In looking at the form, if it is all block letters or very disjointed, the writer may be suggesting more than just the thoughts on the page.
Also the “correctness” of letter formation might have a direct correlation between the written letters and the ability to “form” an essay in the proper manner. This may or may not be true in all cases, but it certainly might give us insight when viewed as a correlation factor.
However, not all basic writers will have bad handwriting and not all 110 writers will have good handwriting. In any case, I think that Shaughnessy’s point is that handwriting is a tool of communication. If a person can not read another’s handwriting it blocks the communication. Poor handwriting can be seen as improper or uneducated, just as a poorly organized or poorly punctuated paper calls (negative) attention to itself, poor handwriting skills will avert the reader’s attention to the perceived incorrectness rather than the thoughts on the page.
While handwriting is becoming more and more unneeded as we infiltrate computers into society, it is worthy to note that hand written notes still exist and might mean more than ever if it is perceived as illegible. Therein lies the importance of handwriting.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Basic Writing Definition
Defining basic writing can be difficult. For some people, basic writing is the ability to use written language in a way that enables them to function within the academic world. For others, it is the mastery of grammar, form, or any number of other technical features of writing that one might perceive as desirable. Still, for others it can simply be a new form of communication.
In class we watched an interview with Mike Rose in which he said, “Education is an invitation into a conversation.” I relate basic writing to this quote in that teaching basic writing is an invitation, on the teacher’s behalf, to the student, in the form of admittance into the academic conversation. During the interview Rose pointed out that students who feel as though they do not belong or are in some way inadequate tend to get frustrated and give up on education. Basic writing skills can give a student the invitation or competency needed to join in the education conversation.
In The Discovery of Competency, authors Kutz, Groden and Zamel point out that lamentations of teachers of basic writing often include: “‘they can’t think,’ ‘they can’t write,” or ‘they don’t know how to set standards’” ( 6). However, these lamentations are incorrect because the students can think, write, and set standards; they just haven’t developed their writing skills to the point of knowing and trusting their unique writing processes(15).
The development of writing skills and processes as well as trust in those processes is what makes basic writing so important. When the enormous pressure of perfection and correctness is taken away from students they will ultimately find a writing process that works for them and begin to develop into a more confident writer. In a sense, they will feel as though they have been invited into the conversation of education because they now possess the most basic ability to use written communication in a way which allows them to function academically.
Basic writing is a foundation education in which students are given the opportunity to gain access to the writing skills needed for conversation; it is the combination of necessary writing elements into a product that is most valuable to the student.
In class we watched an interview with Mike Rose in which he said, “Education is an invitation into a conversation.” I relate basic writing to this quote in that teaching basic writing is an invitation, on the teacher’s behalf, to the student, in the form of admittance into the academic conversation. During the interview Rose pointed out that students who feel as though they do not belong or are in some way inadequate tend to get frustrated and give up on education. Basic writing skills can give a student the invitation or competency needed to join in the education conversation.
In The Discovery of Competency, authors Kutz, Groden and Zamel point out that lamentations of teachers of basic writing often include: “‘they can’t think,’ ‘they can’t write,” or ‘they don’t know how to set standards’” ( 6). However, these lamentations are incorrect because the students can think, write, and set standards; they just haven’t developed their writing skills to the point of knowing and trusting their unique writing processes(15).
The development of writing skills and processes as well as trust in those processes is what makes basic writing so important. When the enormous pressure of perfection and correctness is taken away from students they will ultimately find a writing process that works for them and begin to develop into a more confident writer. In a sense, they will feel as though they have been invited into the conversation of education because they now possess the most basic ability to use written communication in a way which allows them to function academically.
Basic writing is a foundation education in which students are given the opportunity to gain access to the writing skills needed for conversation; it is the combination of necessary writing elements into a product that is most valuable to the student.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)