I do not remember being taught English grammar. I remember math problems, and learning cursive, and memorizing maps of Africa, but I can't recall one single grammar-related lesson. I must have had them at some point -- maybe early elementary school? -- but "grammar" as a concept was never clearly defined for me in any finite way. I thought (and still thought up until a few hours ago) that grammar could pretty much be summed up thusly: don't say ain't.
Therefore, when I started reading Micciche's essay, I was mightily confused. She was discussing "rhetorical grammar," but I wasn't even certain what "grammar" was in the first place. If I were to define grammar simply on the basis of Micciche's essay, the definition would be: writing. It seems that she lumps everything related to successful writing under the umbrella of grammar: word choice, diction, punctuation, sentence construction, conjugation, spelling, rhythm, rhyming, explication, narration, quotation, imagination... the list goes on. It seemed she was calling for the teaching of good writing in a writing class, which seemed to me a bit redundant, as well as badly organized. How did "grammar" unify her essay?
So I looked up the definition of "grammar" on the OED: "[mass noun] the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics". Okay, so: writing. Got it.
It was about then that I realized that WRIT101 is not a writing class -- it is a composition class. The students learn strategies for research, organization, persuasion, writing to an audience... all the tools for effectively composing a piece of writing, but not the nitty-gritty of actual "writing." And in calling for the application of rhetorical grammar in a composition class, what Micciche is really calling for is, TEACH WRITING. Most of the exercises she proposes involve having students read and analyze well-written texts in order to dissect them "grammatically"; that is, studying the effect of punctuation, the effect of word-choice, the effect of word-order, the effect of conjugation, etc.
Where does "writing" (i.e. grammar) fit into the composition classroom? (This is where this blog post devolves into me just posing a bunch of questions). Within the confines of our syllabus, where do we have the chance to take a deep breath and talk about writing? How can we address both composition AND writing? How can we merge the two?
I think one of the most obvious ways that we approach "writing" with our students is through the explanation of genre -- by asking our students to specify their audience, we are also asking them to specify a "style" -- certain grammar can be ruled out. In the genre of an instruction manual, for example, long and lovely descriptive sentences would not be proper -- rather, the sentences should be concise and to-the-point. This is how I see Bawarshi and Reiff's article interacting with Micchiche.
Emma's point, concerning the actual teaching of writing in WRIT 101, wasn't lost on me. This was, naturally, the most obvious mistake I made when first coming into the program. I thought I would be teaching writing. This was supremely naive, but also quite impossible. How on earth could one person teach 24 persons how to write in 15 weeks with little or no formal training in the art of writing instruction? So, the questions Emma raises are good, in that we have to consider how it is that we can best intervene in the writing lives of students with the most effect and, in our cases, little or no training.
ReplyDeleteThe RGS approach seems to be one way that student-teachers such as ourselves could help to improve the writing skills of our students; the usage of Rhetorical Grammar can simultaneously be a way for us to raise the critical awareness of our students. The emphasis of both of the articles (and the chapter at the back the CW) is the engendering or imparting of greater sensitivity to language and its use. This Micciche article focused on a sensitivity at the level of sentences and punctuation; Barwashi and Reiff focused on sensitivity at the level of Genre; and Kolln gives various practical examples of how to instruct students in how to spot and analyze the various "features" of language. Working these three approaches together at various times in the semester will help to give us a chance to at least try and make students more sensitive to language.
For one, the example of questions regarding the syllabus on p. 199 in Barwashi and Reiff would be valuable to employ during the week when we work on the reflective essay. Especially regarding student awareness of course goals and how they intend to meet them. It could also serve as a good introduction to the class, as it would get students actively involved in reading a document that they might otherwise stuff in their backpacks and forget about.
Some questions for further commenters, how might we incorporate some of this 'rhetorical grammar' or RGS thinking into our already crowded lesson plans? What might we give up in order to gain from this approach? Or, is there a way to simply incorporate some of this without having to give up what is already there, assuming what is there is necessary and appropriate?
I actually overheard Noel at her conferences (while I was waiting for students who stood me up!) talking to students who were freaking out about grammar. She said something like, "There's not really a time in the syllabus where we go over grammar."
ReplyDeleteMy students are often freaking out about grammar. To them it seems like a bunch of secret rules that they will never remember, and even though I tell the it's the least important part of their assignments, they persist in feeling powerless toward grammar. I think that what both the Micchiche and Bawashari and Reiff article stressed was a kind of transparency--empowering students through helping them to understand that genre and grammar are all about choices, not about punishment.
As far as incorporating Rhetorical Grammar into our syllabi, I'm not sure. I think it would be interesting to look at the readings we provide for students on the sentence level. I wish I had thought of that earlier. I can imagine a great lesson plan based on students in groups analyzing a single sentence in a text and how it relates to the rest of the text and how the sentence's grammatical choices work within the point that the author is making.
I thought that I could simply expose my students to good writing and good sentence structure and good examples of the genre, and they would absorb it through osmosis. This is what I tried to do with the op-ed: simply show the students many examples of good and different op-eds to let them understand what effective argument is. But this has not turned out to be the case. They are often still confused and want to know things like "What should I write my third paragraph about?" It's very difficult for some of my students to organize their thoughts without a clear outline. That is the difficulty I have had with engaging with the genres so far this year. Even when I have students come up with their own definitions of the genres, many seem to lack that "Eureka" moment. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can improve this?
Like John, I have concrete memories of getting doses of prescriptive grammar throughout my elementary, middle, and high school years. I also remember when, in my first linguistics course, I learned about descriptive grammar, whose sole aim is to understand and describe the way language is being used. In descriptive grammar, there is no "good" or "bad" grammar. Micciche's article was my first introduction to rhetorical grammar.
ReplyDeleteThe necessity of a grammar that "takes seriously the connection between writing and thinking, the interwoven relationship between what we say and how we say it" (718) ties nicely into our attempt to get students to recognize who they are and put it down on paper.
That being said, I am unsure how to proceed. The revision strategy of incorporating small grammar "workshops" after discovering a recurring theme of grammatical ineptitude now seems to be a bit like the "drill and kill" exercises that they have already had, at least the way I imagined and executed the activity.I am going to revise my original idea, while still keeping the format.
Many of my students write precisely the way they speak, which often fails to translate to paper. Do you think it would be useful to take specific examples of sentences that exhibit these characteristics and discuss what they were trying to say versus how it translates? Perhaps we could analyze the grammar of their favorite sentences and then compare it to the ones that don't work as well. Then we could have them revise their "problem" sentences in a way that does not impede the transfer of meaning. Language should clarify the author's style and intent rather than display correct or incorrect grammar.
I wish I had suggestions for how you might lead your students to those "Eureka" moments, Emily. As it turns out, I'm not sure how to go about facilitating that myself.
ReplyDeleteAnd Savannah, I think that's an interesting idea you have about showing the difference between what our students are often trying to express and what they actually say. If one were to try that exercise out, I guess my biggest suggestion would be to make sure you are clear about why it is you are doing it. Make sure to discuss that writing is about choices, and writing within a genre is about making choices in grammar (aka writing) that help a paper conform to that particular standard.
I agree. That is to say, yes. Meaning, I think it's easy to get overwhelmed from the readings on grammar and start to think we haven't been teaching it well or often. But, if our students have been writing and talking and participating in our workshops, necessarily they've been exploring grammar decisions and we've been doing some of this work already by just getting them to write often both in class and out.
ReplyDeleteLike Savannah mentioned, there isn't bad grammar, just inappropriate rhetorical choices. I agree that teaching grammar isn't something we'll get far with if we plan it as a straight activity, mostly because our students (well at least mine) are often too specifically varied
in their grammatical capacities.
So where does grammar fit in? Whenever individual consideration is being paid. Students that especially have problems making grammatical decisions and breaking down their sentences might just need some individual time during office hours to discuss what a clause is, what a redundancy is, what tone does and is, what choices in diction do, what metadiscourse is, and so on.
I've made that time a requirement for revision for several of my students and I'm most proud of the results I've been seeing. If I didn't do much else well as a teacher this semester, those few students are better writers.
Alternatively, this Friday's workshop is another opportunity. Because grammar understanding is so varied, it means that some students have a handle on some parts, while others do on other parts. I like worksheets for workshops because they're a chance for me to guide students to helping each other, thereby doing my job for me. The students I've sat down with in my office have a chance to reiterate for themselves what they've learned and at the same teach someone else. Writing considerations are often (at least in my mind) final to semi final revision considerations. So I like to include a section on grammar and all it's deviousness in my worksheets on the last workshop day before the "final" draft is due to hopefully give opportunities to my students to teach each other.
Another place where I learned a lot about grammar and our students might too is the writing center. Often times, tutors go to grammar because it's needed. I like to push my students off on others as much as possible, mostly because I know how much better the folks in the writing center will be at doing what I should be.
Hi guys. I'm late posting - again. I'm sorry, not being part of the class is making it difficult for me to remember this Wednesday blog commenting deadline. I'm a terrible awful person (since I know you all wait with baited breath for all of these blog comments) - mea culpa.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, yes, grammar, both in the way we all think of it (don't split infinitives, etc. ), and grammar in the big picture, as the readings discuss it. Honestly, I wish that there was a time and a place within the context of WRIT 101 to at least cursorily cover a crash-course in grammar (basic grammar, that is). It seems that high school teachers assume that students either got grammar in junior high or will get it in college, and college teachers assume that everyone already learned it, at some point. I wish, too, that we had the opportunity to help students with this because, as some of you said, the students get really stressed out over it - "I think I could be a really good writer, but my grammar is really bad."
I think that despite the lack of "proper" grammar lessons in WRIT 101, they do absorb some sense of how language works on the page (and in their heads) as well as some sense of how the way they use language influences the way that they are read. I've noticed this most clearly in the workshop comments, of all places (I make them turn in their workshop notes, and they get graded on how well they critique one another's work). I've seen lots of examples of people saying "I'm not sure this is quite what you mean," or "I understand what you're trying to say, but how could you make it more clear?" They're operating beyond the word-choice level, and getting more into substance, which I think is great.
Being a creative writer, I would love the chance to disassemble texts with my class on a line-by-line level. I often regret that we don't really get a chance to do this. But I think that if we try hard, we can. Unfortunately, it's too late to apply this to the op-ed unit, but I think the op-ed offers a good venue for this: How does the author utilize word choice, sentence structure and length, form, etc., to strengthen his/her point?