Strategies for Diversity

A few years ago, I was at Chapman working towards my Single Subject Credential. One of the requirements was to student- teach at a high school.  And boy, was that an interesting experience! With two 9^th grade and one 11^th grade core English class, I had my experience with teaching a widely diverse group of students. While I think I was a little over my head, there were strategies I attempted to help give everyone a voice in the class.

With so much diversity, I thought that having the students free-write about a variety of topics we were discussing in class would help students find their voice about the topics. Everyone has something to say, even if it is some form of misreading. Tagging along self-exploration of these topics with low-stake writing, the students can get into groups of their choosing. Hopefully, this will cause students to contribute before a bigger class discussion.

Besides strategies for developing class discussions, I want all my students to develop their reading skills. I think using smaller, but challenging articles or readings that works with a double-entry journal. By encouraging students to read through the reading and just write what they think they read, takes off the pressure for understanding every specific little thing about the reading. We will also be re-reading material and developing our discussions about the reading.

As for writing, I think all of the students will benefit from process-driven writing that centers on multiple drafts and conversation about writing. We will also focus a lot on the rhetorical situation with context-driven writing. Writing situations that allow students more flexibility in their writing and dissecting the discourse that the context belongs will allow students from a variety of linguistical backgrounds to do the work.

Grading will be on individual improvement and based upon only those things taught in class. Small grammatical problems will only be assessed if students worked on these concepts beforehand. Comments written to the students on their essays will be individual with only a few things identified as needing to be changed/worked on.

A Look at Multi-Generational Issues for Chicano/Mexican Americans

            “Language Socialization Practices and Cultural Identity: Case Studies of Mexican-Descendent Families in California and Texas”, by Sandra Schecter and Robert Bayley, highlights the strong link between identity and language use. With the overlapping concern with language use and education, we should seriously consider our students’ identities within our own interests and awareness as part of the schooling institution. It seems that there are a multitude of experiences within this category of individuals, so we need to be able to discern the individual needs of our students to help them maintain their identities without a sense of “clashing” with this idea of the American culture and value system.

            “’Starting at the Top’: Identifying and Understanding Later Generation Chicano Students in Schools”, by Christina Chavez-Reyes, is an article that looks at the possible reasons why later-generation Chicano or Mexican American students might not fare as well as expected academically. While I can get some of the assumption breakdowns (the differences between culture do not create a great enough difference between students from a Mexican heritage versus American heritage), I am struggling with the official decree from the article.

            Chavez-Reyes, with a very small homogeneous sample, found that college counselors were not providing the needed guidance to these mostly general track students. The truth from my own experience is that I had very little interaction with my own guidance counselor. When I was a first semester senior I was called into his office for the first time. He inquired what my plan was going to be after high school and I told him. That was the extent of my counseling relationship.

            The problem I have with the article is the ease by which it places blame on counselors without a large enough sample. Also, it seems to completely disregard the budget constraints schools face. With a close friend going to school to be a counselor, I am curious what the student load happens to be for every counselor, who they spend their time with, and what other student experiences happen to be. I am living proof that a student can go through school with limited guidance and still push themselves for an education. That is not to say that there is not an issue going on to create obstacles for these later-generation students, or even that one of the obstacles is not the lack of guidance. I just require more evidence to begin condemning individuals I know, personally, that have a soft spot for student success.

            However, there are some interesting similarities between the issues with AAVE and multi-generational Chicano or Mexican American Descendants. The need to negatively characterize school personnel seems reminiscent of some of the feelings in the African American community. Refraining from my own desire to argue against these criticisms, I understand that there is some racial tension within the school institution that we need to be wary about, that needs to drive me (a white woman) into building trust and allowing students to maintain their identities.

            This conflict of interests, wanting a quality education while having trust issues with school personnel, gets more complicated when the identities of students are meshed within their cultural backgrounds and the histories that co-exist within them.

Ogbu's Theories of Speech Communities: A Voluntary and Involuntary Approach

           Ogbu’s two articles: “Beyond Language: Ebonics, Proper English, and Identity in a Black-American Speech Community” and “Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance” both look at the role of immigration status as a way to begin characterizing how students may do. Acknowledging that students are individuals, Ogbu begins to characterize different minority groups, based on the relationship they have with the “majority”/those in power. Both articles critique the difference children of these two types of minority identities face when they are in school.

            Looking through these two articles, Ogbu particularly defines the different struggles immigrants face in the United States. Voluntary immigrants are those immigrants who choose to come to the U.S. for their own reasons. Some families come to the U.S. for job or education opportunities, so it stands to reason that these families take a different approach to understanding and using “Standard English”. With “Standard English” as the language of power, the language that is identified as the means to succeed in school and employment in the U.S., voluntary immigrants find that learning ‘standard English’ allows them to keep their own culture and language, but a worthy enough thing to learn.

            Involuntary immigrants are different. For the U.S., involuntary immigrants include Black Americans, Native Americans, and some Mexican Americans. Specifically, involuntary immigrants are those here because of colonization, conquest, or enslavement. The feelings created by being a part of this group can conflict with the ways they feel they can get ahead in employment or school. Of course, these feelings directly correlate with the relationship of two other concepts that Ogbu defines.

            Specifically, the combination of bilingualism and diglossia can create generalized feelings for the groups who have particular combinations as representative of their native language. When there are “separate cultural rules governing the use of minority dialects and standard English” (1999), groups may be experiencing bilingualism. It is not only two different ‘languages’, but the knowledge of languages with different cultural rules that may determine bilingualism. “Diaglossia is the relationship between two dialects” (1999), specifically if there are two dialects that are used for different purposes.

            While Ogbu’s theories recognize four types of relationships between bilingualism and diglossia (speech communities that represent: ‘both diglossia and bilingualism’, ‘bilingualism without diglossia’, ‘diglossia without bilingualism’, and ‘neither diglossia nor bilingualism’) as being referred by another theorist, he is mostly concerned with a fifth type: “diglossia, bilingualism, and collective identity”. It is the idea of collective identity that Ogbu is particularly interested in exploring. With speech communities that are characterized by multiple languages that typically have relationship among one another, Ogbu recognizes that groups may have developed collective identities that influence their patterns of success.

            Particularly, Ogbu seems concerned with Black Americans.  With an ethnographic study to prove that most Black Americans experience a type of bilingualism, he shows that there is a negative relationship between “standard English” and what many of the individuals called “slang English”. The community observed, from Oakland, considered “standard English” the language of those in power and “slang English” with their community. They believed strongly in their collective identity being wrapped up in this dialect of “slang English”.

            These characteristics would not necessarily be a concern for instructors, if it were not for the relationship perceived by this speech community between their language and the language of the “oppressor”. Believing that a power struggle exists within the communities and that those in power continue to discriminate, many of those in the speech community are suspicious of individuals like teachers. Uniquely, there also seems to be a void existing within these communities of role models who have found a way to make it professionally, without ‘acting white’. After all, it is this concept of ‘acting white’ that seems to stigmatize individuals in their own communities.

            Ogbu seems to suggest that as teachers, this issue can be complex. However, we can take certain actions to make learning a positive experience. One way we can do this is by gaining the students’ trust. They need to know that we are on their side and that we value their language. By acknowledging that they have a cultural identity with their language, we are acknowledging them as individuals. With this in mind, we have to let students know that different languages are acceptable in different place. Many of the perceptions by the community of the standards of acceptance happen to be true. Professionals are expected to speak a certain way. That does not mean that our students have to lose to their identities.

            We should also create avenues for role models to shine. Consequently, I am thinking about Tupac and an instructor here at SFSU. We have to encourage the young students to go out, get educated, and come back to their communities. Give them strength to stand and speak up, multi-linguistically!

Moving From Oral to Written

 

 

     As Krauthammer’s article, “Spoken Language interference Pattern in Written English” notes, writing follows very different rules than speech. Even a competent native speaker has difficulty making the distinction between the different rules. Seemingly the most interesting about the translation of speech to written language is that students often make mistakes when writing, because when speaking these rules do not seem to apply. Of course, it is different when writing an e-mail off to a friend. Writing considered informal might be more forgiving of the “traps” students find themselves in, than academic prose. Many instructors prefer certain choices, like contractions, should not show up in this sort of academic prose.

     What might seem a little scary for scholars of the English Language is the impact that speech communication can make on the evolving trends becoming more acceptable in written form. Many people (possibly me included, not really sure where I stand) believe that we need to protect the integrity of our language. Arguments against slang, text speak, and all other evils are infiltrating our language. What does this mean? In the context of this inquiry it means that there are a lot of people/instructors who are passionate about maintaining the rules of written communication, especially in an academic format. This passion can easily get in the way of student learning and get emphasized more than it probably should.

    
     One cringe worthy pet-peeve of instructors happens to deal with confusing spelling issues. These things are easily explained characteristics of oral language. Yet, students who cannot make these distinctions are belittled with assumptions about their educational background. It might be possible that students are intimated by the process of moving from informal oral language to written academic language. With so many landmines to steer clear from, it is easy to see why students might have some difficulties.

     Error maintains such a negative connotation. With speech, students can make simple mistakes, usually without fear of rebuke. With writing, student error lingers on the page.

     Even the set-up for written language requires more care than the typical speech literacy. While students use oral language much more frequently, they are rarely called on to give a well-researched/framed oral assignment. True, students have been assigned speeches and debates, but written communication is different: takes time, there are some revisions that happen in mid-write. Basically, care and attention is placed on writing, causing the written form to have more ‘weight’ attached to it, causing more unrest, causing more formalized rules to distinguish the (educated) have’s and have not’s.

  
    Why do students have trouble moving forms? It seems to me that they have so much stacked against them, I am honestly surprised “I” made it this far.

“Hiding Under the Floorboards, I Have Finally Found You”

When first thinking about grammar rants, I heard myself correcting my students, friends and family. While not one to go on a rant, I felt like I knew certain grammar rules that I wanted to “teach” others to learn. Looking back on it, this over-correction was incredibly condescending to my friends and family (I am leaving out my students because I had the role of teacher and much of my corrections were made in a non-threatening context). I am certainly no grammar Einstein, and as my previous post suggests, I am actually very self-conscious of my own writing.

I found my search for a grammar rant an interesting activity. However, it was through these searches that I began to see some clever reactions to these rants, which turned out to be more thought-provoking than some of the crass expletives I found on-line. So, when I ran across the YouTube video “Grammar Nazis” parodying the idea of grammar rants, I was intrigued. Created by the individuals at College Humor, the video is a depiction of a Nazi looking for a Jew through the questioning of another man who has difficulty with (ironically) the English Language.

Before getting into the grammar rules this particular video breaks down, I want to acknowledge the many ironies presented in the film. Obviously, by using a story of a Nazi who is constantly correcting the grammar of the other individual, we see the creators poking fun of the irritating individual (namely me) who is correcting others. The negative connotation of “Grammar” Nazi as a cultural idiom is already incredibly offensive. Yet, it is the final grammar discretion made by the Nazi that ultimately leads to the resolution.  The Nazi commits suicide, because he uses a dangling participle. Out of all the errors made, it is the Nazi’s error that would seem to cause the most misunderstanding.

The different grammar rules that this particular video pokes at involves: double negatives, incorrect pronoun usage, ending a sentence with a preposition, run-on sentences, subject-verb agreement, who vs. whom, comma uses in a list, and the violent finality of the Nazi using a dangling participle.

Some of these mistakes are common auditory mistakes representing a “social class of language misuse”. At least, when I think about the study on grammar rants, it is the inequity of access to education combined (possibly) with different literacy backgrounds that leads me to this conclusion. Double negatives, situations of pronoun misuse (using me and her, instead of her and I ‘went…’), subject-verb agreement, and the uses of “who” vs. “whom”, are all common mistakes that do not greatly impact meaning. For the most part, we have all heard these common mistakes frequently enough that I know I make them myself.

Now for my three particulars:

#1-Comma uses in a list- This particular rule only applies to writing and has the same sense of elitism connected to it. In the end, it all hinges upon the author’s knowledge of very particular formats.

#2- The Dangling Participle- This rule is easily the one apt to cause the most misunderstandings. However, in context most of us can easily discern the speaker or writer’s meaning. 

#3- Ending a Sentence with a Preposition- This rule is especially important for me. Like I previously stated, I had no formal training of grammar. So, it was not until an essay I had written in college, did I ever take it upon myself to figure out what a preposition was. My professor had written in the comments to never end a sentence with a preposition. I can tell you that I was dumb-struck. Not only did I have serious questions about using a preposition in general, but I did not understand why it was grammatically incorrect. Either way, I clung to that fact for all future writing assignments.

And then I found this video. Inspired by the combination of activities, I sought out the answer to “why don’t we end sentences with a preposition?” You know what I found out? There is no agreement in the grammar community about using this rule. There is even something called a “terminal preposition” which is found at the end of a sentence.

How ludicrous are these grammar rules? Without clarity and with frequent disagreement, my stance is: pretty darn ludicrous!


Check out the video here:
http://youtu.be/N4vf8N6GpdM

The History of Grammar

My relationship with grammar has always been problematic. Having no formal instruction of grammar myself, I tend to have self-confidence issues regarding my own writing. While it seems as though I have a natural grasp of basic conventions, having made it this far into my studies, I have to acknowledge that my own understanding of grammar must have hindered me on some level.

            Even with my own schooling lacking formal grammar instruction, I was tasked with the responsibility to teach grammar to middle school students for three years. As is common sense, I found myself having learned more about grammar when I was teaching grammar than even the fleeting moments when I was “taught” grammar.

            I mention that I was taught grammar, even after mentioning a lack of formal training, because what I did know about grammar is added to and revised through teacher-response comments on my essays. I found this process of learning difficult and led to an incredibly limited sense of my own understanding of grammar. Even now, my knowledge of grammar can be summed up to the level of an incredibly competent middle school student.

            I do not understand complex rules, and as such, fail to write in complex forms. While I can combine my sentences effectively and create writing considered ‘correct’, my writing lacks the sophistication and beauty that I covet. Of course, I can always go out on a limb and attempt creativity in my writing, the confidence to do so alludes me.

            So, when I begin to think about the value of grammar instruction, I have some reservations. First, I can see that grammar instruction is not imperative to success. I somehow managed to weave my way through the academic discourse without any formal instruction. Second, the research seems to suggest that conventions can get in the way of students’ creativity and personal joy of writing. Not only that, but an emphasis on conventions can counter-productively keep students from transferring their writing skills to other writing (genre, discipline, assignments, etc).

            However, by not learning grammar, I personally have always felt behind my peers who had a strong grasp of these rules. More knowledge of writing, like grammar, can help a student build confidence in the various writing tasks they are assigned. Just like knowledge of ‘rhetoric’ or ‘genre’ can enhance an awareness of each writing situation students face, knowledge of grammar can help students, especially in situations that students do not have a lot of information to go off.

            For instance, if a student is asked to do a writing task, like writing an analytical essay that evaluates the cultural issues in so-and-so Shakespeare play. A student may have had limited experience analyzing literature (as a genre) or with Shakespeare. They might have difficulty integrating the types of quotes the teacher might want to see or any other difficulty. However, with a strong grasp on writing clearly through the grammar conventions students have learned, the students may at least have enough confidence to write clearly enough for whatever they were able to accomplish with the task.

            I certainly do not believe that an emphasis in teaching grammar (especially labeling parts) is effective teaching of writing. However, there may be some place for it in our classes.

A Little Help

Two articles, “Talking in the Middle: Why Writers Need Writing Tutors” by Muriel Harris and, “Examining Our Lore: A Survey of Students’ and Tutors’ Satisfaction with Writing Center Conferences” by Thompson, et al. are scholarly attempts to discern the purposes of tutoring. While seeming, at first glance, to take very different stances about tutoring, I think we actually find that the empirical evidence provided by Thompson, in many ways supporting the ideas presented by Harris.

Thompson’s article uses finding from empirical evidence to show the different elements that may (or may not) have been directly related to a satisfaction with tutoring. With these findings, “Examining” ended up with conclusions determining that tutors should be more direct when developing the agendas for students. The overall tone of how “Examining” seems to view tutoring is top-down from the tutors guidance over the students.

Meanwhile, Harris takes a completely different tone in viewing tutoring. The article, “Talking” lists the responsibilities for tutors in more general terms. With “reducing stress” in students, helping students “overcome hurdles”, and to “provide more knowledge about writing” as the goals for tutors in the writing conference, I cannot help but see an entirely different attitude presented in “Talking”. If I were being honest about my reading of these materials, it would be hard for me to deny the huge appeal with Harris’ arguments. They touch a nerve in me that is directly connected to my passion and goals for teaching. So how do we reconcile the evidence presented in Thompson’s article with Harris’ goals?

First, I see some serious issues with the research done in Thompson’s article. To focus the findings of success in tutoring based on satisfaction is seriously flawed. Secondly, the findings seem to suggest a disconnect between Harris’ own assertions, and yet there was more “success” when “student ownership of their essays” was emphasized during the tutoring session. Also, the items described as most relevant to success was an environment that was described as “caring”, “comfortable”, one with “positive feedback”, and their answers questioned.

Clearly, both articles see the purpose of tutoring as more than a set of directions, but as a relationship with students that encourages and supports their individual needs. We need to see students as more than a set of writing issues, but as individuals who are writers. They come in with a set of their own skills and accomplishments, but they also have their own concerns. As a writing teacher, I know I have my own concerns with my own writing and I think what I get out most from both of these articles is that we can all use a little guidance, a little help.