next »

[academics_lol]

This is exactly the problem that the Writing Across the Disciplines movement was designed to address.  I've heard this has gone out of fashion.  Perhaps it's time to bring it back.

It's still alive and kicking, but admins found out that good writing instruction is expensive and time-consuming.

This thread reminds me that there may be nothing in academics more perennial than complaints about students' writing ability.

[fiona]

This thread reminds me that there may be nothing in academics more perennial than complaints about students' writing ability.

O yeah, but they weren't as bad in the good ole days, when we wrote on parchment while walking uphill both ways in the snow. Then, we had to spell words write (heh), cuz we couldn't erase.

Kids today are spoiled, I tell ya.

The Fiona

[comp_queen]

I agree with the other posters that the system is broken, but I'm unimpressed by people who respond by opting out for the private schools, never looking back, and (often) voting down funds for the public schools.

I agree with this as well. 

Also, it seems private schools can be a solution for getting your kids better placed in selective colleges, but, having been surrounded by private school kids my entire post-high school life, I'm not convinced that they were necessarily that much better prepared, particularly in light of how much it cost for them to go to private high school.  Others may be able to speak against this inclination of mine.  Without the frivolous ed. certification hoops for private school teachers, private schools may get better qualified people to teach; but it seems like the vast College Prep Industry Machine is operating against more comprehensive private school curricula in a way similar to No Child Left Behind in public schools (though admittedly not at all to the same extent).  Still, the most impressive first-years I've taught or TA'd in comp. went to schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, though that's a different animal altogether.

Chime.  As many forumites know, I went to a ritzy SLAC on scholarship.  It's a phenomenal school academically that I'm grateful to have attended, but the typical student body members (at least back then) were mean prep school rich kids from central casting. 

A certain class of private schools does indeed have impressive faculty and resources, but the students don't go there for that reason.  It's social conditioning.  We've all seen those '80s movies where the awful rich snobby characters talk about having "prepped together."  For a large segment of the population of a certain class of schools, the excellent faculty* aren't important for the academic experience they provide but for the social cachet and shininess that the ability to pay for your children to have that experience provides.

This is a cynical read, but it's just this one person's read confirming some of what litcrittr says.

Also, after grad school and before I (thank God) ended up in the CC world with normal people who work for a living, I interviewed at several private high schools (don't get me started on the "independent school" nonsense--a prep school is a prep school is a prep school).

I probably got the interviews because of Alma Mater's name on my resume, because when interviewers (including the one woman who was wearing fricking BURBERRY clothing to TEACH HIGH SCHOOL ALL DAY) would chat with me about my background, you could literally see their faces fall when it was revealed that I had attended a public high school in a very average suburb.  It was clear that I was NOKD--"Not our kind, dear."

*As should be clear here, I am not knocking anyone who teaches at a namebrand prep school.  Most of them are, indeed, excellent academic institutions.  I just think it's one of the many darn shames of our society that a large proportion of the people who seek out and are able to pay for this are clearly doing it for social rather than academic reasons.

[rodentmind]

Writing is, not just a basic skill.

Writing is not, just a basic skill.

Writing is not just, a basic skill.

[pclark]

To write well requires mentors, time, and practice (not repetition, PRACTICE).  I was fortunate because I was an English major; in addition, all my professors were also seasoned professional writers who regularly contributed to academic journals, periodicals, etc.  One professor in particular taught me more in the three classes I had with him than in all the years before and since combined.

I help high school kids on the side, working on SAT test prep and AP, so every week I see what the future holds for y'all, and it's not pretty. 

[harmless_eccentric]

I know this an old post, but I thought I'd share my perspective.

I'm a private (prep, independent, whatever) school English teacher -- not at a cream of the crop one, but it is one that some may have heard of. 

-The issue of private vs. public is difficult to address quickly, but here's the quick perspective from the private end (yes, enjoy my double entendre): 
(1) Classes are smaller, and you therefore do know more about your students
(2) Discipline issues are there, but they are more in the nature of "stop talking", "stop texting", and not "stop stabbing me."
(3) You are able to do more essay writing in a class like this, and at least for my part I'm providing extensive feedback (rubric, several marginal comments, long end comments).  I crack the whip pretty hard, but I do regularly get thanks (and complaints) from students and parents about this approach, and by the end of the year they understand that I wasn't trying to be cruel, just to help them to write.

-Grammar and mechanics
(1) Drills and worksheets don't really work beyond the middle school years, for the most part. 
(2) Grammar in context is flawed, but it's somewhat more effective.
(3) Declining reading, reading "bad" writing, and hearing improper speech in nearly all forms of media have contributed to less than stellar mechanics.

-Different disciplines and writing/Why aren't we giving you prepared students.
We flirted briefly with writing across the curriculum.  The problem we found was two-fold. 

(1) Non-English (and some non-history) teachers, for the most part, don't know how to write very well, or at least aren't confident in how to critique it.  I get that.  I'd be lost if we did math across the curriculum.
(2) Students have trouble applying the medium of writing in the way we want them to.  For example, outside of English class "grammar and spelling don't count" is a pretty common attitude. 
(3) In that line, if you think students have trouble recognizing the subtle differences in writing between disciplines in college, they're even more hopeless in high school.  I think it's a brain development issue, but as an English person with no background in neurology, I have no basis other than observation for that.

Closing thought: for composition teachers, here's a helpful analogy that my students have found useful about why we're harping on mechanics, grammar, structure, etc.

I use several sports analogies, but it can work with dance, music, etc.  When you practice with bad fundamentals, poor form, and the like, it shows up when you play the game.  You can't just say, "I'll turn it on and do right then."  It's the same with writing.  You need to practice (as someone said) correctly (i.e. drafting) if you want to play well (i.e. write a good paper that is successful and earns a high mark).

[dellaroux]

Hi,


Hello everyone.Myself Peter cox from Canada. This is nice article. This gives us a lot information about basic skills. I would like to more about it. Thanks for the informmation.

Happy New Year

Jimmy
Bulimia News and Discussion Forum 

Hi,
<omit extra line, please>

Hello <comma> everyone. <double space between period and next sentence> Myself <My name is--otherwise sentence has no verb> Peter cox <Capitalize Cognomen> from Canada. This is <insert "a," as the proper article here> nice article. This gives us a lot <preposition "of" is missing, insert> information about basic skills. I would like to <infinitive verb--presumably, "know"--is missing; insert> more about it. Thanks for the informmation <sp: "information is the correct form of this word>.

Happy New Year

Jimmy
Bulimia News and Discussion Forum  <when citing articles, be sure of their relevance to your topic. Also, you describe as "nice," but that does not seem to apply in this case. Another, more concise adjective would be better.>

[lara07]

I have been doing an essay on developing core skills i.e. literacy and numeracy in further education. My particular interest has been within Health and Social Care as this is my specialist subject. I have seen the important role core skills play in day-to-day practice of the Further Education teacher.

There is considerable debate about the place of key skills teaching in the curriculum. Basically, two broad approaches exist:

Free-standing or separate key skills courses or modules should be designed and taught.


Key skills development should be integrated and embedded within the teaching of all courses or modules.
Both approaches have their respective advantages and disadvantages. The free-standing approach ensures that skills are covered and that specific courses or modules could be targeted at supporting the needs of particular students. However, this approach is problematical because students may see little or no relationship between the courses or modules concerned and their main programmes of learning. The integrated approach involves embedding the identified key skills as part of courses or modules either through linking the process of skills development to existing course elements or through redesigning the curriculum. Again, however, this approach is problematical because the skills are so integrated that students may not separately identify or value them.

[kedves]

The free-standing approach ensures that skills are covered and that specific courses or modules could be targeted at supporting the needs of particular students. However, this approach is problematical because students may see little or no relationship between the courses or modules concerned and their main programmes of learning. The integrated approach involves embedding the identified key skills as part of courses or modules either through linking the process of skills development to existing course elements or through redesigning the curriculum. Again, however, this approach is problematical because the skills are so integrated that students may not separately identify or value them.

I am not able to follow this completely, but if you are saying that good, clear writing is important in every part of life, and we need to tell students why and how it is, then I am going to say yes.

[collegekidsmom]

I would say that even regardless of name or type of school attended when younger, the best writers are probably people who have a personal history as voracious readers. Old-fashioned classes in grammar and usage just reinforce what readers have probably already internalized through years of reading many different kinds of quality material. My kids read all kinds of great books and always had access to a lot of appealing literature. I felt that was the best thing I could do in terms of parenting to raise kids who could write. I don't know that kids today are really reading important literature(or maybe any literature) while growing up.

 

[aandsdean]

The free-standing approach ensures that skills are covered and that specific courses or modules could be targeted at supporting the needs of particular students. However, this approach is problematical because students may see little or no relationship between the courses or modules concerned and their main programmes of learning. The integrated approach involves embedding the identified key skills as part of courses or modules either through linking the process of skills development to existing course elements or through redesigning the curriculum. Again, however, this approach is problematical because the skills are so integrated that students may not separately identify or value them.

I am not able to follow this completely, but if you are saying that good, clear writing is important in every part of life, and we need to tell students why and how it is, then I am going to say yes.

Oh, c'est ironique, n'est-ce pas?

[kedves]

The free-standing approach ensures that skills are covered and that specific courses or modules could be targeted at supporting the needs of particular students. However, this approach is problematical because students may see little or no relationship between the courses or modules concerned and their main programmes of learning. The integrated approach involves embedding the identified key skills as part of courses or modules either through linking the process of skills development to existing course elements or through redesigning the curriculum. Again, however, this approach is problematical because the skills are so integrated that students may not separately identify or value them.

I am not able to follow this completely, but if you are saying that good, clear writing is important in every part of life, and we need to tell students why and how it is, then I am going to say yes.

Oh, c'est ironique, n'est-ce pas?

Ah, oui! 

It's ironic if I got the meaning right, but I'm not sure that I did.  Perhaps like Roseanne Roseannadanna, Lara07 is saying, "It's always something." 

[paultuttle]

I would say that even regardless of name or type of school attended when younger, the best writers are probably people who have a personal history as voracious readers. Old-fashioned classes in grammar and usage just reinforce what readers have probably already internalized through years of reading many different kinds of quality material. My kids read all kinds of great books and always had access to a lot of appealing literature. I felt that was the best thing I could do in terms of parenting to raise kids who could write. I don't know that kids today are really reading important literature(or maybe any literature) while growing up.

Reading classic children's literature also allows a person to internalize the syntactical rhythms and rhetorical styles of edited American Standard English. 

With a librarian father and nurse mother and both parents reading to me early on, along with a tremendous emphasis on doing well in school (in general) and learning how to read (in particular), I was more than ready for kindergarten. 

I remember reading everything I could get my hands on from about the age of three onward.  From a very early age on, I could not look at text without reading it.

There was no TV in the house, but there were upwards of 2500 books, including two editions of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and a shelf of a well-chosen "Great Books" series.  In addition, my parents subscribed to several newspapers and magazines--everything from Popular Mechanics to National Geographic.  I read them all, every month, and asked for more.  I wanted to know everything.

I also remember learning how to diagram sentences in the seventh grade.  At last, here was a way to visualize and explain (using accurate terminology!) structures and styles I'd only vaguely sensed from my reading.  Suddenly, everything became clear, and I now had a way to talk about it.

Already, though, in the early 1980s, you could see the growing consequences of the great switch from reading to watching TV.  My classmates didn't read much past a newspaper article here and there or what scrolled by on-screen.  They didn't understand particularly complex sentence structures and vocabulary words because they'd never encountered them in print--or in normal spoken communication with their parents or peers, but that's another issue.  They always wanted to see the movie versions of Shakespeare's plays, but always complained about having to read the entertaining wordplay.  ("There're no pictures!"  Yes, in middle and high school.)

In the third grade, in 1976-77, I was reading on what might have been an eighth grade level in the nicest, whitest, richest public schools of the 1950s but what was practically college level compared to the great majority of my classmates.  In high school, those of us who were readers (about 5-10 out of a graduating class of 150) aced all the grammar and vocabulary tests. 

But two thirds of my graduating class went on to postsecondary educational institutions, whether community colleges or universities.  Many of them, judging from their emails responding to invitations to our recent 20-year high school reunion, still struggle with producing standard written edited English.

Sometimes I feel as though I and the other readers of my and more recent generations are The Last Readers in the United States.  Is it any wonder that the majority of us became academic types? 

And is it any wonder that basic skills in writing are such a challenge for people who haven't been immersed in a reading culture all our lives, as many of us academic types (at least in the humanities) have been?