This week, two words stuck out to me in our assigned readings: creativity and passion. These two words have a fairly obvious relationship which is especially relevant to young writers. Weaver provides the insight of Donald Graves to enforce this point. She writes that "children--everyone, really--will work much harder on a piece of writing when they are truly engaged with it and truly eager to share it with a wider audience" (183). In my own personal experience, this theory has proven very true. One of my favorite courses at Shippensburg University has been Creative Nonfiction Writing. In this course, students were allowed to write about their own life experiences in a way that would be engaging to an audience. This method works to engage the students as well as their audience because they are allowed to be creative while writing about what they know best: themselves. After all, how many people do you know that don't like to talk about themselves? The stipulation for expository writing, which is the main topic for discussion in this week's reading, is that students must be able to connect their own lives to whatever it is that they are writing about. By giving students some time to think about their topics and how to connect with them, "school writing" becomes less about boring facts and more about writing like an actual writer.
In addition to the idea of letting students incorporate themselves into their writing, Weaver iterates that the five-paragraph essay formula is hugely problematic for instructing students in their development as writers. She writes that this structure can be helpful in teaching students how to write an essay, but that students must be encouraged to build on the model and move past it. I could not agree with her more. The five-paragraph essay typically forces students into a personality-less ramble that lacks character and flow. It seems that if teachers allow students to deviate from the five-paragraph form they may make some mistakes and perhaps even lose focus. However, as Weaver describes in Chapter 9, which focuses on English language learners, errors reflect the learning process. Though Weaver is discussing ELL's as she discusses this concept, it is clear that it is also very applicable to all students.
It is also important to note that as students must be permitted to make their own errors in order to learn, that teachers must use caution as they correct students. I especially liked the Code-Switching Shopping List chart and think that this is a fun and respectful way to handle editing cultural language habits out of formal writing. The idea that formal English is as simple to put on and take off as an article of clothing makes a lot of sense and reinforces that students with diverse cultural backgrounds are not "wrong," but simply must make some adjustments for certain situations.
I also appreciated Weaver's discussion of Stephen Krashen's theory of Language Acquisition (which I am also learning about in my Teaching Reading to English Language Learner's class!) Weaver discusses the difference between students studying English and actually learning (acquiring) English. By immersing students in literature, they will be able to pick the language up, rather than having it put upon them. Learning this way will allow students to apply what they observe to their own practices. Isolating grammar and vocabulary does not reflect the same results.
The last topic that I want to discuss is that of standardized testing and what it means for "loosening" the strings of the binding structures and rules that are so common to red pen wielding English teachers. Weaver presents ideas about writing that are controversial and may be argued against by the presence of state standards which must be met for testing purposes. For many, the idea of passing over a sentence fragment without so much as making a mark is shocking and unheard of. However, Weaver provides evidence from scorer guidelines for Michigan's Educational Assessment Program. The document states that scorers "should not bring their own stylistic biases into the assessment" (180). The document continues to read that "a single well-turned phrase or well-chosen word or poignant example should be appreciated only to the extent that it affects the whole presentation"(180). It seems to me that this means that students should be taught that it is okay to express themselves and make art out of their writing as long as it is well-focused and meets the requirements of the prompts provided.
Giving students an environment that encourages them to love to write seems to be the key in my perspective. Though this is an easier task to say than do, I think that with practice and the right amount of freedom and structure, students can be creative as well as successful. In my mind, developing a passion (or at least a tolerance) for writing is the first step to becoming a well-rounded writer. In order for this to occurs, English teachers must allow students to make some of their own mistakes while also being less concerned with stiff structures and rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment