1. Bishop writes, "Each teacher needs to find his best terms for discussing language use and rhetorical choices with writing students." Bishop then advocates for teaching 'grammar as style' in our classrooms in order to accomplish effectively discussing language use and rhetorical choices in writing with our students. How do you all feel about teaching grammar as style and how does grammar as style differ from just teaching grammar?
2. Inoue defends his address on racism within collegiate writing programs by saying that students "write with and through [their] bodies" and that teachers read and evaluate with and through their own bodies too and therefore we need teachers of diverse races to effectively reach all of our students. Do you all agree with Inoue's statement? Is this a more complex issue than just hiring more teachers of races other than white?
- Emily
Hey Emily,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your second question, I think it's more complex than just hiring teachers of different races. Sure that helps provide images that a vast of amount of people could relate to. But this is the case with many job fields. But I think you also need to teach classes that highlight other races and aspects that may be related. I say this because a lot of classes that are taught and that are MAINSTREAM are texts based European/white/male culture. This is not say that your race dictates that you will be attracted to literature of the same race, but that if literature from multiple races and cultures were mainstream that might help alleviate some of the racism in college writing programs by bringing new perspectives to the conversation. However, accomplishing this would could, at least I think, an overhaul of the education system entirely where there is more diversity that is being taught.
Hey Emily! In response to your first question, I think Bishop's presentation of grammar as style is compelling, because it couches grammar in personal terms. It seems like students tend to think of grammar as this boring thing that they have to do when the teacher forces them to do it, but linking a mastery of grammar and its different manifestations (e.g. Grammar B) to the students' ability to express their voice in a way suited to them might make the study of grammar more interesting to them. In other words, I think 'grammar as style' gives context that just teaching grammar on its own fails to do. There may be other ways of teaching grammar though, removed from style, that could also be compelling!
ReplyDeleteMy main issue with Bishop's Grammar B idea is that I'm not sure how we would go about teaching this (e.g. purposeful use of fragments, etc.) when, frankly, a lot of students don't even seem to know how to make a proper sentence still, and write fragments that were clearly not created for aesthetic reasons.
ReplyDeleteI think what's advantageous about teaching grammar-as-style is that it frames grammar as something that students get to make choices about, rather than be constrained and intimidated by grammar as a set of rules. Instead of understanding grammar as laws that we HAVE to master, we can instead think of them as strategies that we can employ in order to send our message correctly. That is, after all, what their purpose is: to clarify meaning.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
ReplyDeleteI very much liked your considerations when reflecting on Inoue's speech, because the first thing that comes to mind for me are the way in which this can be taken advantage of. I think it's a hairy topic to think that I would be hired only because of my minority status in the field. I am immensely grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this field and I would hope to be respected as a scholar and not categorized as a "token" person of race. I can't help but think back to Rita and Matt's hand out on creating a "safe space." And thinking are we violating any of their warnings in this conversation on race?