Student: Can you please edit my paper?

I have seen in my writing classes that students come into the class thinking that all I am asking for in their paper is "correct" grammar. In fact, every time I have conferences before a paper is due, that is their number one concern - if their paper is grammatically right? Or would I just edit their paper for them? Students who are not very comfortable with their writing often blame this discomfort on the inability to know things like comma usage, or subject verb agreement. I think most students are very conscious about their writing when it comes to grammar usage, sometimes to their detriment. I have had papers from students who consider themselves exceptional writers because of their grammar skills, but then I look at the paper and content-wise their paper has nothing. The students get so caught up in grammatical issues in their writing that they do not think that a good paper need more than just technically right (sounding) sentences. And of course, I am not placing the blame just on the students for their obsession with getting their papers edited by the instructor or the writing center tutor; this consciousness (whether good or bad) was raised in them for a large part by writing teachers. I do think that grammar is necessary for writing, but it cannot take the place of critical thinking. Micciche is right when he says, “The chief reason for teaching rhetorical grammar in writing classes is that doing so is central to teaching thinking." I really enjoyed reading Joseph M. Williams’ article “The Phenomenology of Error." I have often wondered if my English professor are reading my email and are cognizant of my "accidental" errors, and Williams' article explains the types of errors and the degree to which people notice it. I agree that we need to give our students some grammar skills that they absolutely need, but the more important thing is to make them aware of the errors that possible. I also think that each students level when it comes to grammar skills is so different that teaching grammar in a composition classroom can be very challenging. My question then would be--should we be pointing out grammatical errors in student papers?

"Making a Case" -Micciche

I thought of the other creative writing PhDs teaching comp when I read some parts of the article “Making a Case for Rhetorical Grammar” by Laura Micciche. It was interesting to me when Micciche provides the examples of how she gets her students to understand “how language is made and then deployed for varying effects” (725). Students have to record passages from texts of their choosing and then analyze how the grammar and content work together to convey meaning. “In these entries,” Micchiche says, “the student writer must not only mimic the writer's syntax, but must also identify the specific effects created by the syntax” (726). Micciche gives the examples of a student who recorded a passage from Rip Van Wrinkle and in her analysis talked about how effect of the dashes to show the character Rip's feelings. Another student analyzed the effects created from the syntax of some of the dialogue in To Kill A Mockingbird. I wondered if anyone had tried doing exercises like this in their own classes? It would be interesting I think if as part of an assignment students were to look at the syntax and grammar of certain poems and maybe try and rewrite them as a project? I could see it working possibly with stories that rely heavily on dialect. Or maybe they could take a piece of writing and rewrite it in different ways depending on the rhetorical purpose? Obviously, I haven't thought about this in too much detail, but it's definitely sparked something for me consider doing in my english composition classroom in subsequent semesters.

Also, as an aside, I was excited to see my old professor John Trimbur quoted from in this essay. In the class I took with him, he talked about the debate between Black English and Standard English in the composition classroom.

Is Black English, or “ebonics” a legitimate dialect? Is it a bad idea for teachers to use Black English to teach in the classroom? Are you oppressing students by forcing them to learn and write in Standard English? I'm particularly interested in the responses to these questions from the teachers who believe their classes should have a strong focus on grammar and, as I've heard in our class before, “error-free prose.”

One last thing, I found this quote from the article “Non-Standard English, Composition, and the Academic Establishment” by Dennis E. Baron in College English. I think it will prompt a lot of discussion about all this. I'll post it without comment.

“Despite their training, many students are unable to identify standard writing. In a recent study, I found many students classifying as standard passages containing syntactic and dictional complexity (qualities that they have noticed in writing presented to them as a model) which were in fact quite deviant. Furthermore, many passages that were rated by the students as standard in terms of conventional categories (clarity, grammaticality) were downrated when it came to emotional response. Students recognized standard language, or attempts at it, but did not necessarily approve of it.

Another effect of prescriptive language teaching in the schools is the passivization of students. Their language is continually under review by the teacher. Every recitation, every question, every excuse note, no matter how tangential to the educational process, presents a test of language. Spelling, as they say, always counts. It is common, then, for students to try to evade responsibility for their statements, lest they be incorrectly formulated...There is a marked tendency for students to use the passive voice and the indirect question in dealing with instructors. Those who cannot defend themselves from linguistic attack by means of indirect statement make no statements at all, retreating from the menace, or make any statement whatever, hoping that some relief may follow the inevitable confrontation.” 

Teaching thinking is a working from the inside approach to liberation and empowerment

Teaching thinking is a "working from the inside" approach to liberation and empowerment

"The chief reason for teaching rhetorical grammar in writing classes is that doing so is central to teaching thinking."  Laura R. Micciche, "Making a Case for Rhetorical Grammar."

Coupled with my review of Writing Conventions by Min-Zhan Lu and Bruce Horner, which also emphasizes analytical thinking,  Micciche's discussion on the importance of teaching rhetorical grammar as a means to, "learning how to recognize and reflect on language as made and made to work on people's lives is central to being able to use language strategically," has convinced me that as a professor of composition my most important work is not to teach my students "grid-walking" or to become a 5-paragraph essay zombie, but to actually think critically.  The "good" writing will follow.

I am convinced that Micciche is correct when she writes, "rhetorical grammar analysis can form the basis for wider analyses of civic discourse, enabling students to hone in on the specific grammatical choices that give shape and meaning to content."  Why, am I so quick to adopt this way of thinking?

Her assertion, "language constructs and reproduces oppressive cultural discourses that naturalize inequality," is consistent with my experience as a writer, as a poet and my understanding of the history of African Americans in the United States.  As a writer I have felt separate from this language for a long time - first, because I know that language imperialism (the annihilation of the "mother tongue,") is the one of the first acts of colonization; and, secondly, because on an intuitive level this language does not feel comfortable in my mouth, but foreign.

Prior to entering this program I worked for  20 years  as a communications professional and I am more than familiar with the way organizations and the media use language to manipulate public opinion and drive behavior.  I thank Micciche for helping me to realize how even grammar skills could be used as a "force for liberation," and empowerment.

When I was a teenager, my uncle who was my father figure told me there are two ways to change a system, from the inside or the outside.  These words have been my guiding principal.  So I got it when Micciche wrote, "Grammar competency has always been linked with social power or the lack thereof." To teach my sentences how to analyze language, including grammar, and to use it effectively is a working from the inside action.  

Post Title

I'll admit that I started this semester pointing out fragments and misplaced modifiers like nobody's business. I spent a whole day talking about the presentation and rhetoric, the messages and sentiments expressed by the writer in their attention to grammar/usage, and so on. I even told my students that I wouldn't respond to an email if I found an (egregious) error in it. I tire of these emails:

profesor Haynie i just got out of bed and noticed that it wasn't my bed it was someone else's bed i'm not quite sure where i am write now i wonder who's in my bed but looks like i cant make it to class today do i still have to turnin my paper 2day? #whatstateisthiseven?

So for the first two or three weeks I'm hyper-attentive to this stuff, and I'll substantially mark up their first big paper, hoping that it will freak them out enough that they'll be more attentive in subsequent writings. Weeks later I read the next paper, and nothing has changed, and I begin to despair. I still recognize the errors, but I don't call attention to it because it just takes too much time. Additionally, because I allow paper revisions, students inevitably focus on correcting those errors rather than revising for content.

The Grammar Nazi

The number one comment I get when I tell people that I’m getting my PhD in English is “Why in the world would you want to do that?” The number two comment is “I better watch my grammar then.” For this reason, I think our readings on grammar and error are incredibly apropos. Laura R. Micciche’s article “Making a Case for Rhetorical Grammar” is an excellent argument in support of the power and importance of grammar not only in communicating ideas but also in understanding how one idea connects to another. As Micciche states, “The chief reason for teaching rhetorical grammar in writing classes is that doing so is central to teaching thinking. The ability to develop sentences and form paragraphs that serve a particular purpose requires a conceptual ability to envision relationships between ideas” (719). By emphasizing the rhetorical aspect of grammar, Micciche redeems what is often considered a “decontextualized, not progressive but remedial” emphasis on “proper English” (718).  Instead, Micciche encourages composition teachers to teach grammar in context (“never divorced from ideological functions” [721]), which allows for grammar to be understood as a “tool for articulating and expressing relationships among ideas” (720). Her recommendation that students keep commonplace books seems simple but also effective. Having students “record” passages from other texts and then analyze the language and grammar of the passage is the type of careful reading that I would be thrilled if my students learned how to perform. Such assignments could be incorporated into a typical weekly journal assignment as part of the informal writing for a composition course. Overall, I think Micciche’s approach is both theoretically sound and practically productive since the goal is for students to be more cognizant of their grammatical and stylistic choices so that they can strategically situate the texts they produce. However, I do worry that making time for the type of depth required to examine texts at the level of the sentence consistently over the semester means that something else will have to go.

The concern of what to focus on and when to focus on it is somewhat the topic of Joseph M. Williams’ entertaining article “The Phenomenology of Error.” Williams effectively breaks down errors into four categories (which is a useful way of thinking about it): errors are committed and we respond to those errors, errors are committed but we don’t respond to them, an error is not committed and we positively respond to this fact, and an error is not committed but we do notice that it is not committed. Wlliams’ overall point is that there are some “errors” that are arbitrary and that most readers, possibly even individuals who are considered “experts” in grammar and style, do not even notice. So, our task as teachers is to very thoughtfully consider value when thinking about how or why we are noting errors in students’ writing. Williams states, “We have to determine in some unobtrusive way which rules of grammar the significant majority of careful readers notice and which they do not” (164). Micciche is attempting, twenty-three years later, to encourage students to be the ones to decide what is noticeable and what is not in order to appreciate the power of ordered language.  In some ways, this transition is a wonderful way to equip students to continue to teach themselves as they grow as writers rather than memorizing rules in a handbook. In other ways, it presents a challenge, as I expressed earlier, for teachers to carve enough time and make a persuasive enough case for the importance of studying sentence construction. Overall, I can imagine students enjoying grammar discussion in context, since it’s often something they are concerned about to begin with but feel is inherently boring to talk about. By demonstrating the immediate applicability of grammar, I think we could in fact make rhetorical grammar a lot sexier. 

Gramma Rays

I'm afraid I agree with Anne on this one. Grammar needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, depending on where your students are and what they understand. These two articles don't seem to help us with practical problem of dealing with an essay that we are literally having trouble reading because the writer's understanding of sentence structure is so poor. Is this a class or cultural thing? Sometimes, but sometimes it results from genuine reading or conceptual problems (though, granted, dyslexic students with well-off parents will most likely have access to better learning resources than those that don't).

I feel like these essays are both approaching grammar with the idea that all grammar errors are equal. An employer might not notice that a submitted resume uses the term media as a singular, but she probably WILL notice a they're/their/there error, and will mostly likely make a judgement for it. Shouldn't students understand the practicality of following rules in a professional setting. Shouldn't they know that there ARE certain expectations if you want to be able to effectively communicate with others?

I think we also have to take into account the REASON why students are making grammatical errors; some are simply the result of sheer laziness. The ironic error Micche quotes--"However, only through subsequent assignments, however [sic], can we assess students' mastery over errors"--seems to be the result of a revision. In reworking this sentence, the author clearly neglected to take out the extra "however." Is this egregious? No, not really. But if a student writes "pubic spaces" instead of "public spaces" because he was too careless to proofread, isn't it on us as instructors to point out that these kind of errors make a BIG DIFFERENCE with how your writing will be accepted? Students also make errors because they might not know that two words have legitimately separate meanings or perform separate functions (conscious/conscience, allusion/illusion, ascent/assent). Is it presumptuous of us to ask students to fix these problems?

Grammarians Gonna' Hate

I hate grammar (this was my backup title). Throughout college, and a little in my masters program, I got docked points for my inconsistent grammar skillz. While I know that inconsistent grammar use disrupts communication on the page, I would often get frustrated that my misuse of grammar was the first aspect of my papers mentioned instead of my content. Nonetheless, I have come to realize grammar is important, and though I still find it rather repressive (don't write like that, write like this) we live in a world that loves to judge, and grammar is the easiest measure to use when looking for something to critique.

That is why I find these two articles wildly refreshing. First, let me say I have read "The Phenomenology of Error" before in a graduate class on grammar. We discussed the purposes of grammar in the composition classroom, and how it was often used as a blunt instrument to blugeon students with and to demonstrate how far they still had to go to become passable writers. We discussed the imagery of papers with blood red ink spilled across the page in wide swaths. Grammar can be a violent weapon to keep the ivory tower of academia isolated from the world through fear (note: I am being a bit over dramatic). What I like Williams' text is that he exposes the fallacy that grammar often is. When reading a freshman paper, the instructor knows there will be errors, and thus it becomes a scavenger hunt to find as many as possible to reveal to the student how far they have to go. Not all instructors are so sadistic, but some are. Obviously, grammar does not have to operate in such a manner, but what Williams does is reveal the hypocracy by interweaving grammatical "errors" throughout his text. When we read a published article we are not hunting for errors but reading for content, and he challenges us to treat our students with the same respect. I try to do this throughout my classes, and though I still point out glaring errors in grammar because I know other professors will, I do not really do so unless it is pretty much unreadable. My first priority when teaching is to put my red pen aside, and to instead challenge my students to think and communicate brilliant, original thoughts. I pretty much think Williams, particularly this essay, is absolutely brilliant and I really try to practice what he proposes.

"Rhetorical Grammar" was a new text for me, and I think it balances well with Williams. It seems that Micciche's teaching philosophy promotes putting grammar in a new context. Thinking about grammar rhetorically as opposed to a tool for promoting hegemony opens up grammar to critical analysis. I love this idea, but my fear is that it might be too specialized to employ in a one semester composition classroom. It seems that this type of approach, much like "Arguing Differently," requires full and complete commitment for the entirety of the class. An approach like the one Micciche offers would fit perfectly in the upper level grammar class like the one I took in grad school (although it would definitely work for undergrads as well, maybe as a 200 level course). Now the idea of a commonplace book is fantastic. Maybe it was because the author mentioned the Renaissance, but I think having students record quotes that seem significant to them really reinforces critical engagement with texts, even those outside the class. Maybe it is a fantasy, but the thought of my students walking around campus with little moleskins, recording quotes from other classes, readings, film and the media really gets me excited.

Really interesting thoughts all around this week. I look forward to discussion on Thursday (now do I choose an exclamation point to express my excitement, or a period to indicate my resolve)...!