We began our discussion, as many discussions about grammar do, talking about our classes and our students. Actually our students and their writing. Hmm. Not really all their writing, just the writing they do in our classes. And, yes, we did talk about the complaints we hear from other faculty about students' grammatical identities...at least how they perform them for us. And we did discuss how tricky it can be finding ways of addressing sentence-level concerns (you know, semicolons, comma splices, and fragments) without resorting to the dreaded red pen. But the issue of the day was more about how. I mean, we can all complain (and we do) about our students' grammatical identities, but it's tricky finding ways of engaging students about the importance of their grammatical ethos.
Enter Laura Micciche. Many of us liked her approach of using what she calls "commonplace books" (724). For those of you who have read or used Sharon Crowley's Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, you might recall her referring to the Renaissance practice of keeping these books. According to Crowley, a commonplace book was "a notebook kept by a rhetor as a storehouse of materials to be remembered or quoted" (qtd. in Micciche 724). Micciche picks up on this practice and uses it in her classroom. Students record passages of writing they like (using correct MLA format, of course) and then "follow each entry with at least one paragraph of analysis in which they identify the work achieved by specific grammatical techniques in the passage" (724). Interesting, we thought.
Jen B. brought up the issue of how in film studies, one assumes that students enter the classroom quite familiar with watching movies. What they are not familiar with are the specific techniques filmmakers use to achieve specific affects. That seemed to be a fitting comparison to what Micciche is talking about. David added that one of the assignments he gives in linguistics has a similar purpose: to focus on how a sentence works to accomplish a particular affect. Micciche seems to be in agreement (forgive the long quote):
I have two goals for the commonplace books: first, to emphasize the always entangled relationship between what and how we say something; second, to designate a place where students document and comment on their evolving relationship to writing and grammatical concepts. Both goals circulate around the idea that 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 (724).So, yeah, (notice I am not explicating the quote) we talked about that. We also wondered how such a practice would help students, or if it would help students, become more effective writers. We weren't sure. We did, however, seem agree with Micciche's argument that "when correcting language outside a meaningful context, students and teachers alike are often frustrated by the lack of transfer from the exercise to the rhetorical situation" (732). Perhaps we can put some of her ideas to use?
We also talked a bit about Micciche's focus on rhetorical grammar as part of a project of critical pedagogy. Ok, we didn't talk a lot about it, but I am writing this and I have the advantage of being able to craft this little piece of the world, at this particular moment (until, of course, others decide to re-craft it). I am reminded of many of the debates around Lisa Delpit's book when it first came out. Micciche seems to be trying to walk the same line: being committed to sentence-level writing (skills, for Delpit) and empowering students to become "active citizens of the worlds they inhabit" (733). Indeed, she begins her piece by trying to create an opening in a long discussion about grammar and critical pedagogy, arguing that "teaching grammar is not necessarily incompatible with liberatory principles" (717).
But alas, the discussion is interminable. The hour [grew] late, [we had to] depart. And [we] did with the discussion still vigorously in progress (a little Kenneth Burke for my students and those looking for a way of understanding those Thanksgiving visits for which they are about to depart). We did think that we'd like to continue along the same thread for our next meeting. We decided to read Pegeen Reichert Powell's article, "Critical Discourse Analysis and Composition Studies: A Study of Presidential Discourse and Campus Discord" for our next meeting. As usual, the article is available on eReserve as well as in the Composing Reading Group binder in the English Department mailroom.
We will meet again in the new year--Tuesday, January 24th, from 11-12 noon in LY 207. Have a grand ole Turkey Day everyone!
No comments:
Post a Comment