Standard English as One of Many Dialects

Question: How can I help students understand that Standard English is one of many appropriate choices for effective communication?

Answer/Quote: “As a teacher at a community college in Appalachia, I am often shocked by composition students who have come to accept what they have learned in previous academic settings: that their native dialects make them ‘sound stupid.’ I want my students to recognize standard English as another dialect that is suitable in particular situations—to avoid mistaking Standard English as inherently ‘correct’ English, or as the only option for effective communication. To determine the best language options, students need to pay close attention to the language needs of the situation at hand, or consider why one particular dialect might be more useful than another in a particular setting.” P. 81.

The author has students record in journals the types of language in situations that they experience during the day, i.e., the language at home, the language at work, etc. “This extended prewriting leads into a formal essay in which students describe two settings in which they spend a great deal of time, along with specific language situations they might encounter at each.” P 81.

 “Ultimately, students can come to understand that their local dialects are not inferior and in fact work better for communicating in certain situations while standardized dialect is often more likely to facilitate effective communication across professional and nonlocal audiences or settings.” P. 82.

 Comment: Interesting technique for analyzing the language of different social settings and the appropriateness of Standard English for specific situations and the appropriateness of other dialects for certain other situations. In general, the more students write informally, the more their language reflects the way they speak. RayS.

Title: “Dialect and Language Analysis Assignment.” Amanda Hayes. Teaching English in the Two-Year College (September 2011), 81-82.

Evaluating Online Sources: The CRAP Test

Question: How can students evaluate online sources for the purposes of research/

Answer/Quote: “There is so much information on the Web posted by so many different people. How do you know if something is accurate and reliable? One way to determine if the information is valid is to use the CRAP test. For this test, you will surf the Internet to Find a Web page.” P. 71.

“I. Description of your search:

>What is your topic?

>What search engine(s) did you use?

>What key words did you use to do your search?

>How many hits (results) did you get?

>How many sites did you look at? Did you go beyond the 1 page of results?

 

II. CRAP Test

A. Content

>Coose one of your sites. Copy and paste the URL below.

> Is the URL from an ‘org,’ ‘edu,’ ‘com,’ Or ‘gov”?

>Is the information fact or opinion?

>Is the information documented? Explain.

>Is the page well written? Is it well proofed and error free?

>Now go the root of the Web page by omitting everything after the gov or com in the URL (ex. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html) Once you are on the root’s homepage look for an ‘about us’ or ‘information’ that gives insight about the host. What do you learn? Does it add or take away from the page’s credibility? Explain.

B. Recency

>How old is the information? How often is it updated?

>Are the links on the page working or ‘dead’?

>Does the web site include references to mostly current or out-of-date information?

C. Author

>Who is the author of this site? Is it a person? Organization?

>Is the author/organization qualified to write on the subject? Explain.

>Can the author/organization be contacted for further information?

>What biases does/might the author bring to the information? Why is the author writing about the subject? Explain.

D. Purpose

>What is the purpose of this information? Inform? Persuade? Entertain?

>Does the author/organization make his/her purpose  or intentions clear?

>Who is the intended audience for this information (for a hint, go back to the root of the page)? Explain.

 III. Overall Assessment

> On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being least reliable ‘it’s crap’ and 10 being most reliable ‘it’s expert information’). What would you rank this site and why?”

pp. 71 & 72.

Comment: In addition to the CRAP analysis of online sources, this article also supplies an easy-to-follow guide to documenting sources online and in traditional media. RayS.

Title: “A Personal Touch: Embedding Library Faculty into Online English 102.” Casey Kadavy and Kim Chuppa-Cornell. Teaching English in the Two-Year College (September 2011), 63-77.

Evaluating Student Writing

Question: What are some basic categories for assessment of student writing?

Answer/Quote: The authors and their English department were unsatisfied with their original rubric for student assessment. They reduced six categories to four: purpose, critical thinking/analysis, intertextuality and audience awareness. “ ‘Intertextuality’ is a term we use to describe the integration of a student’s ideas with outside texts, and we define outside texts loosely: articles, books, movies, poems, advertisements, and the ever-widening range of new media.” P. 54.

Whereas the six-category rubric seemed unnecessarily complex and confusing, including the category “voice,” the four-category assessment gave the teachers and students the opportunity to explore  definitions of and understanding of the categories.

The scheme of assessment included the following:

Paper Assessment Sheet

Core elements (Scores ‘3’ and above are ;passing)
 

Purpose                                                 6              5              4              3              2              1

Critical Thinking/Analysis              6              5              4              3              2              1

Intertextuality                                     6              5              4              3              2              1

Audience Awareness                          6              5              4              3              2              1

 Comment: Much to like in these categories for writing assessment. RayS.

Title: “From Rigidity to Freedom: An English Department’s Journey in Rethinking How We teach and Assess Writing.” C Strouthopoulos and JL Peterson. Teaching English in the Two-Year College (September 2011), 43-62.

Five-Paragraph Theme

Question: How do you use the model for expository writing known as the five-paragraph theme?

Answer/Quote: “This article traces the history of the five-paragraph theme and views about it, along with arguing for its elimination in writing instruction in favor of problem-based ‘rich-task’ writing experiences for students.” P. 29.

Quote: “ ‘How do you feel about the five-paragraph theme?’ I have posed this question as a conversation starter on the topic of theme writing over the past two years to first-year college writers, along with elementary and secondary English teachers, two-year and four-year college instructors, and others interested in literacy instruction who have attended conferences sponsored by the Conference on College Composition and Communication and the Iowa Council of Teachers of English.” P.. 29.

Quote: “What the continuum reveals is a lack of consensus about this uniquely ‘North American species of pseudogenre,’ a formula that puzzles those who teach writing elsewhere in the world: Assessments range from ‘very positive on the left side to ‘very negative’ on the right…creating a balanced range of responses from strong approval to strong disapproval.’ ” P. 29.

Comment: Once again, the National Council of Teachers of English creates an ‘either/or” issue that is best resolved by “both/and,” both the five-paragraph model, not a genre, for expository writing and a ‘rich-task’ writing experience for students, whatever that is. The five-paragraph essay is a model for the structure of exposition, easily expanded, and, in spite of the NCTE’s objections to it, the model followed by every published writer of articles in NCTE publications. By continuing to use “either/or” situations (grammar, writing process vs. product, phonics), the NCTE violates the very basic notions of critical thinking and common sense. RayS.

Title: “What to Make of the Five-Paragraph theme: History of the Genre and Implications.” M Tremmel. Teaching English in the Two-Year College” (September 2011), 29-42,

NCTE and You

Note: The September 2011 issue of English Journal celebrates the centennial of the National Council of Teachers of English. The articles consist of testaments to the value of the NCTE to practicing teachers of English. Peter Smagorinsky in the final paragraph of his article, “NCTE & Me: Reflections on the Council’s Role in One Teacher’ Life,” says well what I have learned from  my experiences with the NCTE.

Quote: “I have always been puzzled at the fact that, with all that NCTE has to offer, more practicing teachers are not members. I taught in some highly regarded high schools in which I was among the few members of large faculties to join and take advantage of its resources. These resources have only grown more abundant and better with each passing year as NCTE tries to serve its members and improve the quality of teaching. I hope that my reflection on my own experiences with the Council helps others to think about where they would be without NCTE and to persuade colleagues of the possibilities that await them through their membership.” P. 116.

Comment: I began reading the English Journal in 1956 in my first year of high school teaching. Because I wanted to learn what was happening in elementary school, junior high and middle school, as well as high school and college, I expanded my reading of professional journals in English to include Elementary English re-named Language Arts, Voices from the Middle, College English, English Education, College Composition and Communication, Teaching English in the Two-Year College, Research in the Teaching of English and added to the NCTE’s list of journals those of the International  Reading Association, The Reading Teacher, Journal of Reading re-named Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy and Reading Research Quarterly.

That’s a lot of reading, but I’ve learned to read for ideas and to find the significant ideas in each article of each journal, and, believe me, nothing is so exciting as discovering an answer to my questions about teaching English and raising new questions. I’ve discovered pre-writing, the writing process, writing to learn and teaching English as a second language in the pages of these journals. Sometimes the writers reinforce my own ideas, more often disagree with my ideas, but always I learn from ideas that I reflect on in order to improve my teaching of English. And I have learned how to write and publish in these journals, further refining my ideas.

Ideas. They are my reason for reading professional literature. Ideas that cause me to reflect about how to improve my teaching. That’s why I am a member of NCTE, the National Council of Teachers of English. If you’re an English teacher, you really need to belong to your professional organization. This blog, English Updates, consists of selected ideas from the pages of professional literature. I have had as many as 250 hits a day. RayS.

 Title: “NCTE & Me: Reflections on the Council’s Role in One Teacher’s Life.” Peter Smagorinsky. English Journal (September 2011), 111-116.

Goal of the Community College Teacher

Question: What is the primary goal of the community college teacher?

 Answer/Quote: “As a professor at a community college, you will be evaluated primarily in terms of your effectiveness as a teacher, your commitment to student learning, and your service to the institution and the community. While research and publication are generally encouraged and supported, they do not serve as the main institutional goals and therefore may be given limited recognition and reward in terms of rank, promotion, and salary. Most institutional honors and awards are based on exemplary teaching.” (“Considering Community College Advice to Graduate Students and Job Seekers” 167) p. 7.

Comment: Unlike four-year colleges, the mission of the community college is effective teaching. Research and publication are secondary to effective teaching. An important distinction. RayS.

Title: “Research and Scholarship in the Two-Year College.” Two-Year College English association. Teaching English in the Two-Year College (September 2011), 7-28.

Adults and Children's Reading

Question: What role should parents play in their children’s reading after they have stopped reading aloud to them?

Answer/Quotes: “Daniel Pennac (2008) warns against too little and too much intervention by adults in the life of the child reader. He admonishes adults for ceasing to read aloud to children the moment they begin to read on their own. When we abandon our role as reader-aloud, we often assume the role of reading police in children’s lives. We monitor what children read, how often they read, how much they read, what ‘level’ they read and whether they’ve gained the ‘correct’ meaning from the text.”

Quote: “So what, then, is the role of the adult? To model, to let be, and to have faith. We must be cautious that our own excitement about sharing what we love as readers, or what we loved as child readers ourselves, does not prevent children from finding what they love. Thus, and perhaps most important, we must let children read what they choose to read, suspending adult evaluations of quality and appropriateness. Pennac reminds us that children reading tastes will evolve over time, He concluded his original ‘Reader’s Bill of Rights’ (1994) assuring the reader that s/he has ‘The Right to Not Defend Your Tastes’ (p. 206). We believe that this right has particular implications for the child reader who must fend off well-meaning parents and teachers patrolling the reading beat.” P. 244.

Comment: I wonder if Daniel Pennac would defend the use of violent or pornographic video games as he defends the child’s right to read? This is murky stuff. There’s a difference between guiding reading and censoring it. RayS.

Title: “The Right to Not Defend Your Tastes.” MA Cappiello, et al. Language Arts (January 2011), p. 244.