The problem I have with Pam's response is that I do not know what she means by "write" in "What do students need to know to write effectively?" In spite of Barthes (Is is Barthes, isn't it?), "write" is a transitive verb. How many college writing instructors have said that their students do fine with narratives, but fall apart in expository writing? Isn't part of the difference the fact that expository writing requires more conditionals, more cause/effect logic, etc., much of which is embedded in the small words ¯ the conjunctions and prepositions, and in other aspects of syntax?
The question Pam proposes is valid, but doesn't it need clarification? Could we have some examples of the kinds of things that Pam, or anyone else, would use to answer that question?
>>> Pam Dykstra <[log in to unmask]> 11/24 5:57 PM >>>
The grammar discussion has been fascinating * and almost
overwhelming because so many valuable responses have been
posted. I am having a hard time keeping all the insights in
mind. As I struggle to sort it all out, I wonder if we could
begin with what we want students to be able to do. This sounds,
I know, embarrassingly simplistic, but it would give us a place
to begin. For me the question is: What do students need to know
to write effectively? Once we find common ground there, the next
question might be: How do we teach that? And here the question
of what terminology we use will most likely emerge.
Can we also consider Susan Witt's suggestion (as I understood
it): finding a variety of strategies -- rather than trying to
find the one teaching method that does it right. Johanna has
noted that California has state-imposed academic standards.
California is not alone, and additional states will undoubtably
have mandated standards as the demand for accountability
continues. If our work is to be relevant, we need to be as
inclusive as possible.
Wishing you all a wonderful Thanksgiving. I'll be out of touch
for a few days, and look forward to meeting you all online next
week. Pam Dykstra
|
