X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3_uno PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:51:59 CST
From:         Irvin Peckham <peckham@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Standard English

>      It's because of this that I try to create situations where
> my students write TO each other and (less often) TO me, about
> real academic issues and in a context of reading in the actual
> work of the discipline.  (The "TO" there is a way of saying TO
> rather than FOR.)  That's why I don't mark student papers (that,
> for sure, makes it FOR, doesn't it).  I suppose that's why you
> don't, either.  I also try to create situations where the
> author(s) actually know something the (real) audience doesn't --
> for instance, by never or very rarely using common texts or
> assignments.
>      What are some of your ideas about this?
>                                     -- Russ

Russ was replying to my rhetorical query as to why students do not
seem to willingly learn (excuse me) our ways of writing.  I was of
course implying, which Russ picks up on, that we seemed to be trapped
in a system that guarantees students will not learn our "languages,"
grapholects, or what have you.  Of course a few slip through, and it
is no surprise to anyone that those few generally come from the
professional or managerial classes; precious few from the working
classes.  It has often seemed to me that many of the myths about
education (bell curve realities, standards, correctness, discipline,
hard work, etc.) work against our supposed mission to educate.
The bell curve mentality alone guarantees that at least half
(I'm assuming the C's and belows) of our students will be
insistently discouraged from continuing their education.
  But to get to Russ's point, which is really my point.  With more
teachers following Russ's strategy, I KNOW students will more
willingly try to learn our language.  I would, however, reiterate
that they must know that we are also interested in theirs.  I
cannot understand how anyone could conceive of learning as a one-
way street.  In other words, they do have things to teach us as well
as their peers.  I just read two informatory essays from my
firstyear students.  One was on lawn care; another was on cleaning
houses.  (I know, I know; the topic should be the functions of
idealism in a technologically driven culture).  Both of the essays
contained some research (our first stab at learning how to incorporate
interviews, surveys, our own knowledge, and library research into our
texts).  The lawn care one was particularly good.  But I learned
from both of them.  I have filed both of these essays away for my
own information on care of my lawn and house (I'm the number one
house cleaner around here).
   I would add to Russ's strategy that we have to be careful
that the issues and texts that we have them discuss and read
have to be close to their worlds.  We can stretch them, surely.
But we have to be expert in knowing how much.  And we have to
remember their differences and that we are responsible for teaching
the whole class.
  Ross's move of having them write TO, nor FOR, seems to me
right on.  And, yes, Russ, that is precisely why I do not put
grades on their essays.  There is simply no need to (another one
of the institutional myths).
Irv

--
Irvin Peckham
University of Nebraska at Omaha
peckham@unomaha.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU