This Thursday’s discussion about Shaughnessy reminded me of one of the fundamental principles of rhetoric: know your audience. Before reading Shaughnessy, I didn’t know my freshman audience as well as I should have. My relationship with them was weighted with assumptions. I assumed that everyone was like me and could write if they tried. Writing always came easily to me and I usually received good grades on my papers. If I didn’t do well on a paper, it was often because I didn’t try. So I assumed that these freshmen all weren’t trying. Granted, many of them aren’t trying, but I understand them better. Reading those examples on pg. 391 of the writer who tried ten times to start was like reading a poem. Somehow it explained exactly why writing was so hard for that person. That person couldn’t see past her or his own flaws to see the bigger picture. I’ve often felt that way (my entire middle school and high school social life, for example).
Furthermore, I began to examine my assumptions about how to look at writing. I look for flaws. Before reading any student’s essay, I had the mindset of “what’s wrong with this writing?” This is the approach my teachers took, so naturally I assumed it was right. But think about only looking for flaws. This tunnels your vision and you miss a lot of greatness and beauty both in life and in writing. Sometimes a better approach is to examine what’s good first, then comment and encourage the writer about her or his strengths. When you encourage the good, perhaps the bad ebbs away naturally, and the student has a much more positive learning experience.
From a practical standpoint, I began to look for original thought in freshman papers. I found that amidst all the predictability and clichés, many freshmen had something unique and original to say, or at least something they hinted at saying but felt they couldn’t through their Engfish-laden prose. When I found an original thought, I would comment on it and tell students this is a good idea, and to explore this theme more deeply. I also found that the approach of looking for the positive rather than the negative made me less grouchy when grading. I still gave the same letter grades, but I personally felt much better.
I completely agree with you here. It's always important to find what's good within the composition. In giving criticism, people should really follow the "sandwich" method. By doing this, people hear what they have done well AND what they need to work on. And they get to hear the good stuff first. Grammar is important, don't get me wrong, but I think that can be more easily corrected than not having the content or original ideas to work from.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you, Harrison. The attitude with which we approach grading will affect the lens through which we see what the students have done. I think making assumptions about what the students "should" know is a trap that a lot of instructors fall into. The better you know an area of study, the harder it is to distance yourself from it enough to share the student perspective. Shaughnessy's introduction, and the approaches we are learning in class, can help us avoid that trap.
ReplyDeleteI like your notion of finding "original thought" because I think it's highly valuable to let the student know that they're on to something. I completely agree with you that finding and commenting on the positive aspects of student writing is highly beneficial, to both the grader and student. But I still struggle with the notion that it's also important to show them where they made a mistake so that they can correct it and learn from it. Maybe it's a catch-22 and we can't win either way.
ReplyDelete