Okay everyone I am still not sure if I get the hang of this whole blog thing, however I think I am starting to like this for class.
Chapter one was a really brief introductory chapter about the purpose of the entire book. Which, in my opinion, can be found in the title. Weaver argues, despite previous and/or popular belief, isolating the teaching grammar or centralizing a classroom around the idea of grammar does a student no help turning to the application of grammar to writing. Instead Weaver suggests educators should shift their perspective to teaching effective grammar skills to help enhance their students writing. Thus resulting in more clear, coherent, well defined syntax in writing. My inference from her statement is that grammar should be used as another tool to develop one's own writing skills. In a way I agree. At the end of the chapter Weaver lists observations made about grammar and the teaching of it. In one point she explains that few students will transfer and isolated grammar lesson to their writing. I especially agreed with this statement because it had applied to me. When I wrote I never looked at grammar as a tool. Grammar was a ball and chain pulling down my freedom and eventually my grade.
Chapter 2 is started after my Yoda Pez dispenser tells me "Pez for you I have" and I cannot help but think speech would be so much easier to understand if we spoke exactly as Yoda. Actually I do not know if that is true but it still would be cool. There are two major points that I acquired after reading chapter two. The first being the already iterated statement: The old manor of traditional grammar instruction does not increase a child's understanding of grammar. Only this time they sight sources. One interesting point they do make is off of a study done where the research was conclusive that the isolated teaching of grammar was bad however the research did not reveal a good alternative.
The second point I found interesting in chapter two was the entire attitude Weaver seemed to be taking with grammar. They idea of "correct" and "error" were not the ideal way to introduce, or assess whether a student has obtained good skills in grammar (- if that statement is even proper I do not know). Instead Weaver proposes that we introduce grammar as a trial and error. as a means to reach a better finished project or paper.
Concluding chapter 2 with a firm statement of change Weave moves to chapter 3 where positive, productive and practical are emphasized... yet again. In competely honesty I am ten pages away from the end of the reading now and I am really absorbing no different information than I have gained in the previous two chapters. Nothing with methods or application. All theories on what is not the best way to teach grammar and how grammar should be taught in connection with reading and writing.
Weaver talks about her point being that students already know a lot of the traditional rules of grammar; they just don't know the proper grammatical name to call a certain phrase, word, or use of both. I do agree when she does talk about using conventions as grammar in the editing process. In complete honesty how many of us actually go back and edit our papers? On the rare occasion that we do, how many of us look for grammatical or mechanical mistakes over coherency or fluidity? Therefore teaching mechanics during the editing process I think would be a very useful tacit.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Second post of my first ever blog. A little late in the evening on Tuesday night. I'm hoping to learn to be on top of my work in a more efficient manor. This week I was supposed to read these different articles 3 in total and post about 5 major points that I read. I apologize in advance if I am not responding correctly.
First major point comes from after reading A Brief History of English. In all honesty I got only one message the whole way through. English is a constantly breathing and changing life force much like any living organism. Since the origins of the Language it has been as diverse as the people who probably spoke it. Like many Americans today the heritage is a complicated blend of many different nationalities into one. Appropriate then Americans speak English.
The second essay Good English and Bad, covers the idea of grammar. More specifically English grammar based on Latin rules. Therefore the rules of Latin do not always fit the rules of English because the syntax and construction of sentences, words and phrases do not mix. I understand the point the author is trying to make but the only response I have is, for lack of more professional sounding words, no duh. Latin rules would only work for Latin and because in the aforementioned essay we learned that English is not based solely on Latin why do we not look at grammatical structures of other languages such as French or German to simplify our complicated grammar rules.
Another good point Bill Bryson makes in the essay is the "who says" point. He notes there are no official guardians allowing certain usages of words. By this point in my blog I am sure I've made several grammatical errors I just have not caught them yet or maybe its just because I am ignorant to them. The point however is not their existences but their enforcement. The rules of proper grammar seem to correlate with whoever the major literary factors are and their opinions at the time rather than a single entity. Which in turn keeps the rules of grammar constantly changing just as the English language does.
"That so cray," or "She cray cray" is the newest term my kids seems to be throwing around (note by kids I mean my residents on my floor. I call them my kids). Slang terms are addressed in Paul Dickson's essay "it Ain't No Big Thing. There is a point made that slang is needed in language and particularly in American language there are over 35,000 words. Without slang there would be no distinguishes between the proper language and the improper. At the same time grammatical slicks will fight the use of slang because it is informal and improper. At the same time it can define a specific culture or region without itself being defined.
For my last point of the night will be addressing Dickson's points about slang today. Previously slang was born out of conflict, but with today's new age in technology slang travels incredibly fast through technology and especially television. He points out two different yet simple keys when creating new slang. One is reaching a number of people and the second key is those people hearing what is being said. On TV or through social media tools i.e. Facebook, millions of impressionable minds can be reached in seconds. All someone needs now is a line. Just one simple line to stick in the heads of millions of people and carried into causal conversation from then out. May I suggest the example of Charlie Sheen's "Winning" one liner.
I think by this point I have exhausted more than my fair share of your time so I bid the goodnight and sweet dreams.
First major point comes from after reading A Brief History of English. In all honesty I got only one message the whole way through. English is a constantly breathing and changing life force much like any living organism. Since the origins of the Language it has been as diverse as the people who probably spoke it. Like many Americans today the heritage is a complicated blend of many different nationalities into one. Appropriate then Americans speak English.
The second essay Good English and Bad, covers the idea of grammar. More specifically English grammar based on Latin rules. Therefore the rules of Latin do not always fit the rules of English because the syntax and construction of sentences, words and phrases do not mix. I understand the point the author is trying to make but the only response I have is, for lack of more professional sounding words, no duh. Latin rules would only work for Latin and because in the aforementioned essay we learned that English is not based solely on Latin why do we not look at grammatical structures of other languages such as French or German to simplify our complicated grammar rules.
Another good point Bill Bryson makes in the essay is the "who says" point. He notes there are no official guardians allowing certain usages of words. By this point in my blog I am sure I've made several grammatical errors I just have not caught them yet or maybe its just because I am ignorant to them. The point however is not their existences but their enforcement. The rules of proper grammar seem to correlate with whoever the major literary factors are and their opinions at the time rather than a single entity. Which in turn keeps the rules of grammar constantly changing just as the English language does.
"That so cray," or "She cray cray" is the newest term my kids seems to be throwing around (note by kids I mean my residents on my floor. I call them my kids). Slang terms are addressed in Paul Dickson's essay "it Ain't No Big Thing. There is a point made that slang is needed in language and particularly in American language there are over 35,000 words. Without slang there would be no distinguishes between the proper language and the improper. At the same time grammatical slicks will fight the use of slang because it is informal and improper. At the same time it can define a specific culture or region without itself being defined.
For my last point of the night will be addressing Dickson's points about slang today. Previously slang was born out of conflict, but with today's new age in technology slang travels incredibly fast through technology and especially television. He points out two different yet simple keys when creating new slang. One is reaching a number of people and the second key is those people hearing what is being said. On TV or through social media tools i.e. Facebook, millions of impressionable minds can be reached in seconds. All someone needs now is a line. Just one simple line to stick in the heads of millions of people and carried into causal conversation from then out. May I suggest the example of Charlie Sheen's "Winning" one liner.
I think by this point I have exhausted more than my fair share of your time so I bid the goodnight and sweet dreams.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
First. Post. Ever!
Hello everyone, My name is Kelsey Winton and this is my first ever blog. This is created for my English 366 class History and Structure of the English Language. I am actually really excited about this class and about this blog. I might make another one and keep up with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)