Community & The Right to One's Language Movement

In Tuesday's class, Emily and I did a little research on the history of "the right to one's own language movement." Obviously it was hard to learn very much about an entire movement in a few minutes, but we came to some conclusions. This idea of a right to your language, to me, seems to imply that we must create a common language with the students. I think this also includes relating to their underlife. However, it must be noted that no language is pure. They all overlap in some way. Joseph Harris explains this well when he states, "Our students are no more wholly 'outside' the discourse of the university than we are wholly 'within' it. We are all at once both insiders and outsiders" (755). In addition, acknowledging different languages could cause teachers to stereotype their students. Moreover, who says that students have this "right"? This generation has already been noted as having a large sense of entitlement. It seems that teachers adjusting to their language will simply increase this feeling. Also, the real world is diverse. More often than not, these students will have to adjust to the "accepted" language at their job. I do think it is important for teachers to not speak in large, rarely used words that are completely over the students' heads. In addition, relating to their underlife by referencing pop culture is helpful in keeping their attention. However, it must not go to the extreme. For example, it would be ridiculous to require a teacher to speak in slang, or even ebonics, in the classroom. Instead, students and teachers should come to some kind of middle ground where teachers relate to students but at the same time teach them in the accepted language they will be expected to know in the real world.

Group Work

Although Trimbur's article made some interesting points, overall I felt that he took a simple idea and presented it in a complicated manner. It seems that his article can be summarized by two questions: Is collaborative learning, or group work, successful? And is it wrong for students to come to a consensus? There are obvious benefits to working in groups in a class. For example, it forces students to organize, work together and "expand the conversation" (733). I really liked how Trimbur referred to consensus as creating "a common language in the classroom" (743). However, there is a "fear of conformity" in coming to a consensus (734). Although this loss of individualism is evident in group work, it is irrelevant. The idea of students working in a group is not for them to present their own voice, but rather to hear other voices and let it shape and develop their own. There are other outlets for students to present solely their own voice, such as journals, blogs and papers. However, there is a risk of a consensus not truly being a consensus. For example, it may be coming from three people out of a four person group if that forth person is too shy to assert themselves. I found it interesting that collaborative learning did not really exist in universities until after open admission programs came into existence (736). I wonder if this fact implies that group work exists to aid the lowest-common denominator, a student that comes from a very weak educational background. Perhaps group work is there not to further develop these students' pre-existing ideas, but to allow them to take ideas from the students that understand the assignment?

Hidden Ideologies

After reading Berlin's article and participating in our class discussion, I began to wonder if I have any hidden ideologies. I also began to think about the ideologies of my previous teachers and professors. Like I mentioned in class, I had a high school history teacher that linked every lesson to socialism. I also had a professor for a survey of early American literature (a 3000-level course) who only discussed Thoreau's writings and her personal views on life. In the first example, although it at times became boring to continue discussing socialism, this teacher's ideologies did not have a negative affect on his teaching. He was actually the best teacher I had in high school. His views did not limit his teaching, as I actually learned more in that class than I did in all of my college history courses put together. Instead, his strong beliefs showed him to be a passionate person and therefore an engaging educator. However, in the other example, this professor was definitely the worst professor I had during my undergrad. She was a very intelligent and well educated woman but for some reason she did not feel the need to teach us. Her classes were 100% lecturing with 50% of that dedicated to her talking about herself and the other 50% talking about how we should live our lives like Thoreau (she actually suggested we all buy a cabin in the middle of the woods). In this case this professor's ideologies hindered her from teaching us the literature we wanted to learn. It was an intro class for only English majors and to this day I feel inadequate in my knowledge of early American literature.


Both of these teacher's ideologies were very obvious; however, it made me wonder if I have any ideologies that even I am not aware exist. Based on my blog post a few weeks ago on my teaching philosophy, it seems that I value critical thinking, organization, universal errors and individuality. I do believe all of these are important but I am sure that I have other ideologies as well. For example, I think that the English classroom is the perfect place to discuss social and political issues, especially controversial ones. Berlin gives an example of this when he states that in the sixties and seventies "the writing classroom became one of the public arenas for considering such strongly contested issues as Vietnam, civil rights, and economic equality" (667). I think one of the reasons why I value discussions like these is because they force the students to think critically. Of course, it is important to not venture too far and become like that professor I had. We can encourage our students to have these kinds of discussions but we must keep the focus of them directed to our teaching goals, be they in writing, reading or both.

Student Motivation

Our discussions in class this week made me begin to ponder student motivation, or I should say their lack of motivation. I saw a news special last week on secondary education in the countries who's students rank highest. Most of these nations had better qualified teachers; for example, all of Singapore's teachers graduated from the top 10 percent of their class. However, the students of these countries also seemed to have a better value and understanding of the worth of education. They knew that to get anywhere in life, education is the key. Perhaps it is because our average standard of living is so high, but for some reason our students do not understand the peril of a life without a good education. They seem to believe that whether they do well in school or not, they will be just fine. Yet a student in India, only has to glance out their window to be reminded of their motivation in education. 

We specifically discussed the students' use of the writing center. I also mentioned that I offered office hours to help students on their first long paper and no one came. In that moment it was easy to become discouraged and conclude that in general students do not care. However, when I offered office hours again a couple days later, I had several students come by for help. So perhaps the problem here is not motivation but procrastination? Either way, the entire grading system itself serves as an example of poor student motivation. Unlike graduate students, if undergraduates are asked to do an assignment that does not have a grade attached to it, they will not do it. Thus, it seems to me that we must force students to understand how important a well-rounded education is, before we can expect any work from them. Although, what happened to taking pride in one's work just for the sake of it?

Writing Philosophy

1. I believe that good writing always includes good thinking and analysis and organization are key parts of this;
2. I believe that universal errors should be focused on in teaching instead of every mistake; and
3. I believe that students' writing should be more formal but still present their own unique voice.

I found it very difficult to summarize all of my beliefs about teaching and writing. I have many ideas that are not here; however, I think these are the most important ones. My first belief is important because if a student is not thinking their writing is not worth my time to read. In addition, they will only get something out of the assignment if they are thinking about it. For me, all this thinking can be summarized in the word "analysis." In addition, I put a lot of value in organization because communication is extremely difficult without it. A paper may be well written in every other way, but if it is not organized the audience will not receive the message. For this reason, I think it is still very important to teach the "5 part essay" to beginning writers. My second belief was formulated for two reasons. Firstly, if the student is graded on every single grammatical mistake they make, they are likely to become extremely discouraged and give up on writing. In addition, when teaching, it is practically impossible to have enough time in class to go over every single mistake every student made. Therefore, I believe that while grading, teachers should come up with a top 20 most common errors for that particular class and then go over them together. Finally, I think it is important that students learn how to write with a balance between formality and their own voice so that they can avoid engfish. Without formality, the paper will have slang and abbreviations that are not appropriate for the assignment. However, students must also learn to write with their own voice so that they can engage the reader. In addition, having their voice in their writing assures that all the students' papers will be unique.