Role Models

I thought that this week’s chapter really did a great job at not only outlining the various theories but also in proving that grammar instruction does not better influence or aid writers. In this chapter, Williams states that grammar instruction greatly impacts writing. He feels that obsession with grammar has led students to form a great detest for writing. Often times, students’ negative feelings towards writing stems from their frustration with either not understanding how to apply the rule (thanks in part to drills and exercises that are unrealistic) or becoming so fixated with following the rules that they lack content in their writing. Thus, students continue to abhor grammar (especially textbook worksheets) and writing. Williams repeats his belief that native students understand grammar but their problem lies in correct usage. Thus, I felt that the one main message in this chapter was the unspoken part that role models (teachers, parents, authors, fellow classmates, etc.) play in either aiding or inhibiting a student’s sense of usage. In this blog, I will address this issue.

While reading this chapter, I was intrigued by several quotes but the first one really aided in the formation of this blog. Williams writes that “The language patterns consist of both grammar and usage, and they duplicate closely the language of a child’s home and community” (178). I am in complete agreement with Williams’ observation. Once I learned that my gestures were no longer able to completely express my thoughts (or rather my wants) I was forced to have to express my needs in another form. Thus, I started to talk.

At first, I often would incorrectly identify objects or identify all objects by one word I knew. For example, I use to identify all dogs as cats because I had been taught the word cat. The reasoning behind this common error is that “when children encounter the world, their parents and other adults provide them with names of things. They see dogs, and they immediately are provided the word dog, with the result that they develop a mental model related to ‘dog-ness’ (211). Another example of this common error is seen in the movie You’ve Got Mail. In the film starring Meg Ryan, a little boy (the brother of her business nemesis-Joe Fox) informs Ryan that he can spell the word “fox.” He spells it out and is rewarded with encouraging statements. Ryan then asks the boy to spell “dog” thinking that he has learned about dogs and can easily spell it. To her amazement, he once again spells out “fox.” This moment illustrates Williams’ point about children slowly enlarging their vocabulary and word association based on their familial or community’s introduction and correction of words. Thus, a child will learn to correctly identify a cat as a cat and a dog as a dog as his or her “role models” (parents, siblings, grandparents, teachers, etc.) start to provide the child with more words and proper association. Once the child has started to create a network of acceptable words, he or she will partake in “communication [that] is more efficient” since it concentrations on meaningful exchanges instead of “structure” (178). A child will start to feel comfortable in communicating with their first discourse community (family, friends, neighbors, etc.) Hence, the community and family are reinforcing a certain accepted jargon that the child must learn it if he or she wishes to fully participate in the community.

The problem arises when the community and familial accepted jargon conflicts with academic discourse. Williams writes that “the language of school is different form the language of home and community in several ways . . . The language of school is commonly used in analysis and discussion, whereas the language of home is more commonly used to maintain social bonds” (179). This issue of conflicting jargons is especially highlighted in the writing process. In my own limited experience as a teacher, I have noticed how some of my students who either struggled with writing or showcased an open dislike of writing, had the same complaint. Many of my students were from lower socioeconomic communities and they felt that since they were respected in their communities there was little reason to write “like a teach” since many saw themselves in careers that only required their high school diploma. A couple of my students informed me that they saw members of their community as successful and they did not need to write essays or use “harder” words. Thus, many of their essays were filled with their community’s accepted jargon. Williams writes “that the less experience the writer, the more likely he or she was to rely on the conventions of speech when composing. But these conventions are rooted in the language of home and community and do not conform to expectations for academic writing” (179-180). The reason students continue to communicate with their home discourse in the classroom is that they are both comfortable with it and more importantly, they see themselves as successful. Last year, in another Dr. Kearney class, we read an article (I believe by Dr. Murray) in which the author discusses how first generation college students in New York who were in her “remedial” English courses often became unnerved at receiving bad grades. These students would inform her that they were using the language the same way their neighborhood butcher, barber, shop owner, etc. used. Since they saw these people as successful and used them as role models, many of her students became confused and in some cases even quit. For these students and my own, they reverted back to the jargon of their first discourse community because they had identified strong role models in their community and had found no similar role models in their second (school) discourse community.

I think that there is a great deal of frustration among students who try to move between their jargon communities because they sometimes are not given the chance to identify with role models who can aid them in better understanding the “appropriateness conditions” (181). While teachers inform them that “the language… [they] use on a daily basis is appropriate for communicating with friends and family, but it is not appropriate, generally for school and writing,” they forget to aid them in better transitioning between their discourse communities. It seems like we keep getting drawn back to Peter Elbow and freewriting. Freewriting will aid the student in not only bridging the two discourse communities but also in getting comfortable with writing which will help them in their academic community.

This chapter was great and I really enjoyed it. I cannot wait to talk about this chapter on Thursday.