Micciche's call for "a discourse that takes seriously the connection between writing and thinking, the interwoven relationship between what we say and how we say it" rang true for me. Anyone who has worked in the Writing Center can attest that it's difficult to talk about meaning with a student who is hung up on grammar. "No, I just want this paper checked over," they'll say, and they feel more comfortable when we question their periods and commas than when we engage critically with their overarching ideas. This is because they are comfortable with the idea that they don't understand the nuts and bolts of grammar. When it comes to their words, however, and more significantly to their meaning, they often think that, so long as they've got their ideas somewhere on the paper, they've done the best they can do. They don't understand that the way an idea is laid out can often be more important than the content of the idea itself in getting a message across to a reader.
What I liked most about this article is the way Micciche sees a shortcoming in her students' grasp of grammar and doesn't immediately place blame on high schools for not equipping students with basic language skills. Neither does she find herself overwhelmed with the thought of teaching grammar to her students. Rather, she sees not only a responsibility but a bright opportunity for teaching her students that grammar is not about abiding by confusing and restrictive rules, but rather about arming yourself with different rhetorical possibilities in order to better solidify and articulate an argument. By linking what is being said with the way it is being said, Micciche’s proposed method will not only strengthen students’ abilities to express themselves and their own ideas more effectively, but also their aptitude for analyzing the rhetorical choices authors of other texts have used.
I like this idea of "arming yourself with different rhetorical possibilities". I think the more tools a student has his disposal, the more choices he can make, and the better he can convey his ideas. If a student's ignorance or inability to use grammar prevents him conveying his idea, then this becomes a problem. I think of ESL students in this situation. They have the ideas, but not always the mode to grammatically express it. I think it's a fine balance between over valuing and under valauing grammar, but I do agree that some descent basis for it is needed.
ReplyDelete