General lesson #1: Writing is an act of discovery. Good readers are not necessarily good writers or good spellers (128-129). Children cannot necessarily read and spell the same words. Reading and spelling involve different learning strategies.
Response: I learned to read before I had formal phonics or spelling training. My mom taught me to read from flashcards she made from the Sears catalog, and I think I just memorized the way certain words looked at first. When I got to kindergarten, I knew most of the elementary words, and I must have had some basic “sounding out” ability because I distinctly remember reading “helicopter” on a reading test, and I am pretty sure that wasn't in the Sears catalog. I really struggled with phonics in elementary school; to this day, I couldn’t tell you what a “short a” sounds like. But somehow, spelling was not much of a problem for me. I think the rote memorization learned as a kid helped me spell the regular and irregular words in our language.
On teaching: It’s helpful to know how different the reading, writing, and spelling skills can be for students. I would have thought reading and spelling prowess were more strongly correlated than Crystal states. In general, I have little patience for really poor spelling (especially those errors cured on spell check), but Crystal describes the neuro-anatomical/graphemic alternatives/phonological activity that feed into spelling difficulties. I suppose as an instructor it is important to distinguish between laziness and different learning strategies that influence spelling prowess in students.
General lesson #2: Written communication doesn’t substitute for verbal communication or vis versa. Historically, written language was held in higher regard than spoken language, but Crystal emphasizes that these are two very different systems (148) and deserve separate analyses. In summary, writing allows for repeated reading/close analysis, and the author does not generally interact with reader. Writing contains standard punctuation rules and occasionally grammatical constructions unique to the print form.
Response: What better time to discuss this topic than right after the speeches made at the DNC and RNC? Surely the speeches made by both parties at the conventions—even the “best” ones—would translate poorly to the printed page. Who knows if our candidates are even literate on the written communication level? For me, written communication is easier than verbal communication simply because of the time lapse involved in the written mode, and the ability to “delete.” One of my closest friends, however, speaks like butter and writes like sandpaper.
On teaching: Is it part of our job as composition instructors to give our students some basic exposure to verbal presentation skills? As Crystal points out, both skills are essential. I didn’t see mention in the teaching handbook that presentations were required in composition classes. Should they be? I think I would consider a 10-15 minute presentation requirement in my class. Verbal communication skills are very important in the "real world." Without them, you don't get past the interview.
General lesson #3: Electronic communication is neither speech nor writing (153). Online, there is a lack of simultaneous feedback, a picking and choosing in response, and limitations to the technology, especially as it pertains to turn-taking (154-155.)
Response: I have always considered internet writing (emails, blogs, messaging) to be closer to written communication than verbal communication since writers have the ability to delete, rewrite, delay, and submit online responses. I also think I missed much of the informal IM/texting phenomenon that has influenced the slightly younger generation. From what I understand, texting and emailing is trending toward its own abbreviated language, which is quite dissimilar from the written communication I use online.
Separately, in the business world, we used “framing” quite often when dissecting ideas in an email. I had no idea it had a name in the CMC world, but I found the practice at once helpful and infuriating.
On teaching: Given that most of my students will be a dozen or so years younger than I am, I think it is important to be aware of the communicative practices that they have been shaped by and use daily. I am guessing that their communication—especially journal-type communication—will trend toward the informal. I think informal communication is fine in “blog” mode (and I think I would consider using a blog as part of out-of-class discussion), but the language needs to be honed in more formal assignments.
No OMGs in term papers, please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How about a term paper titled: _OMG: A feminist historiography of Valley Girls online_? Gag me with a spoon. (It's late, and my sense of humor suffers greatly at this hour...)
I mentioned, in my post, how important the realization that electronic media comprise a completely new realm of communication. I'm glad you pointed this out as well, because I do think it is necessary for us, in this case as teachers, to understand the diverse literacies our students bring to the classroom. CMC literacy is something they will inevitably have, and I hope to be able to help them generate ideas and communicative skills that play on those skills.
You make an interesting point about informal and formal writing as they pertain to, respectively, electronic and traditional forms of writing. We have in place a long history of established accepted formal rules regarding traditional writing styles, but what constitutes formal and informal in electronic media? Do we adapt our traditional rules to new media, and expect it to perform the same way as the traditional media? Or should we see what kinds of rules are generated by the electronic media? Maybe a combination of traditional and new rules, forms, etc. would work best with new media. As Crystal argues, the electronic medium is not writing or speech, or an in-between medium, but is something completely new. Does it then merit new rules as to what constitutes formal and informal? I think context plays a big part in answering these questions, because, as you point out, these rules depend on the communicative practice at hand.
Before the availability of electronic media, I would never have turned in an assignment that resembled the form of the notes passed between myself and my friends in study hall (the precursor to texting...). The class assignment would be in a traditional format prescribed by the teacher. The study hall note, on the other hand, was in a different context and social situation, and therefore merited a format that can be called informal.
So, do we adapt the rules of the traditional writing technology to new media? Is there a middle ground, or do we allow the new media to generate new rules?
Post a Comment