What Alex Said

So, inspired by Alex's attempt at a vague summation, here's my own equally inept and incomplete (no offense, Alex) attempt at some sort of summarization of everything I learned in this class.

1. I don't know anything. All the stuff I thought I knew about teaching I found out is wrong. Then I found out that the stuff I learned about the stuff I knew before was wrong. Then I found out that was wrong, too. I don't think this is a bad thing. Being self-reflective (reflexive) is one of the most important lessons I've taken from the course readings. As long as I'm thinking about what I'm doing and whether it's working and so forth, I can be useful to some extent to my students.

2. I know a lot more than I used to. Reading all these articles and books about teaching must have taught me something, right? But seriously, folks, I'm personally a fan of how Kent State does this, where we don't teach in the first semester. Having a good, solid background in teaching theory (maybe not both good AND solid, but certainly at least one of the two) makes me a lot less nervous about being flung into a classroom (flung is an excellent word and would make a good band name) with 25 doe-eyed recent high school graduates who expect me to know stuff.

3. This blog has annoyed me from time to time, but it sure is nice to have somewhere to vent my creative impulses. I like words.

4. Language is funny. And it's much more funny if we don't try to pigeonhole it (pigeonhole. How could anybody argue that language is funny?). Errors are subjective, grammar police are despicable people (a bit of an exaggeration, but let's fight fire with fire!), and recognizing various dialects is an important part of language. While it's good for us to educate students into an understanding of a somewhat standardized form of English, it's equally important to acknowledge other dialects.

5. Nothing about teaching is ever simple. This doesn't mean it's difficult. It also doesn't mean it's easy. It just means it's not simple. I suppose this is something of a repeat of number 1. Self-reflectiveness and all that.

6. Multimodality is something I'm going to have to reconcile myself with. With which I'm going to have to reconcile myself. I may not like it (see earlier post), but I have to admit it can be fun sometimes (I had a surprisingly good time making that video of my brother and his wife). My focus remains on the language itself, but presentation style is an inescapable part of language production.

7. Portfolios are a better idea than I had at first thought. Than I had thought at first. I like the process emphasis, the lack of finality in earlier drafts, the grading focus on where students are at the end rather than the beginning, and so forth. I'm still working out exactly how to structure my class, but portfolio grading will be part of it.

8. My class isn't about me. It's about my students. And about me. Really, it's in the interplay between us, the differance if you will (and I won't...Derrida gets brought up too much), that meaning will be formed. This means that I'm going to be simultaneously putting my personality and attitudes into the class structure and trying to get the hell out of the way and let the students do the work from time to time. I'm not sure exactly how I'll strike this balance, but I look forward to it.

9. I need to watch my words so as not to accidentally convey myself as a racist. My comment in class drew a good (though not intended) laugh, but it also reminded me that I need to be conscious of what I'm saying and try not to offend anybody. This probably won't be possible.

10. Ache with caring. Like Alex, and several others, I think the Mem Fox piece was one of my favorites. I haven't really taught in this type of setting before, so I'll be interested to see just how much it clicks for me. But I hope I'll be able to put the amount of effort and caring into it that the students deserve. At least the good ones. Well, okay, the bad ones too.

There's what I think.

David Crystal's outlook on change in language reiterated and summed up most of the readings we did for this course on the topic. What Crystal manages to affirm, and which no one else pointed out, is that change in language occurs slowly, and in a manner that seldom impedes communication. However, the amount of ballyhoo generated concerning the deterioration of the standards of English is enough to convince one otherwise. As Crystal writes: "There are indeed cases where linguistic change can lead to problems of unintelligibility, ambiguity, and social division. If change is too rapid, there can be major communication problems. But as a rule, the parts of language which are changing at any given time are tiny, by comparison with the vast, unchanging areas of language. Indeed, it is because change is so infrequent that it is so distinctive and noticeable" (458). This makes sense. So why is the uproar by the mechanics, quacks and thieves so loud? I don't know. Is this just a self-righteous impulse to safeguard the notionally sacred purity of language?

Time and again, consideration of this question leads me to one single point of inquiry--if communication is impeded, it must be impeded for someone. Why is there no effort to locate this someone? Because I am sure communication is impeded at different levels for each one of us. So why is Crystal not concerned with this fact? His historicized account of using "potato's" was very entertaining. But what if the usage really does confuse a non-native learner of the language, who will then proceeds boldly to the grocery store and addresses the person behind the counter, evidently the proprietor of the establishment, as Mr/Ms. Potato?

I quite like Crystal's argument about the interconnectedness of social and linguistic change. It is folly to attempt to control either without in some way trying to control the other. And any attempt to control both together is madness. So what do we do? The answer seems to be awareness. We remain aware of the changes going on, in society and in languages we speak. When I go out each morning, I am quite aware that I am in the United States, and quite expect to see advertisements for 'hair color' in print media, and not of 'hair colour'. I know what is being advertised, and meaning is not impeded.

But what about 'mistakes' that do not impede comprehension, but yet, are there? Do we correct someone saying "Drive safe", or (as I read in a recent magazine article, choking on my apple cider) "Promiscuity can be anyone"? Do we avoid them when we write, and go on using them orally? And if yes, to what extent is such oral usage applicable?