In Brereton's artlcle, Fred Newton Scott gives three "essentials" he practiced in his class that are not only good in and of themselves, but also would be good for present teachers of composition to borrow (106).* Furthermore, I completely agree with his assessment that children would be better writers with more specialized attention. Not enough attention to students is the main complaint I have with the public school systems and most education leading up to the college level. It is a monumental burden on one teacher to have 150+ students and expect the teacher to effectively teach them how to read and write well. From this foundation of these children not learning much at that level, and not receiving attention from the teacher, it seems a natural transition to flow into a big university state school and melt into the crowd without ever receiving individual or personal help on the essentials of writing. Interesting though that Scott sheds light on this problem in the beginning decades of the 20th century, yet we have still not found a way to correct the problem 80+ years later. What does that say about our system? Many people in our discipline lament the lack of writing ability, but no one has initiated change to make all the good suggestions a reality. True, there are private schools which allow a more personalized education because they have smaller classrooms and more time for professors and students to interact, but private schools are not available for many. It seems to me that if student would learn better by smaller classes, and there are a surplus of teachers desiring to teach in disciplines, why do we not just create more schools?
On another note, I love the point he makes at the end about how the composition teacher has variables just like a science lab teacher does, and how useful it would be to have a room of materials right "at his elbow" (107). What a utopian image!
I also have enjoyed the group work we have done this week in class about the different aspects of being a classroom teacher, and what is most important to keep in mind when running a classroom. However, we talked a lot today about how people reading about writing doesn't transfer to writing well or how the "drill and kill" style of learning does not work either. Dr. Kemp brought up the who/whom fill-in-the-blank, do ten examples of grammar and parts of speech identification approach to learning and said it is not effective. I somewhat tend to disagree because isn't that how we learn different languages? And weren't we as a class last time discussing the challenges of trying to re-teach native English speakers to appreciate the nuances and pieces of English? It seems to me that although this way of teacher might not be the most effective, it does work on some, and at least gives students exposure and a foundation for understanding the intricacies of their native language.
* Brereton's article and all quotes can be found on the link from Dr. Kemp's class website.
I agree with your point that the "drill and kill" style, though accurately named, is a style that shouldn't necessarily be left out of the classroom. Our group talked a lot about this idea that grammar cannot only be taught through continual bouts of writing, but there is no place for only drilling skills. Like many things, skill must be taught as a matter of introduction and must be practiced as a matter of application and further learning after introduction.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of our classroom conversation about better understanding English by learning other languages. Oddly enough, even submersive-style language learning involves a good amount of the "drill and kill" learning we are cursing. I wonder if after being reactionary (over time on both sides) a proper way to use both in concert to success.