Don't read, don't write. What do you do?
In my dark days of teaching at a private high school, I taught an "Advanced Composition" class for high school Seniors. That course was hands down my least favorite to teach, as the students -- all of whom were college-bound -- figured they had survived four years of high school and knew all there was to know about how to write. My job was to help polish their grammar and to remind them about the difference between periods and semi-colons. The school had a required text for the course (a book of essays), and I dutifully assigned an essay for them to read and, eventually, write a response to. What I discovered was that most of them couldn't read the essay; that is, their reading was not sophisticated enough to enable them to distinguish even the main argument of a fairly straightforward essay. I looked upon that classroom full of bright young faces and despaired. Those students were already lifelong non-readers, and the poor writing that resulted from that non-habit was essentially beyond my feeble power to cure.
I was reminded of that experience when I read this great post at Prof. Blogger's Pontifications on the shortcomings of college composition courses.
Prof. Blogger makes the point that good writing has its foundation in good reading:
Like Shakespeare (who had a little Latin, and less Greek), the Professor can read Latin. With a grammar and dictionary, he can produce a passable translation. Nevertheless, the Professor probably reads -- at the MOST -- twenty full pages of Latin a year, usually one sentence or brief excerpt at a time. Prof. Blogger's own research requires very little Latin, so every year he is away from graduate school his Latin declines.
Asking the students to write papers in English is perhaps very like asking Prof. Blogger to write a paper in Latin. True, the Professor can read Latin, just as the students can read English. The Professor knows the basic rules of Latin grammar just as the students know the basic rules of English grammar. Until the Professor begins reading Latin -- good, literate Latin -- regularly, he will never be able to write a long, quality passage in Latin, just as composition students are unable to write quality prose since they have not read more than a couple of hundred pages of good prose in their lifetimes.
So, back to the issue of content in composition -- yes, there should be reading in composition courses, because reading is the missing element, but as the amount of reading missing is a lifetime's worth, no one should delude themselves into thinking one or two semesters of composition can do more than sharpen what little skill already exists.
Read the whole thing, obviously. I highly recommend the Professor's blog, and I plan to visit again soon.
(HT: Wormtalk and Slugspeak)
I was reminded of that experience when I read this great post at Prof. Blogger's Pontifications on the shortcomings of college composition courses.
Prof. Blogger makes the point that good writing has its foundation in good reading:
Like Shakespeare (who had a little Latin, and less Greek), the Professor can read Latin. With a grammar and dictionary, he can produce a passable translation. Nevertheless, the Professor probably reads -- at the MOST -- twenty full pages of Latin a year, usually one sentence or brief excerpt at a time. Prof. Blogger's own research requires very little Latin, so every year he is away from graduate school his Latin declines.
Asking the students to write papers in English is perhaps very like asking Prof. Blogger to write a paper in Latin. True, the Professor can read Latin, just as the students can read English. The Professor knows the basic rules of Latin grammar just as the students know the basic rules of English grammar. Until the Professor begins reading Latin -- good, literate Latin -- regularly, he will never be able to write a long, quality passage in Latin, just as composition students are unable to write quality prose since they have not read more than a couple of hundred pages of good prose in their lifetimes.
So, back to the issue of content in composition -- yes, there should be reading in composition courses, because reading is the missing element, but as the amount of reading missing is a lifetime's worth, no one should delude themselves into thinking one or two semesters of composition can do more than sharpen what little skill already exists.
Read the whole thing, obviously. I highly recommend the Professor's blog, and I plan to visit again soon.
(HT: Wormtalk and Slugspeak)
posted by Kate Marie | 10:55 AM | Permalink
|
16 comments
16 Comments:
I must confess weaknesses in certain aspects of technical English, but I have been able to make up for it by doing a lot of reading, necessarily at work, the paper every day, and a couple of magazines and books as the week progresses. I think that the habit of reading ingrains you with how to write.
Kate Marie, have you any suggestions for getting kids to read in the first place? I mean, aside from having books and magazines all around, reading to them, setting an example by reading, turning off the TV, and limiting gameboys et al?
two words - Book Reports. Why did the main character do what he/she did?, What happened when he/she did that?, etc... As a kid, of course, I hated it. But as I moved on from book to book, I read them as if answering those questions for myself, not homework. Then I was hooked. Let me know if I'm the only one who experienced this (I'm talking 4th-8th grade here), the joy of ordering Scholastic books. You place your order, bring your money to school in an envelope, the big box arrives, the teacher opens it in front of the class and hands you what seems like a prize -Harriet the Spy, Misty of Chincoteague, Charlotte's Web. Are book reports required anymore? Can you still order Scholastic books in the classroom?
- Dirtbiker for W
"I mean, aside from having books and magazines all around, reading to them, setting an example by reading, turning off the TV, and limiting gameboys et al?"
-- I'm certainly no expert, C.I.V., but your list about covers it, as far as I'm concerned. From my own experience, I'd add that I felt like the only person at my high school who actually read for pleasure (and we're talking a private Catholic girls school). but -- aside from the fact that I was, to some extent, very bored with my social circle -- the non-reading of my peers didn't influence me, because, pretty much until I went to college, my life was pretty family-oriented, rather than peer-oriented. Did that make me a geek, in some ways? Yes, but I didn't care so much, and when I got to college, I found plenty of people who shared my interests and love of reading. I guess with my own kids I'm trying to create a similar situation -- one where there's something outside of their peer group by which to measure themselves and by which to judge what's important. Anyway, I'm merely rambling, at this point, and my advice is worth what you paid for it, since I'm in the very early stages of my own child-rearing project.
Dirtbiker,
Your description of ordering Scholastic Books brought back a flood of memories for me! I LOVED ordering those books in school, and I was always so excited when the orders arrived; it was just as you described it -- like receiving a prize. DO they do that in school anymore?
I also remember a reading program where you advance colors in class as you proceeded to read short essays. Purple was the highest. I forgot what it was called.
CIV. . another approach is the simple capitalistic one. BRIBE THEM. Pay them to read. Or if you don't like the carrot, try the stick. . Don't give them their allowance. I tend to think the former would be preferable.
Bribery is a great idea, Stewdog! That actually worked with my adult "baby" sister. I wanted her to read The Lord of the Rings before the movies came out -- so I paid her to do it!
In part, I'd blame school curricula for the lack of students who read for pleasure. Schools can be great at getting students to read; after all, students have to read assignments to get grades, and if you give them a steady diet of exciting reading there is a good chance they might get hooked.
In practice, schools function in precisely the opposite manner. School reading repells students, convinces them that there is no need to spend time searching for good books. Why? Because the books schools assign students are entirely the wrong books.
American schools, in my experience, have the dreadful habit of assigning Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, Swift, etc. What unites these writers is that they do not write in modern english, and in styles that most students find tedious. Reading through any one of these convinces students without much reading experience that reading is hard work, involves concentration, and they are rarely enthralled enough with the results to think its worth the effort. These authors are great to assign after students have gotten hooked on reading, not before.
What should be done? When I was a kid, what got me hooked on reading was reading translations of French novels (Dumas, Verne, Stendhal, Zola, Balzac) - they are, I think, just the right thing for kids, though I don't think some of them have much literary value. Unfortunately, when I learned English I discovered that many English translations of these novels, in addition to being heavily edited, are also translated in a stilted non-modern English.
In short, the curriculum should, at least at the early stages, de-emphasize important works of literature, and instead emphasize exciting novels that might get the students interested. This need not be done at the expense of the education; there are many important authors that students routinely like ( orwell, salinger, vonnegut, hemingway. also good are flannery o'connor, chinua achebe, naipaul). And for god's sakes, save anything not written in modern english for last.
Relevance is key. When my girls were growing up and asked for me to buy something for them to read. . .I didn't hesitate and I didn't care what it was. . babysitter's club books. . junky teen magazines. . If they would read it, I would get it. . and it worked in the end. . .both are good students and readers.
D for W, I fear that book reports (and quizzes and tests) may be what made reading a chore, rather than a pleasure. (Though I'll never know for sure.)
Stewdog, I am all in favor of bribery, but I cannot come up with enough or good enough bribes to work. Only the required reading list is an incentive, and a rather negative one at that.
Alex, you have a great point. For example, around here the 7th grade required reading list includes only books that involve death (and we're talking 12-13 year old kids). The year gets finished up by reading about WWII, as in death camps, et al. How cheery!
I think the immediate problems are (1) lack of time (too much homework), (2) lack of exercise (too antsy to sit still; too much "health" rather than PE), and (3) too many cool gadgets (which either don't include manuals, don't require manuals, or include Japlish or Chinglish manuals).
Maybe the problem is a happy home. CIV was GLAD to escape through books, despite having no reading role models and very little access to books and magazines.
BTW, yes they do have scholastic books and also yearly book fairs. But no point buying books that only decorate the shelves and don't ever get read. Sigh.
Alex,
First -- I'd be VERY surprised if there were more than a very small percentage of high schools in America that teach Milton. Second, TECHNICALLLY Shakespeare, Milton, and Dickens DO write in modern English (but I suppose you were using that phrase in a colloquial sense). Third, I read David Copperfield by myself when I was twelve or thirteen and LOVED it, so I would quibble with you about Dickens not being accessible to children (his plots are often quite suspenseful and his heroes are often children). I also taught Great Expectations to a group of eighth grade girls with great success. Yes, it was difficult for some of them, but the story was exciting enough to keep them interested and they seemed to take pride in doing something that was considered difficult. Fourth, some of the "important" authors you mentioned are actually quite difficult for even high school students to understand (Hemingway, O'Connor, Naipaul), though they might be technically easier to read, and -- another quibble -- some are not very "important" (Salinger). Finally, I would agree, to a certain extent, with Flannery O'Connor that when you teach literature to children, their tastes needn't be consulted, because their tastes are being molded (I'll try to find the excellent essay she wrote on the subject).
You DO have a point, Alex, in that children should be reading exciting, important books a LOT sooner than they actually do. My experience has been that they aren't assigned "literature" of any kind until they reach middle school, and from middle school on, many of the books that teachers choose are chosen precisely because of their "relevance." Shakespeare IS saved for last -- if you count high school as last.
By the way, I understand the appeal of Verne and Dumas to a child but Balzac and Zola? Granted, I've never read them in French, but . . . BALZAC and ZOLA? What kind of child were you, Alex? :)
There are some famous tales from Shakespeare (Lamb's, I think) that are designed for children, so that they can become familiar with Shakespeare's stories (which are exciting) when they are still too young to actually read Shakespeare. I think that's a great idea. Greek myths are also a good idea for children, I think.
In general, I'm not big on the idea of "relevance," which gives children the notion that somehow Salinger or Toni Morrison are more relevant to their lives -- and thus, more worthy of being read -- than Shakespeare or Jane Austen. It also suggests, I think, that we're incapable of imaginatively entering into stories and lives that are unlike our own.
When I was young, my reading choices were very much influenced by a sort of middlebrow ethic of self-improvement. I had some vague idea about which books were supposed to be good or "classics" and I chose those books precisely for that reason. Because I trusted that there was some reason they had been judged great, I gave those books a chance and, for the most part, I loved them. I realize that the days when a teacher could say to a student, "You need to read this because it is one of the monuments of Western culture," and a student would accept that rationale, are long gone. But I'm just a cranky curmudgeon lamenting the waning of the Third Age, I guess. And elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.
"By the way, I understand the appeal of Verne and Dumas to a child but Balzac and Zola? Granted, I've never read them in French, but . . . BALZAC and ZOLA? What kind of child were you, Alex? :)"
Believe it or not, my favorite was Merimee's A Chronicle of the Reign of Charles IX :)
"TECHNICALLLY Shakespeare, Milton, and Dickens DO write in modern English (but I suppose you were using that phrase in a colloquial sense)."
Right - I did not mean modern english as opposed to middle or old, but rather prose that is easily understandable for most teenagers.
"Shakespeare IS saved for last -- if you count high school as last."
My experience has been similar, but I would keep them on a steady diet of easy-to-read books until perhaps the last 1-2 years of high school, leaving off the Shakespeare until then. Milton, in my experience, is assigned in excerpts throughout, which I don't think is helpful.
"...some of the "important" authors you mentioned are actually quite difficult for even high school students to understand (Hemingway, O'Connor, Naipaul), though they might be technically easier to read"
That is an interesting point. I wonder what effect a curriculum easy-to-read but difficult-to-understand books would produce.
You are right that in many respects what I am proposing is already done. But not quite: many books that are deemed "relevant" to today's high school students are not easily readable (toni morrison for example), and I'd object to including them in the curriculum until very late in the game.
My main reason in believing that language is the main problem is as follows. Most high school students in America, I've observed, do not like Dickens, Twain, or Poe. Most likely they have had to read something by each in class. It is, at least, highly unusual to hear high school students expressing positive opinions about them. By contrast, in Russia, where I spent the first part of my childhood, each of the above is EXTREMELY popular with kids, most likely because they are translated into very understandable Russian. I myself remembering reading Poe's The Gold Bug in my childhood and loving it. I was not alone - it was included in a number of Russian young adult collections.
Clearly Kate Marie was born to be an English major. And Alex, too, perhaps.
Goodness. I'd be happy to get a non reader to read ANYTHING, even trash. But there are far too many kids here who NEVER read. And I'm including the very bright ("gifted") kids.
I don't see how a kid entering HS or college will understand the assigned books without a lot of practice reading. And how will they learn vocabulary without reading?
But the main question remains: How do I get a kid to not only read but WANT to read?
CIV - Here's a phrase I love and miss as it's gone way out of fashion, "I'm doing this for your own good". I refer you back to the book reports comment I made earlier. Yes, book reports were a chore. Annie Sullivan forced those letters into Helen Keller's hand over and over. When Helen understood (waaaaa waaaaaa) she couldn't wait to learn more (I know, I know, that was just a movie). When it occurred to me that I was enjoying the book BECAUSE of the questions I knew I would have to answer, it was no longer a chore. Never having been a teacher, I imagine that's the payoff - knowing that they "get it" because you've shown them how. Reading and comprehension are not "natural" human activities any more than driving a car or typing on a keyboard. If you want your kids to appreciate reading more than they do, force the tools down their throats if necessary. They will thank you one day (another great phrase used too little).
- Dirtbiker for W
Bravo, Dirtbiker. That's the point I was trying to make about my own early reading experiences; I had eventually internalized the "it's for your own good" argument, and it's an argument that -- at the time -- parents, teachers, and society in general were not sheepish about making. Now the only time you hear it is when kids take medicine or get vaccinations.
There's a great scene in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn where the mother, who reads Shakespeare to her children every evening, finally begins to question the purpose and usefulness of reading literature they can barely understand, and the heavily accented grandmother intervenes with a great speech, saying, essentially, this reading will not stop -- this is GOOD for the children. And I love The Miracle Worker example; one of my other favorite scenes in that movie is the really long when where Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller have a knock down, drag out fight about using a napkin and utensils at the breakfast table. In my opinion, that's how all education begins -- with coercion. And Helen Keller DID thank Annie Sullivan later, didn't she?
Just a thought:
We assume kids aren't reading, because they aren't seen reading books. But is it possible that with the rise of the internet, that they might be actually be reading MORE? That raises the quality of content issue for sure, but in terms of numbers of words per day read, they might actually be ahead of our generation.
I had hoped the internet, blogs, email, etc. would increase reading and writing, but from what I've seen, it only does so for people who already were reading and writing.
I've noticed that the net is the preferred place for kids to do research. Google finds the web page, "find" locates the particulars, "copy & paste" get the info onto paper, and various web sites build the bibliography. Not much reading involved there.
And, if you've ever read kid/teen IM, blogs, or email, you'd fear for the future of our language.
Post a Comment
<< Home