Anderson and Noden discuss overlapping concepts in the instruction of grammar. However, they have somewhat different approaches. Anderson's instruction methods are oriented more to understanding sentences, where Noden's contribution revolves around adding specific grammatical elements--which would have to be committed to each student's memory before Noden's brushstroke method could be utilized.
Despite these different approaches, the two writings are compatible in terms of use in an educational setting. In fact, the two in unison may even be highly effective. Before that is discussed, however, I will attempt to condense both sections in 4-5 fundamental points, avoiding over-summary while retaining the relevant content and raw message.
From Anderson:
1. In order to help students understand what sentences are it is helpful to break complex sentences down to 2 words, those being the subject and action components.
2. From these simple sentences, complex sentences can be explained as the development of a single idea, which Anderson recommends encouraging students to visualize (the "mind movie" concept)
3. Teaching register swap/code-switching in the context of story dialogue will help students understand the importance of a formal register.
4. Speaking a sentence out loud facilitates student realization of the relationship between natural pauses during reader and speaking and comma use, and thereby teach the student effective use of the absolute.
And from Noden:
1. Encouraging vividity and specificity within student writing will encourage more creative and expressive writing.
2. In student writing, the "Mind Movie" concept may be utilized as a teaching tool to accomplish this goal (from Noden #1)
3. Drafting a more general text and filling in concrete details in a certain sequence may be an effective method of gradually expanding both a young writer's creative vocabularly and improve the impact of their writing.
4. Nearly any activity which encourages students to generate details or describe sensory stimulation can be useful in accomplishing the above goal (from Noden #3)
I am not particularly informed on the cognitive processes of children beyond Psychology class or two I have taken, but laying out Anderson and Noden in such a way as my list above seems, to me, to suggest an effective means of writing instruction which combines the two. The "mind movie" concept, revolving around mental pictures explained in the framework of a film camera, is relevant in the instructive methods of both textbooks. Anderson, however, places additional emphasis on speaking, which directs the focus back to the assembly of communicated ideas. This allows a student who is not particularly interested in creative writing to nonetheless maintain a strong working understanding of grammar and syntax, based on how they would comfortably speak a written sentence.
The two may even be related back to each other in a variation upon the "code-switching" system. Anderson stresses, in this section, the importance of contextually-appropriate language by asking students what the use of a double-negative in a job interview suggests to an employer. This encourages both a formal "code" and an informal "code." Noden's suggestions may be employed to encourage a sort of more expressive, artistic form of code which relies on vivid and specific imagery, where Anderson suggests a functional but more-condensed code for effective but still relatively general communication. The formal, informal and creative codes, introduced as 3 separate but related elements, could be used both as a way to divide lesson plans and to encourage student understanding of the different levels of communication without the process of code-switching seeming alien or confusing.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
I found this section a bit harder to divide into 5 key points easily.. at this point, both Weaver and Anderson have presented their overarching arguments, and the texts tend to repeat themselves a little bit more than before. Accordingly, this list only contains 4 larger ideas, but should hopefully nonetheless indicate a familiarity with the reading. The first 2 points are essentially the same points from past chapters re-stated, where the 3rd and 4th refer to new concepts.
1. Freewriting deep in experimentation, without emphasis on the 'correctness' or 'quality' of the content, is an essential element of education with regards to developing writing talents.
2. After or during the process of freewriting, elements of the material which make the content effective or less-effective should be discussed, so that these stylistic elements are integrated or removed, with the goal of improving individual writing style.
3. In grammar and structure instruction, classroom wallcharts are more effective than posters because they allow regular and dynamic revision and/or addition, thereby more effectively "keeping up" with student needs.
4. Because writing should be taught in the context of practical application, examples should be derived from actual student or instructor composition, and less from pre-fabricated samples and assignments.
I'm fully in support of the first 3 points here--particularly the idea of using dynamic, ever-growing wallcharts, because these charts develop for the individuals reading them and can change or grow as needed. I can recall instructional posters from my own childhood, but I remember finding the examples given thereupon so stunted and difficult to apply in a broader context that I did not use them in the course of my elementary school education. After elementary school, most of the posters I can recall apply to abstract labor-related concepts such as hard work and not making excuses, and did not contain pedagogical material, and those posters beyond that point are therefore irrelevant here.
The only major point of disagreement I have found with the assigned texts lies in the 4th point, which I derived from Weaver on page 57. Here, in order to obtain the sentences for discussion and instruction, Weaver indicates that examples may be taken from sentences students have written. This may just be my personal opinion, but I DESPISE these exercises and have since I was 5 years old. To me, it violates the "safe" environment of the composition notebook which Weaver describes, in which freedom is granted, to put sentences on public display. Obviously, a student can be asked, but this creates a pressure situation in which there is very little individual autonomy. To be more direct, it puts students "on the spot" and invites their writing to be discussed or dissected at a point when they may not be ready. I can recall this experience many times throughout my school career. Generally speaking, the ordeal goes the same way--the sentence is selected and then picked apart--dissected, usually cruelly--by the class at large. It may be to do, to some extent, with the existing models of grammar, but I tend to believe the ultimate reality of this matter is that students are not kind on their peers work and teachers, though well-intentioned, seem to forget this. If the objective really is fostering individual strength in writing, these surprise sentence trials create too high a level of tension to teach effectively.
I would instead encourage more separation of these two points. The original writing notebook that students use should only be checked for completion (if at all), and from this students should be allowed to compile their own self-designated lists of sentences they wish to discuss, thoughts they wish to better structure, etc. Writing is, like any other creative process, one that does not necessarily need to be completely transparent. Adding this layer of "protection" to student writing would help avoid embarassing or uncomfortable situations for developing writers but not allowing their works to be put "on the spot" for the sake of a larger lesson.
I am excited to discuss these pieces in a larger group discussion, to see how individual experiences among the class have informed opinions on these ideas!
1. Freewriting deep in experimentation, without emphasis on the 'correctness' or 'quality' of the content, is an essential element of education with regards to developing writing talents.
2. After or during the process of freewriting, elements of the material which make the content effective or less-effective should be discussed, so that these stylistic elements are integrated or removed, with the goal of improving individual writing style.
3. In grammar and structure instruction, classroom wallcharts are more effective than posters because they allow regular and dynamic revision and/or addition, thereby more effectively "keeping up" with student needs.
4. Because writing should be taught in the context of practical application, examples should be derived from actual student or instructor composition, and less from pre-fabricated samples and assignments.
I'm fully in support of the first 3 points here--particularly the idea of using dynamic, ever-growing wallcharts, because these charts develop for the individuals reading them and can change or grow as needed. I can recall instructional posters from my own childhood, but I remember finding the examples given thereupon so stunted and difficult to apply in a broader context that I did not use them in the course of my elementary school education. After elementary school, most of the posters I can recall apply to abstract labor-related concepts such as hard work and not making excuses, and did not contain pedagogical material, and those posters beyond that point are therefore irrelevant here.
The only major point of disagreement I have found with the assigned texts lies in the 4th point, which I derived from Weaver on page 57. Here, in order to obtain the sentences for discussion and instruction, Weaver indicates that examples may be taken from sentences students have written. This may just be my personal opinion, but I DESPISE these exercises and have since I was 5 years old. To me, it violates the "safe" environment of the composition notebook which Weaver describes, in which freedom is granted, to put sentences on public display. Obviously, a student can be asked, but this creates a pressure situation in which there is very little individual autonomy. To be more direct, it puts students "on the spot" and invites their writing to be discussed or dissected at a point when they may not be ready. I can recall this experience many times throughout my school career. Generally speaking, the ordeal goes the same way--the sentence is selected and then picked apart--dissected, usually cruelly--by the class at large. It may be to do, to some extent, with the existing models of grammar, but I tend to believe the ultimate reality of this matter is that students are not kind on their peers work and teachers, though well-intentioned, seem to forget this. If the objective really is fostering individual strength in writing, these surprise sentence trials create too high a level of tension to teach effectively.
I would instead encourage more separation of these two points. The original writing notebook that students use should only be checked for completion (if at all), and from this students should be allowed to compile their own self-designated lists of sentences they wish to discuss, thoughts they wish to better structure, etc. Writing is, like any other creative process, one that does not necessarily need to be completely transparent. Adding this layer of "protection" to student writing would help avoid embarassing or uncomfortable situations for developing writers but not allowing their works to be put "on the spot" for the sake of a larger lesson.
I am excited to discuss these pieces in a larger group discussion, to see how individual experiences among the class have informed opinions on these ideas!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I didn't get the opportunity to see you all in class last Thursday, but hopefully this week's reading and the related responses should sufficiently compensate.
Weaver begins by discussing the problematic nature of editing papers, and then attempts to sort the most damaging errors (in terms of professional and formal communication) to determine what manner or manners of errors ought to be corrected, while still retaining a sense of autonomy within the student to compose. The four supposedly most damaging errors, found on page 145 of Weaver's text, are
1. Nonstandard verb forms
2. Lack of subject-verb agreement
3. Double negatives
4. Objective pronoun as subject
Weaver argues that these errors communicate to middle-class America that the writer's education is presumably insufficient. These, Weaver argues, are the sorts of errors worth correcting for the sake of formal communication. As in past chapters, Weaver expresses the need to "code-switch" for writers. I find conflict, however, with Weaver's perception of dialects--such a concept as "African-American English" existing as a separate dialect strikes me as inappropriate to transfer to a classroom setting. This may be more of a social issue, however, than a pedagogical one--the identification of "dialects" renders too rigid the definition of in-groups and out-groups within language, and creates further division within the concept of race where there exist no functional or ethically-sound reason for these differentiations to exist, other than convenience. Interlanguage is perhaps somewhat more sound of a concept, because it stems from the gaps between languages and not what appears to be an attempt to further differentiate dialects into more-disconnected bodies of thought and speech.
Weaver again emphases the importance of teaching writing and grammar in a way which construct within the writer, rather than forcing the writer to learn so rigid and defined of an existing construct. The new process is called "constructivist grammar," which emphasis writing as a process rather than the product of obedience. Now that this theory has been articulated more thoroughly, I am inclined to strengthen my agreement with the educational paradigm Weaver suggests.
In the second half of the assigned text, Weaver discusses more specifically expository writing, and in doing so confronts a problem I addressed in a past blog--the "rules" of writing for school. I'm certain anyone reading this has been indoctrinated to some degree or another in the structure of 5-paragraph format, and I'm certain anyone reading this knows how dry, even soul-less, that 5-paragraph format texts often feel. Weaver suggests emphasizing the narrative element of writing, rather than the informative element of writing, could improve expository writing greatly. Surely enough, the 2 example texts given speak for themselves--the first example following "the rules" and feeling far less interesting, and the second being driven more by an evocative, personal and intimiate narrative style.
Here, Weaver places her model of academic instruction into the most concrete words yet, encouraging a focus on rhetorical value of writing rather than obedience to a set of regulations. The Constructivist approach within this model is evident, directing the writer to focus on appeals to Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Rather than emphasizing how sentences are to be structured, Weaver's approach guides the writer to improve the sentence using their own perception of appeal to the outside world, thereby rendering writing perhaps more authentic.
Now that we have begun to expose and unravel Weaver's methods, I am excited to read more and discover greater depth to this approach than I had previously concieved. For now, I look forward to a face-to-face discussion of these concepts.
Weaver begins by discussing the problematic nature of editing papers, and then attempts to sort the most damaging errors (in terms of professional and formal communication) to determine what manner or manners of errors ought to be corrected, while still retaining a sense of autonomy within the student to compose. The four supposedly most damaging errors, found on page 145 of Weaver's text, are
1. Nonstandard verb forms
2. Lack of subject-verb agreement
3. Double negatives
4. Objective pronoun as subject
Weaver argues that these errors communicate to middle-class America that the writer's education is presumably insufficient. These, Weaver argues, are the sorts of errors worth correcting for the sake of formal communication. As in past chapters, Weaver expresses the need to "code-switch" for writers. I find conflict, however, with Weaver's perception of dialects--such a concept as "African-American English" existing as a separate dialect strikes me as inappropriate to transfer to a classroom setting. This may be more of a social issue, however, than a pedagogical one--the identification of "dialects" renders too rigid the definition of in-groups and out-groups within language, and creates further division within the concept of race where there exist no functional or ethically-sound reason for these differentiations to exist, other than convenience. Interlanguage is perhaps somewhat more sound of a concept, because it stems from the gaps between languages and not what appears to be an attempt to further differentiate dialects into more-disconnected bodies of thought and speech.
Weaver again emphases the importance of teaching writing and grammar in a way which construct within the writer, rather than forcing the writer to learn so rigid and defined of an existing construct. The new process is called "constructivist grammar," which emphasis writing as a process rather than the product of obedience. Now that this theory has been articulated more thoroughly, I am inclined to strengthen my agreement with the educational paradigm Weaver suggests.
In the second half of the assigned text, Weaver discusses more specifically expository writing, and in doing so confronts a problem I addressed in a past blog--the "rules" of writing for school. I'm certain anyone reading this has been indoctrinated to some degree or another in the structure of 5-paragraph format, and I'm certain anyone reading this knows how dry, even soul-less, that 5-paragraph format texts often feel. Weaver suggests emphasizing the narrative element of writing, rather than the informative element of writing, could improve expository writing greatly. Surely enough, the 2 example texts given speak for themselves--the first example following "the rules" and feeling far less interesting, and the second being driven more by an evocative, personal and intimiate narrative style.
Here, Weaver places her model of academic instruction into the most concrete words yet, encouraging a focus on rhetorical value of writing rather than obedience to a set of regulations. The Constructivist approach within this model is evident, directing the writer to focus on appeals to Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Rather than emphasizing how sentences are to be structured, Weaver's approach guides the writer to improve the sentence using their own perception of appeal to the outside world, thereby rendering writing perhaps more authentic.
Now that we have begun to expose and unravel Weaver's methods, I am excited to read more and discover greater depth to this approach than I had previously concieved. For now, I look forward to a face-to-face discussion of these concepts.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Noden and Anderson's texts present overlapping attitudes with approaches which contrast slightly in method. Anderson's text seemed more packed with information, and for this reason 4 of my 5 Big Ideas come from Anderson. My 5th, which contrasts Anderson in some ways, comes from Noden. Having felt satisfied with my format last time, I'd like to outline, in general terms, these larger points before I build discussion thereupon.
1. In understanding developing writers (or any writer), it is important to understand the concepts and pseudo-concepts which they utilize. Individuals do not write without reason.
2. A paradigm shift oriented towards "writer's craft" in the academic instruction of language is necessary or preferable.
3. The instructional model to teach writer's craft focuses on shorter grammatical lessons and places more emphasis on writing.
4. The focal point of the instruction of grammar should be on sophisticated errors related to communication and not simple errors related to grammatical "rules" in themselves.
5. The focal point of the instruction of writing (according to Noden) should be built around the "Five Basic Brush Strokes" of image-evocative, descriptive writing.
As last time, I find myself tending to agree with the authors. Upon this reading, however, I have seen the beginnings of the proposed model and I am more confident in this approach--or, rather, I am confident in Anderson's.
I think the concept of "writer's craft" is valuable as both a means of academic instruction and as an alternate philosophy towards writing. I question if this approach may work for all students (bearing in mind that the majority of people do not particularly care to write, and many who can write creatively choose not to), but I know very little about educational strategies at the intended age level. Nonetheless, literacy is vital, and ultimately an academic strategy will have to be implemented. To me, this model appears to hold a lot more capacity for creative expression and satisfaction in writing, but again it is hard for me to say because I am aware that not all people derive the same intrinsic satisfaction from preparing a text that I do myself.
While it is certainly a well-developed academic plan, I am inclined to question Noden's approach moreso than Anderson's. Personally, I can recall being taught in the "5 steps to (academic goal)" approach, and it doesn't work as well for me because I have never tended to learn sequentially, even with modes of academia where this would seem more feasible. My own learning biases aside, however, I also question the preservation of creative integrity within Noden's approach. While the five figurative brush strokes are all undeniable ways to improve a mundane sentence, I noticed that most of Noden's samples sound too similar in tone and content. Maybe it's just me, but at times I think that the creators of these academic models sometimes forget that they are being implemented on children between 4 and 12 years old or so. At this level, I question the ability of children to apply these concepts as guidelines and not as ways to appease the instructor or simply finish the required writing. I have to wonder if teaching using the "5 steps..." or "5 tools..." approach that is so common may be detrimental in creating a new, more agreeable but not necessarily more beneficial, form of subconscious confine within writing.
1. In understanding developing writers (or any writer), it is important to understand the concepts and pseudo-concepts which they utilize. Individuals do not write without reason.
2. A paradigm shift oriented towards "writer's craft" in the academic instruction of language is necessary or preferable.
3. The instructional model to teach writer's craft focuses on shorter grammatical lessons and places more emphasis on writing.
4. The focal point of the instruction of grammar should be on sophisticated errors related to communication and not simple errors related to grammatical "rules" in themselves.
5. The focal point of the instruction of writing (according to Noden) should be built around the "Five Basic Brush Strokes" of image-evocative, descriptive writing.
As last time, I find myself tending to agree with the authors. Upon this reading, however, I have seen the beginnings of the proposed model and I am more confident in this approach--or, rather, I am confident in Anderson's.
I think the concept of "writer's craft" is valuable as both a means of academic instruction and as an alternate philosophy towards writing. I question if this approach may work for all students (bearing in mind that the majority of people do not particularly care to write, and many who can write creatively choose not to), but I know very little about educational strategies at the intended age level. Nonetheless, literacy is vital, and ultimately an academic strategy will have to be implemented. To me, this model appears to hold a lot more capacity for creative expression and satisfaction in writing, but again it is hard for me to say because I am aware that not all people derive the same intrinsic satisfaction from preparing a text that I do myself.
While it is certainly a well-developed academic plan, I am inclined to question Noden's approach moreso than Anderson's. Personally, I can recall being taught in the "5 steps to (academic goal)" approach, and it doesn't work as well for me because I have never tended to learn sequentially, even with modes of academia where this would seem more feasible. My own learning biases aside, however, I also question the preservation of creative integrity within Noden's approach. While the five figurative brush strokes are all undeniable ways to improve a mundane sentence, I noticed that most of Noden's samples sound too similar in tone and content. Maybe it's just me, but at times I think that the creators of these academic models sometimes forget that they are being implemented on children between 4 and 12 years old or so. At this level, I question the ability of children to apply these concepts as guidelines and not as ways to appease the instructor or simply finish the required writing. I have to wonder if teaching using the "5 steps..." or "5 tools..." approach that is so common may be detrimental in creating a new, more agreeable but not necessarily more beneficial, form of subconscious confine within writing.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Grammar Models (and the reform thereof?)
I apologize for this being slightly behind the submission deadline--it owes to a series of events unimportant to the text.
Thus far into Weaver's text, I still have trouble getting a precise hold on my feelings, leaving me at the same point of uncertainty regarding my own opinions on this. I feel as if the most natural way to let these thoughts flow would be found in outlining the main points which I have extracted from Weaver and expounding upon them openly to a point of satisfaction. For the sake of organization, and in an attempt to better structure my 5 crucial ideas, I will list them first, broadly.
1. The current academic model employed to teach grammar is ineffective.
2. The current academic model employed to teach grammar revolves primarily around so-titled "traditional grammar."
3. The impotence of the current model of grammar instruction owes to the excessively rigid and often-arbitrary nature of traditional grammar.
4. The centration of grammar education around traditional grammar inhibits writing by creating prescriptive rules of writing.
5. "Positive grammar," or the instruction of grammar focused on broadly-audienced communication ("authentic" reading and writing), should be the focus of grammar instruction.
As I stated, I am still conflicted on some of the points that Weaver makes. I may be excessively skeptical on the sole basis of mistrusting dramatic shifts in academic paradigm (ie Learning new things is scary and hard to do.), but the the first two chapters of the text seem, at times, to only nod to the studies they cite, where I would prefer more development in these sections. Chapter 3 cited plenty of evidence, but the first two left something to be desired, in my opinion. Nonetheless, for the most part, I am inclined to agree with Weaver's proposed model of instruction. If not in terms of passing a standardized test (awful things, aren't they?), this approach would undoubtedly improve the cumulative level of communication among individuals... or at least add a pleasant dash of theatricality to one's words.
Most of us reached consensus in class in discussing the nature of what Weaver refers to as "traditional grammar-" often arbitrary, at times difficult to use, and not often present as a conscious process tied to learning. Indeed, grammar does seem to be a primarily subconscious procedure--from my own experience, this is how I learned to communicate. Having reflected on my personal experience with writing, I better understand what Weaver means when referring to the restrictive nature of grammar. A lot of hallmarks of what I consider my own personal style of communication are, in terms of traditional grammar, "incorrect." Nonetheless, because of the ability to communicate which I naturally developed, I have yet to be kicked out of the English language. Grammar, in the education context it presently exists in, serves at best as an instructional exercise in futility (as the text states, it simply doesn't translate into personal style consciously) and at worst as a source of discouragement for young individuals only beginning to develop their own personal form of communication.
The new means of grammar instruction which Weaver begins to develop in these chapters seems satisfactory in most regards, though obviously we will all need to explore this more before an informed opinion can be made. So far, I have felt drawn to Weaver's approach--in particular, the concept of "code-switching" mentioned on page 40 and developed in Chapter 14. The concept has not been given much space within the text yet, but the brief overview given indicates a point that I find crucial--perhaps the most crucial--in communication. I feel no allegiance to grammar, but "code-switching" is essential. Most people do this already--we call it a "filter" or refer to differences in how we speak to various people connected to us. No communication should be discouraged or deemed "wrong--" but there may emerge a point at which communication breaks down, without some unifying "codes" for broader communication. This is where SOME heightened degree of structure may be beneficial--simply to allow more fluid communication among groups. Teaching this independent of rigid grammar, however, may be difficult. Then again, we are still fairly early into the book. I look forward to Weaver expounding upon these ideas in future chapters, and seeing the structure of this mode of instruction develop.
Thus far into Weaver's text, I still have trouble getting a precise hold on my feelings, leaving me at the same point of uncertainty regarding my own opinions on this. I feel as if the most natural way to let these thoughts flow would be found in outlining the main points which I have extracted from Weaver and expounding upon them openly to a point of satisfaction. For the sake of organization, and in an attempt to better structure my 5 crucial ideas, I will list them first, broadly.
1. The current academic model employed to teach grammar is ineffective.
2. The current academic model employed to teach grammar revolves primarily around so-titled "traditional grammar."
3. The impotence of the current model of grammar instruction owes to the excessively rigid and often-arbitrary nature of traditional grammar.
4. The centration of grammar education around traditional grammar inhibits writing by creating prescriptive rules of writing.
5. "Positive grammar," or the instruction of grammar focused on broadly-audienced communication ("authentic" reading and writing), should be the focus of grammar instruction.
As I stated, I am still conflicted on some of the points that Weaver makes. I may be excessively skeptical on the sole basis of mistrusting dramatic shifts in academic paradigm (ie Learning new things is scary and hard to do.), but the the first two chapters of the text seem, at times, to only nod to the studies they cite, where I would prefer more development in these sections. Chapter 3 cited plenty of evidence, but the first two left something to be desired, in my opinion. Nonetheless, for the most part, I am inclined to agree with Weaver's proposed model of instruction. If not in terms of passing a standardized test (awful things, aren't they?), this approach would undoubtedly improve the cumulative level of communication among individuals... or at least add a pleasant dash of theatricality to one's words.
Most of us reached consensus in class in discussing the nature of what Weaver refers to as "traditional grammar-" often arbitrary, at times difficult to use, and not often present as a conscious process tied to learning. Indeed, grammar does seem to be a primarily subconscious procedure--from my own experience, this is how I learned to communicate. Having reflected on my personal experience with writing, I better understand what Weaver means when referring to the restrictive nature of grammar. A lot of hallmarks of what I consider my own personal style of communication are, in terms of traditional grammar, "incorrect." Nonetheless, because of the ability to communicate which I naturally developed, I have yet to be kicked out of the English language. Grammar, in the education context it presently exists in, serves at best as an instructional exercise in futility (as the text states, it simply doesn't translate into personal style consciously) and at worst as a source of discouragement for young individuals only beginning to develop their own personal form of communication.
The new means of grammar instruction which Weaver begins to develop in these chapters seems satisfactory in most regards, though obviously we will all need to explore this more before an informed opinion can be made. So far, I have felt drawn to Weaver's approach--in particular, the concept of "code-switching" mentioned on page 40 and developed in Chapter 14. The concept has not been given much space within the text yet, but the brief overview given indicates a point that I find crucial--perhaps the most crucial--in communication. I feel no allegiance to grammar, but "code-switching" is essential. Most people do this already--we call it a "filter" or refer to differences in how we speak to various people connected to us. No communication should be discouraged or deemed "wrong--" but there may emerge a point at which communication breaks down, without some unifying "codes" for broader communication. This is where SOME heightened degree of structure may be beneficial--simply to allow more fluid communication among groups. Teaching this independent of rigid grammar, however, may be difficult. Then again, we are still fairly early into the book. I look forward to Weaver expounding upon these ideas in future chapters, and seeing the structure of this mode of instruction develop.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Test Post
I'm just making sure this posts successfully! Also the default timestamp for these entries is off by 3 hours, just for the record.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)