Mike Calou
Commentary Week Eight
The boy who seen the light
I was torn by conflicting ideas when I finished reading the Tom Fox article “Basic Writing As Cultural Conflict.” One part of me thinks that teaching writing, particularly at the university level, should adhere to the strict tenants of the English language: grammar, spelling, punctuation. But, the other part of me is thinking that, based on the Ball & Muhammad article, “Language Diversity in Teacher Education and in the Classroom,” that the issue of language diversity should be considered by the teacher as another way students can express themselves.
Let’s face it, language competency, and the associated literacy components of reading and writing, are a form of power. People with good cultural language skills tend to dominate those people who are lacking, or perceived as lacking, those same language skills. When students from another culture enter the classroom they are trying to improve their general knowledge of a discipline. But, the discipline they seek to know more about is rooted in literacy; reading and writing.
Academic writing is “a specialized discourse” which students must “appropriate.” Students must learn to write “as though they were easily and comfortably one with their audience, as though they were members of the academy, or historians or anthropologists or economists; they have to invent the university by assembling and mimicking its language” (Bartholomae, David; Inventing the University, p. 408)
In order for the student to access the knowledge base of the university the student has to become competent using the English language. This is the point I think Ball and Muhammad are making when they speak of an “idealized ‘standard English’ and only one correct way to express ideas” (77). From my perspective, since I am learning how to teach writing, what I think Ball and Muhammad are saying is that we have to be tolerant of non-standard English to the extent that our students may use non-standard English as a means of expression.
Tom Fox gives a good example of expressive discourse through the use of non-standard English: The boy who saw the light (75-77). Wow! I got the message that Leon (the writer of “The boy who saw the light”) was trying to convey. I understood the message even though the writing was not “standard English.” Ball and Muhammad talk about teaching future teachers strategies to help bridge the literacy gap. They suggest that the skills of the teacher should involve a cultural awareness of the student. Ball and Muhammad don’t mention specific teaching skills but they do discuss the enlightened awareness of the student teacher. I think that teaching strategies to teach writing to culturally diverse students can be learned, but the strategies won’t be effective until the teacher comes to grips with the culture of his students. In the case of Leon, the student author mentioned above, it would only take a “skills approach” (Fox, 66) to silence an obviously potentially talented writer. The real teaching will be to shape Leon’s writing so that it can be shared with a wider, not necessarily “whiter,” audience: or as Leon put it, “You mean ‘whiten’ it up a little?” (Fox, 80).
When we walk into our classroom the idea that all students are a “cookie-cutter” version of ourselves is unrealistic. There are very few homogeneous communities in this country. It is very narrow-minded to think that every student will be from the same cultural background, let alone every student at the same English language literacy level when they enter our classroom. But, the curriculum we teach assumes that every student is from the same culture and learns in the same way. The problem in teaching literacy, particularly academic literacy, is the gap between the curriculum and the learning styles and cultural background of the student. Ball and Muhammad discuss an approach to teacher teaching that may bridge the literacy gap and the article by Tom Fox blends the three approaches that the university takes to help new students become academic writers with reasons why these approaches do not work.
The writing placement tests that entering university students take are evaluated from a set cultural perspective. The writing samples are evaluated and students are placed in the appropriate remedial writing class if their writing is judged “deficient” (Fox, 66). This process may devalue the students’ culture. The process of tracking students based on writing ability sends a message to the student: you’re either with us or against us (G.W. Bush, September 20, 2001, speech to Congress). The quote is a bit harsh, but the realities of how the university (and every other educational institution that tracks students) stigmatizes students should not be understated.
Another result of the placement test evaluation is that developmental writers are taught using a “skills approach” (Fox, 66): an approach that separates language features from intention. The use of the skills approach may deaden the cultural fire burning in some students because writing becomes more of a “technique” rather than a cultural expression. Writing is a cultural expression and as a teacher I have to find some way to teach my culturally diverse students how to write better. This is the job of the developmental writing teacher. It doesn’t matter what level student you teach; cultural awareness is cultural awareness regardless of the age of the student.
The most important idea from this week’s reading is the fact that teachers need to be sensitive to the cultural diversity of their students. If teachers are not culturally aware of their students then teachers won’t be able to effectively teach them to write and students won’t be able to efficiently learn to write.