Zebroski and Williamson Response 9/9

With these readings, I was appreciative of the fact that they worked well as a supplement to the excerpts assigned last week from the David Crystal book. Both essays more than adequately addressed the concerns that we all brought up during previous class sessions. Confusion had surfaced as to the use value of the readings in terms of teaching actual writing courses. A related difficulty arose in not knowing what exactly should be taken away from the text. While the Crystal readings were interesting, these articles were *grounded*.

What I found most compelling in the excerpts from the Zebroski readings was his insistence on unifying course structure with a theme. My undergraduate composition courses were helplessly disorganized, complete with altogether unrelated topics for each essay assignment. I agree with Zebroski in the idea that, as an instructor, one must use the set-up of a course as a mirror for the coherence (and flexibility!!) asked of students' papers. The idea of a theme is great from a future-instructor's standpoint in that the course will be much more engaging and relevant to my interests. If I were to conduct my class in the style of some composition courses I have taken, then I would be bored to tears. Assignments which were typical in the general writing courses at my previous university included such prompts as If I could change one thing about campus it would be... and I (dis)agree with (particular policy) because of x... Nearly every student wrote about parking lots and dress codes respectively. I cannot imagine that the instructor was at all engaged in this coursework. Additionally, from the perspective of a student, it is very difficult to say something about such drab, randomized topics. And so: having a theme for a composition class seems like a great way to get all parties involved in the work being done.

On a similar note, I found several of Zebroski's assignment suggestions provocative. I will certainly be keeping them in mind when I start drafting my syllabus for the spring. Especially appealing is the ethnography paper; although, of course, it would have to be catered to the theme at hand (whatever that ends up being...). He notes that this assignment is successful largely because it requires the student to be active, and my hope is that this sort of activity will spur more interest in my class than the standard level of freshmen enthusiasm for required writing courses.

Williamson illuminates the part of class discussion we had last week regarding how dogmatic one should or should not be as a writing instructor when dealing with incorrect grammar. He argues that an inflexible approach to teaching writing which focuses on fixing grammatical errors thereby "stultifies the production of language" (13). That is, this approach does nothing to foster coherent communication. Content is forfeited for form, and one is left with perfectly polished sentences that don't say anything. While I may contradict the stance I expressed during discussion: I do believe that language cannot be taught as math. There are facets of it which may function as such, but this should not be the focus. Certainly grammar should serve to enhance clarity, and there is much for young writers (myself included, I'm sure) to learn about the potential grace of sentences. However, it is much more important for students' future academic and non-academic endeavors that they are able to communicate an idea rather than identify a dangling modifier. I am still sorting out how exactly one should/could strike the right balance (as is evident in my waffling).