Write Like Fireworks... Not Fog

One reason I was pleased to read Anderson's take on sentence fragments because I was really looking for some discrimination on this topic as to appropriate v. inappropriate usage. He addresses this in the very beginning, saying to "avoid writing [fragments] in high stakes situations such as testing" (64). I also saw this first section and thought of some of the sentences I've been stalking from poetry, as I mentioned in my last blog. Fragments abound in the stanzas of poetry! So it really connects to what Anderson is talking about here, which is that fragments are not always a bad thing. Sometimes, they add flavor to the text or change its tone. Other times, there are just periods placed where commas can be. As in the Chuckie doll example, the student is actually pigeonholing his or her thoughts, but simply using the wrong punctuation.

On the next page, I selected this quotation for its value in teaching any subject: "It's easy to lose students' attention when we talk in abstractions..." (65). How does he solve this problem? He has his students apply their grammatical knowledge by engaging with examples and hence, breaking down some sentences into their core parts. As I'm playing out the implementation of activities like the Sentence Smackdown and learning to "create mind movies" with our mind's camera (69). I'm thinking that maybe these activities have a few too many bells and whistles for me to handle. No offense to Mr. Anderson, but I don't think hosting a WWE grammar lesson is my thing! But that's why they say "adapt not adopt" - these few strategies may not fit my teaching persona, but I can use the same underlying ideas and adapt the way I implement them. For example, I appreciate how he not only allows, but encourages his students to play around with grammar and try different combinations using variations on syntax and diction. I see this in lessons like "Only You Can Prevent Dangling Modifiers - Playing with Sentence Parts."

Noden's chapter puts emphasis on the amount of detail in the text. Every detail must be included because that is the only way the writer can even hope to describe to the reader what is going on in her mind's eye. Following suit with Noden's trope of the writer as artist, he first focuses on imagery, a literary device in which no details can be spared. Noden expands on his plea to student writers to "show, not tell" by asking them how you can communicate a concept without explicitly voicing it. Students must form clear images in their own minds first in order to describe the effects of an action or concept.

The first section about using specific verbs I feel very passionate about, because one of my high school English teachers used to always encourage us to use "vivid verbs" and I have been using that term ever since. While reading my WIFYS students' papers, I praised them for spicing up their sentences with effective verbs, labeling them as vivid verbs.  What makes the term vivid verbs so catchy? A specific adjective! That is Noden's next point. Adjectives are key in modifying and describing, so they are what students utilize the most when instructed to make their passages more specific. He says, however, this can He later talks about painting imagery in dialogue, which is something I have never thought about before. I think this would be difficult, because I would tend to write dialogue in my own casual tongue, and not think about how that character speaks influences his/her depiction. I like Noden's views because they focus on more on creative writing as well as informative writing.

"Writing is the life of the composition party!"

Anderson is probably my favorite grammarian that we are learning from at this point in the semester. He takes a somewhat casual approach, but implements strategies that are usually quite agreeable. I like how he talks about the writer's journal as the staple of teaching effective writing. His "mini-process" of writing seems to be effective because it gives students a space to write freely and express themselves on issues that are relevant to them. If I had to take one quote away from this lesson, it would be this: "It's important for students to see how puncuation works to hold and connect larger texts together." (33) Examples come from the writing of authors, the teacher and of course, the students. The writer's eye (I) activity made me think of the students as poets for some reason. Being a fan of poetry, I think this genre would provide some great nontraditional examples of creative writing for students. In fact, I believe I will look at some poetry for my next sentence stalking! The student-led writing individualizes their approach to writing and conventions - it makes the experience relatable and interesting. Anderson even gives guidelines on specific ways to make these methods work, which is really helpful. But what exactly makes his "Editor's Checklist" different from the others? Is it simply the way in which he is using these tools?

In the beginning of Chapter 4, Weaver provides an example of an almost successful writing lesson. She says what is missing from this mini-lesson is consistency, meaning and a strong follow-up. However, I think the dreaded grammar worksheet is what did it in! Weaver includes a passage saying how we don't teach kids to learn all the gears and parts of a car before teaching them to drive, so why try to teach them every part of speech? It is parallel to Anderson's "Express Line" editing sessions - just getting the items you need. I really loved the student's sentence: "I felt the wind going through the trees like ice cream melting in the summer." The teacher noticed that the student was using -ing verbs, but I noticed that she used a simile! It shows the extent to which our language is learned, not taught. Again, I am eating up these specific strategies that are provided (research and experience included!). However, I again wish to challenge their effectiveness in the name of Murphy's Law... for example, the focus lesson. Weaver says that all it takes "is a general invitation: '...I'm going to teach more about this at our writers' table in about five minutes" (66) and she assumes that you will get some takers. What if this isn't enough? Also, Anderson and Weaver both bespeak their concerns about teacher conferences due to the sheer lack of time to talk with each student. But Weaver discusses some solutions for this problem too; like, try to keep it short, sweet and to the point. The subsequent activity, called demonstrations, showed to me a principle that I think we learned in Ad Lit: sometimes your students will respect you more if you do the assignments along with them. It puts you down to earth on their level and shows that you're not too busy to focus on the task as well (even if you are!).

(Our) Native Language

One thing that I honestly fear as a teacher is helping ESL students. It just seems like something that is impossible to prepare for. But the main thing I took away was that it is best to teach these students according to their individual needs just like any other student with an IEP, or whatever the case. Weaver says that the terms ELL and ESL are somewhat condescending or offensive to those with a different native language. So, what should the new term be? She doesn't really give any alternatives. On the same topic is the distinction between studying English v. acquiring English. The book keeps saying that we learn English as children by seeing, hearing and imitating, so this is how we must teach it to our students. Later, Weaver talks about "break[ing] some of the time-honored rules" of writing. She seems to suggest combining different writing genres, like creative and informative to give an essay pizzazz and engage its readers. I like this approach because it would probably make students, like the ones that were polled, feel less restricted even in their formal writing. Also, the creative element really does what Weaver and others keep stressing: gets the point across and adds meaning. I love the Stephen King quote: "Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought." The point was made that sentence fragments often give the tone of the text some identification, as in the example of Bruno Maddox's sarcasm that comes through his writing. Some would view fragments, beginning a sentence with a conjunction, or maybe use of slang as errors, but at times these are used deliberately as stylistic devices. As Weaver says earlier, it is important that a writer has a reason for what they're writing, especially if using these types of style modifiers.

Breaking Tradition!

Jeff Anderson seems like the grammar guru, with his self-assured method of teaching this topic aside "powerful literature and student writing." I like how he gets to the point faster than Weaver! Right off the bat, he talks about his early days of teaching grammar: he used all the right pedagogical models, his students had high test scores and he was even schooling other teachers! But... were his students learning anything? It shows that good grades aren't always synonymous with taking away meaning. Anderson also makes an important distinction (that students must make) between "the informal communication of their world" and "more formal or standard language expected in academic writing." Like I said in class, the difference between these two is the stylistic requirements for successful communication. Isn't that what it's all about? But I was a little skeptical about his "show not tell" model: students won't just pick up on these grammatical rules! As I read on though, he explained how he broke down the examples with the students, piece by piece. Doing this every day, he advocates, will fuse grammar into the other areas of the English curriculum. I think that is so great, because we want students to see how everything we teach them comes together, and how to apply their knowledge.

In "Image Grammar," Harry Noden breaks text down in a different manner - to its meaning. How is the image, feeling, thought. etc. being conveyed? In good writing, the words capture the reader and place them in the author's reality. The style must be oh-so-original! And better yet, I got to learn some terminology! Now I feel like a true Junior English Major. But I have to ask if these "5 major brushstrokes" are the way to start teaching grammar at any level, or if this is intended for a grade level with some preliminary knowledge? It is so difficult to break the old traditions, because all I can think is that we HAVE to start with noun, verb, adjective and adverb! Is Noden, instead, trying to create a new set of basic elements to grammar?