This year I have been determined to up my game with my students in an effort to have them leave my tutelage with a higher level skill set than in previous years. I really don't know if I have unrealistic expectations, but I tend to lean towards reaching for more rather than settling for a benchmark that may or may not be accurate. Because the ground is shifting in education as a whole, and because the way in which children learn is changing, reasonable expectations are in flux. I have seen a marked change in the accuracy of mechanics over the last few years in the writing my students complete in school. I have no scientific evidence, but believe that electronics exposure and media, both TV and social, have had a dramatic impact on the wiring of my students' brains. How relevant is the ability to spell according to "old" rules when the most frequent form of writing outside of school for these young people totally disregards those same rules? Additionally, if a piece of equipment can insure accuracy, is there value in memorizing the rules that the computer program uses? As far as I know, no new spelling rules have been created in the last 80 years. But the manner in which we communicate using those words and their meanings certainly has. Modification of words has taken the place of verbal tone, especially in the subversive world of chats.
Daily, I feel torn between spending time on grammar, usage, mechanics and spelling (Do you still employ the Oxford comma? Who cares, really, if the meaning is unchanged?) and higher order thinking skills that teach students how to see relationships between ideas that our society tends to put in boxes. Before the vanguard gets all riled up, know that I am a silent Grammar Sergeant, correcting in my head (and occasionally aloud) the mistakes I see by the hundreds online, in the newspaper which I still read daily - on newsprint, and even in magazines. Don't get me started on the sad state of grammar and spelling in the retail industry. I am in a sea of shifting sands and am seeking a lighthouse that does not yet exist.
Spelling reform is an ongoing process controlled by the linguists and lexicographers of higher education and publishing houses. Germany instituted spelling reform in 1996, with final modifications in 2006. France, Belgium and Quebec adopted changes to 2,000+ words and grammar rules in 2012. In the English-speaking world, however, formal modifications to address the influx of "abbrevs" and txt/IM/140 character messages are non-existent. I did find a few proponents who are in favor of simplifying our archaic system. I have found one of the erudite who agrees: The Case for Spelling Reform.
Daily, I feel torn between spending time on grammar, usage, mechanics and spelling (Do you still employ the Oxford comma? Who cares, really, if the meaning is unchanged?) and higher order thinking skills that teach students how to see relationships between ideas that our society tends to put in boxes. Before the vanguard gets all riled up, know that I am a silent Grammar Sergeant, correcting in my head (and occasionally aloud) the mistakes I see by the hundreds online, in the newspaper which I still read daily - on newsprint, and even in magazines. Don't get me started on the sad state of grammar and spelling in the retail industry. I am in a sea of shifting sands and am seeking a lighthouse that does not yet exist.
Spelling reform is an ongoing process controlled by the linguists and lexicographers of higher education and publishing houses. Germany instituted spelling reform in 1996, with final modifications in 2006. France, Belgium and Quebec adopted changes to 2,000+ words and grammar rules in 2012. In the English-speaking world, however, formal modifications to address the influx of "abbrevs" and txt/IM/140 character messages are non-existent. I did find a few proponents who are in favor of simplifying our archaic system. I have found one of the erudite who agrees: The Case for Spelling Reform.
I really can see a trend towards fewer and fewer students being able to spell with any accuracy, despite having been provided an excellent curriculum and educators who work as hard as I do to be sure all learners comprehend the association between sounds and sight as well as the subtle variations between such idiosyncracies as -tion (shun) and -sion (zhun). These lessons simply do not stick. Where to place commas in an address within a sentence - that's one they miss with alarming regularity. [We live in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, but have a house in Bar Harbor, ME.] Come now, when was the last time you actually WROTE something like this? Of course you didn't. You said it. Counting the entire punctuation and capitalization unit in our grammar book, my poor students are tasked with memorizing over 100 abstract rules about where to place tiny symbols. So many of the rules are pointless and harken back to a time when knowing such rules was required for acceptance to gentle society. So, while I continue to teach the what and when of these bizarre markings we place on our pages, I struggle mightily with their value.
Another example is the formal business letter. Access to the internet has made "To whom it may concern:" completely irrelevant. Via the internet, the letter writer can find the person and title to whom any business letter should be addressed. In fact, there is no true agreement any longer on the form of a business letter. Who is the expert on this one: Strunk & White or LinkedIn?
Another example is the formal business letter. Access to the internet has made "To whom it may concern:" completely irrelevant. Via the internet, the letter writer can find the person and title to whom any business letter should be addressed. In fact, there is no true agreement any longer on the form of a business letter. Who is the expert on this one: Strunk & White or LinkedIn?
I have no idea where our language is headed, and I certainly don't know how we decide which of our many choices of content topics to cover is the most valuable. Again and again I hear and read of educators wondering how we prepare our students for an unknown future. We are trying to transition to - well we aren't sure what - but in the meantime, we're trying to juggle old AND new thought processes. So far, I think I'm doing a fair job of keeping the balls in the air. But I want to feel more confident and less apprehensive about having to decide on a daily basis how much time to devote to what might soon be archaic rather than using opportunities for other kinds of learning and experiences. I frequently find myself thinking, "It's okay. I don't have to teach EVERYTHING. My team is providing equally stimulating experiences. The pressure to have that incredible lesson, that amazing hook, the exquisiteness of engagement does not need to be at 150% every day, all the time." Modern educators are in quite a quandary. It's like totes amazeballs afaics! Anywaz, b4n.