A recent news item profiled a teacher in Milwaukee who, after finding graffiti adorning public property in her community, decided to ‘fight back’ by posting red flyers critiquing the graffiti artist’s/ perpetrator’s (depending on your stance) grammar. The story, appearing in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has already been taken up by numerous other news outlets. For those of us with an investment in composition and rhetoric, as well as in education, Beth Biskobing—the teacher in question—misses the mark, as well as an important teaching opportunity.
As Heidi noted when she posted the story to her profile, “This woman has no concept of the term ‘discourse community.’” And this is where the conversation begins. What follows is a compilation, in part, of our conversation:
C: Hahahaha . . . imagine a world where graffiti employs 'proper, correct' English grammar!
Still, I kinda dig her for bringing graffiti in to her class and "geekifying" it. At least she is, inherently, showing how language may employ different conventions and works in different contexts--even if she doesn't explicitly address it as such.
H: That's the part that bugs me--not explicitly addressing the fact that her "proper" grammar is only proper and functional in a very specific context--and don't get me started on her lack of discussion of why or how it's proper. The critical pedagogue part of me bristles at the thought of this. The ecocompositionist part of me shakes her head and sighs. All that said, the thought of graffiti written in academic, "Standard English" is pretty funny.
C: Well, true. But it's a start, right? Just another reason I would love to see more conversations between K-12 educators and Comp/Rhet scholars: I understand that primary and secondary educators have different constraints, but so much of the pedagogy—especially secondary pedagogy—seems to ignore the research in the field. As you point out, and as this teacher's exercise shows, such research is certainly relevant to primary and secondary teaching practice. It is a conversation worth having . . . and a fun lesson, to boot.
B: [posting a slightly different version of the same news story to his profile:] I can agree that the question "Where da bitches at?" is offensive, but it's not because it ends with a preposition, for God's sake. I can't imagine that this type of pedantic arrogance serves any purpose other than making the teacher herself feel smug. Hey, fellow English teachers? THIS is why students hate us. Just sayin', is all.
[. . .] this version (which is a bit longer [. . .] has some fairly obnoxious quotes from the teacher). I've never met this woman, but I feel quite confident I know her. You know what I mean? As you said, this is a woman who has never even heard the phrase "discourse community"-- instead, she's just convinced that "black people speak incorrectly." And, again, the misogyny in the question isn't even discussed, really (except for the too-precious-for-words "bitches are female dogs, betcha didn't know that, tee-hee!"). But then again, this isn't about having a teachable moment-- it's about grammatical shaming.
H: Yep. She's "smart," and she'll never let anyone forget it. It's sad to see that as the guiding principle behind a person's teaching.
C:The posting of flyers is a bit much, no? Ever the Pollyanna, I tried to make lemonade out of this, but there is so much more than a fine line between a 'teaching moment' and, as you say, Bill, pedantic arrogance.
But hey--why should K-12 teachers worry themselves about little things like discourse communities and understanding how and why particular conventions develop within them? Why bother with such nuisances as cultural assumptions? Why contextualize when one can boil everything down to right and wrong? After all, isn't it our job--as post-secondary instructors--to debunk such myths? That is what we do in FYC, right? Otherwise, what might we teach?*
Guess the coffee kicked in. Where I fist saw potential, a step toward having such discussions in the K-12 classrooms, now I'm just annoyed.
What a lost opportunity. It is one thing to bring the graffiti into the classroom to discuss it; it is quite another to ignore its context and post flyers in the community that, in essence, state "I know more than you." Foolish. Rude. Faulty.
But I still see it as a teaching moment—for her.
H: It has potential--just quite possibly lost potential, and that makes me sad. It could have been an introduction to the issue I brought up in regards to your link this morning--academic and public writing. It could have been a moment in which that teacher helped her students understand that people whose writing deviates from the academic norm are wrong, or stupid . . .it just seems like she ignored that opportunity and did the exact opposite.
B: [I’ll] just add—all joking aside—that I think you and Heidi are absolutely right when you talk about this being a teachable moment for her. This could have been an opportunity to discuss discourse communities-- hell, she could have even taken the opportunity to explain the value in being fluent in more than one discourse, because there are people out there who believe "academic=correct" and "urban slang=incorrect." But instead she just posted these cutesy little signs berating the vandal (and, coincidentally, creating an even more irritating eyesore for her neighborhood) for his "errors."
I also think that there might have been a useful conversation about the term "bitches" among urban youth to describe women in general, and to ask about the possessive assumptions that underlie the question of "where they at?" There's legitimate ignorance to criticize in this discourse community, but the problem isn't that their English doesn't always sound like mine.
So what? Well, only that here you have the informal conversation of three people deeply invested in education and language who are troubled by Beth Biskobing’s ‘rebuttal.’ Her actions serve little purpose and offer nothing of real substance to the situation. This was an opportunity rich with potential—for discussing language, rhetoric, communities of discourse, cultural assumptions, exigence (i.e. what might have compelled the agent to act?), kairos (at that time), and all the other elements of a rhetorical situation (see Bitzer)—so many possibilities presented to this teacher of language.
In short, Biskobing missed an opportunity to teach—and even understand—the relationship between critical thinking and language.
Instead, Biskobing wields her ‘learning’ as a weapon, ignoring the fact that language is situated, that rules and conventions are only appropriate and useful in a particular and unique context, and that correctness is determined by the entirety of a rhetorical situation, one that is informed by a complex web of cultural meaning. With her action, completely devoid of rhetorical awareness, she merely capitalized on an opportunity to “show off’ her mad grammatical skills
. . . or might that be ‘skilz.’
6 comments:
*An afterthought: I just want to note that while this series of rhetorical questions reads, to me, as a critique--and an unfair one at that--of K-12 teachers, I did not mean it as such. I hold no illusions about the fact that I could not do what they do. Theirs is a very different teaching-learning community, and teachers are already undervalued. If I genuinely want to have a conversation--not, as I mentioned to Heidi this evening, a moment when snot-nosed scholars tell teachers how to do their jobs--this is not the way to invite such a conversation. That said, I am still taken aback by Biskobeck's actions and the attention it received; that singular act signals, to me, a failure--a missed opportunity for rhetorical awareness and critical thinking. So mine is a critique of one singular act, not of Ms. Biskobeck nor of teachers in general. Of course, I employ the very rhetorical strategy I caution my students against, but it was in the context of an informal conversation. When read in the context of this post, it reads differently . . . but then, that is precisely the point my friends and I were making as we exchanged our thoughts about the grammatical critique of graffiti.
How can you even begin to assume to know what goes on in this teacher's classroom? Have you considered the journalistic freedoms at work and how the manipulation of a word or two by the reporter himself might have skewed the original intent of the situation? If there is anything to be considered pompous or arrogant here, it would be the "conversation" had in this blog. As a former student of this teacher, I can tell you that I was prepared for both undergrad and graduate work almost solely because of her. Here's where you've lost the point: You've failed to take into consideration the author's (teacher's) intent and background. This intent (and more) is exactly what I expected her to discuss in her classroom after the article appeared. Hers was and is a classroom wherein discourse prevails. I found, after contacting her, exactly what I'd expected: that the intent of the postings was not to "school" the taggers as it was to amuse passersby (and she did, according to most in her neighborhood). She also used the article and its ensuing feedback to the reporter (mostly amusing and positive) to discuss rhetoric, audience appeal, and bias--all to her students' delight. They further discussed a previous lesson about the evolution of language and what becomes acceptable even though some might deem it unacceptable. When I spoke with some of her students, they felt as I did about her instruction, and they bemoaned the thought of anyone construing their teacher (a lowly K-12 educator, according to your original blogs here) as anything less than professional. Shame on you for furthering the ill perception that those of us who are college-level instructors are nothing but arrogant curs.
Anonymous, your point is well taken with regard to this piece providing a profile of a private citizen, who happens to be an English teacher, who has ‘responded in kind’ to an act of vandalism in her neighborhood—not a profile of a teacher and her pedagogical practice. It is encouraging to see that under her tutelage you and your peers felt prepared to take on the challenges you faced in your education. Further, any teacher who can inspire such fierce loyalty in her students commands my admiration. Based on your assessment, and on that point, I offer my apology to Ms.Biskobeck.
That said, her rebuttal—as a public act—invites criticism, much like this blog, as a forum for public argument, invites yours. Following that logic, I can understand, too, how the vandal’s act, in defacing public property in her community, invited her criticism. Still, I am not convinced that using her expertise to mock and ridicule the grammatical “correctness” of an alternate discourse achieves anything; at the very least, it does not evidence the critical reflection and rhetorical awareness you argue she practices and promotes in her classroom.
And it is on this point that I stand firm: there is a marked lack of critical reflection and rhetorical awareness informing civic action in our communities and public spaces—and as my scholarship involves understanding the relationship between education, civic participation, and rhetoric, I believe that fostering that kind of rhetorical awareness must begin in K-12 education, not in the post-secondary classroom. I’ve spoken with many K-12 teachers who share that opinion. If Ms. Briskobeck indeed advances such principles, then I applaud her—but I also understand that she is the exception and not the rule . . . and that the action she took with her public grammatical critique did not reflect those values. And it is not because I think K-12 teachers are ‘lowly’ (as you accuse), nor that my position is informed by my ‘arrogance’ (as you also accuse), but because K-12 teachers operate under significant constraints. That is precisely why I think it is important to have greater collaboration—or at the very least, communication—between K-12 and postsecondary educators—to the benefit of all involved, including us “arrogant curs.” As I said, it is a conversation worth having.
Well said, Chrissy.
I thought I could leave it at "well said, Chrissy." But I can't.
Anonymous, your argument is as ignorant as it is rude. Here's a clue: When you have to manipulate what your opponent says (as you do when you try to construe an arrogant dismissal of K-12 teachers on Chrissy's part), you're on the wrong side. Intelligent people with legitimate points to make don't have to rely on strawmen.
Ms. Biskobing decided that she wanted this attention (there's no other possible reason for her actions), and despite what you suggest about journalists "manipulating" what she's said and done, she has enjoyed-- from what I can see-- nearly universal approval for her littering campaign. Some of us, though, find her remarks about "correct" grammar obnoxious-- and, more than that, out of step with what we think is an effective theoretical understanding of language.
Do You interesting of [b]Female use of Viagra[/b]? You can find below...
[size=10]>>>[url=http://listita.info/go.php?sid=1][b]Female use of Viagra[/b][/url]<<<[/size]
[URL=http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/link/buy%20viagra/1_valentine3.html][IMG]http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/img0/buy%20viagra/1_valentine3.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/link/buy%20viagra/3_headsex1.html][IMG]http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/img0/buy%20viagra/3_headsex1.png[/IMG][/URL]
[b]Bonus Policy[/b]
Order 3 or more products and get free Regular Airmail shipping!
Free Regular Airmail shipping for orders starting with $200.00!
Free insurance (guaranteed reshipment if delivery failed) for orders starting with $300.00!
[b]Description[/b]
Generic Viagra (sildenafil citrate; brand names include: Aphrodil / Edegra / Erasmo / Penegra / Revatio / Supra / Zwagra) is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction regardless of the cause or duration of the problem or the age of the patient.
Sildenafil Citrate is the active ingredient used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. It can help men who have erectile dysfunction get and sustain an erection when they are sexually excited.
Generic Viagra is manufactured in accordance with World Health Organization standards and guidelines (WHO-GMP). Also you can find on our sites.
Generic [url=http://viagra.opuskali.ru]Viagra Super Active[/url] is made with thorough reverse engineering for the sildenafil citrate molecule - a totally different process of making sildenafil and its reaction. That is why it takes effect in 15 minutes compared to other drugs which take 30-40 minutes to take effect.
[b]purchase viagra in mexico
Viagra Function
compare levitra viagra
viagra orgasm
Viagra Doses
query viagra
viagra precautions
[/b]
Even in the most sexually liberated and self-satisfied of nations, many people still yearn to burn more, to feel ready for bedding no matter what the clock says and to desire their partner of 23 years as much as they did when their love was brand new.
The market is saturated with books on how to revive a flagging libido or spice up monotonous sex, and sex therapists say “lack of desire” is one of the most common complaints they hear from patients, particularly women.
Post a Comment