As I am neck-deep in grading finals, I am coming upon distressing problems in my students’ writing. I’m not interested in minor issues like apostrophes and articles, but in the overall problem of expression. Some of these kids have writing skills that are so bad that I can’t even guess what they were trying to argue.
If a student lacks the technical skills to write, they will never get more than a B-range grade (at BEST!) in any humanities or social science (or even some “hard” science) class. I grow weary of students who shrilly point out that this is a history course, not a literature course. Yet often they turn a deaf ear to my response that poor writing skills impair the formation of ideas and arguments. Also, I have the sneaking suspicion that poor writing skills relate to poor reading skills. By reading I don’t mean ABC stuff, but rather the ability to pick up on nuance in writing, such as irony, style, etc. If you can’t read historical documents and arguments, how can you understand history at all?
The difference between students at this huge public university and the tiny liberal arts college that I attended does not lie in the quality of students. I have been impressed by their ability to articulate thoughts in discussion and in one-on-one conversations, yet some of those same students end up with F’s and C’s on their assignments. Not, I think, for want of doing the assigned reading or desire to do well, but because of their inability to write.
I know that the UCs have writing requirements, but I suspect that small liberal arts colleges tend to see writing as a much more essential skill. At D, one could not possibly survive without getting some semblance of writing competence beaten into one’s skull. (My friend from Wesleyan corroborates this; her small lib. arts school also insisted on writing, writing, writing.) Perhaps it’s the UCs’ vocational side that permits students to pass out of writing courses (thanks to AP credits, etc). I must say that AP scores are a poor substitute for a college level writing class.
I think that this institution offers motivated students substantial opportunities to improve their writing. However, not every student is motivated to work on their writing. Maybe more GE credits should be allocated to writing courses.
Most importantly, I feel that the ability to express one’s thoughts and feelings on a basic level is essential to a person’s happiness. Therefore, some level of competency in writing is essential to human happiness; in an age where texts have become enormously important (think internet!), it will not do to avoid the issue.
Writing is thinking. If we fail to teach students how to write, we fail to teach students how to think.
Tell me about students’papers! And I do agree: if you can’t write you can’t think right. I like your blog and I’ve added it to my blogroll.
Comment by Indigo Eyebrow — December 14, 2007 @ 1:10 pm |
Preach it, sister. It may be history and not literature, but you’re not asking them to write a novel that rivals the emotional power of Proust … you’re asking them to articulate an argument. That’s pretty much what history is about. It’s not the names and dates, but the ability to analyze those names and dates and form one’s own opinion about why things unfolded the way they did.
Comment by Lindy — December 14, 2007 @ 8:03 pm |
Well said. But there’s a difference in failing to teach and failing to learn, and it lies in personal responsibility (you say motivation) on the part of the student. It doesn’t sound as if you’re failing to teach!
Comment by Craig Hodgkins — December 15, 2007 @ 9:36 am |
Thanks for the support, y’all.
I would also like to add that one of my students just described a founding father as being “ludacris.”
Comment by apricot — December 15, 2007 @ 4:29 pm |