After reading the “Error Analysis” by Crovitz’s I agree with the idea
that using error to explain to students about where they messed up instead of
showing students that how they could make minor fixes to tweak their paper is
more beneficial. Like Crovitz states, that by showing student where the mess
up at especially if done in front of the classroom it makes students feel as if
they are inadequate. Yet this is false. Students in fact understand most
grammar rules, but due to their diverse backgrounds or other languages spoken
at home the may not know all these rules or how to display them in their
writing. So by showing students these rules and giving them a place where they
do not feel judged for getting a grammar rule wrong it makes them want to try
and experiment with sentences. I also believe that DOL is problematic. Simply because
it highlights what wrong with the sentence and showing that this is incorrect
instead of showing where a student might have added this or taken this out in
their sentence. By changing the way students view error is beneficial in how
students feel about themselves academically.
In my group we decided to take basic and simple sentences such as the
weather is nice or students have a lot of homework and show students how to
expand theses sentences. This could be done by adding adjectives to describe
the weather instead of giving just a broad sentence. In this alternative to DOL
students can be asked questions such as what makes the weather nice, or how are
the students feeling since they have all this homework to do. By asking
students questions that leads them to expand their sentence makes it a place
where students want to try and experiment with other grammar patterns or other
descriptive words to be able to expand their sentence. This is where DOL
sentences lack because they are only fixing simple sentences instead of having students
expand these sentences that these students were writing,
What I hope students take away from this lesson is this idea that they
should not be hesitant to try and write complex sentences or go against grammar
rules that they were taught. The reason is by telling students that there
either right or wrong when writing leads to them not wanting to experiment, but
by showing them different possibilities that they can add to their writing will
make them want to try different things. For example, in the grammar alive
book Goal C is dedicated to showing students how grammar changes and is a
variation of one’s social situation at the time whether that being around
family or in an academic setting. By explaining that to students it gives them
this idea that it is okay if their papers aren’t perfect and meeting all the
grammar rules because a lot of these rules are not set in stone. Also, just by showing students that they can
expand their sentences leads to students having better papers because it makes
it something that audience wants to read instead of these broad and boring
sentences.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post here. I like your analysis of the text, and I also enjoyed the description of your lesson and what you wanted the goals of said lesson to be. I especially like this idea of changing how students view "error" and trying to be more understanding when dealing with students and grammar.
I liked both of your uses of the patterns of the week. The first utilized a deliberate fragmented sentence which served to create a blunt and direct point. I think the usage was spot on. The second, a compound sentence joined by a comma conjunction, was also well executed. You managed to tie together two independent clauses with the use of ",but".
Finally, when looking at other locations you could have utilized the patterns, I actually found another compound sentence right below your use of a fragment. Additionally, I think compound sentences could be easily used anywhere else you wanted to join to closely linked ideas, the only question is how do you want to do it? A comma conjunction, a dash, a semicolon? The choices is yours.