<p>I definitely agree! I attribute a very large portion of my success in writing to being read to–and later reading–frequently, starting from early childhood–my mom didn’t really like playing with my brother and me, so she chose to read to us instead. I write as a large part of my living (grad student/researcher) and also occasionally write fiction as a hobby, so I have continuous practice as well (sometimes too much ). I haven’t seen anything that my brother’s written since junior high, but I know he always did well in reading and language arts in school, even though his strengths and interests lie mostly in mechanical things. Studies on literacy and language development show that early, high quality, and plentiful exposure to both spoken and written language is very important in predicting academic success, but interventions on how to increase that exposure have shown mixed results, mainly because language exposure such a huge, multifaceted thing that mostly occurs outside of school.</p>
<p>There seems to be the pervasive idea, though, that you can take a 18 year-old with lifelong and considerable writing deficits and turn them into a very good or even passable writer in one or two semesters. That seems, sadly, unlikely and too much to expect out of remedial composition classes. In some cases, where there are specific, easily taught deficits to address, that may work, but they’re going to be very much in the minority.</p>
<p>(Interestingly, I’ve noticed that writing skills seem to transcend languages–even though my grammar needed a lot of work, obviously, I’ve gotten compliments on my writing in other languages I’ve studied, including that it was above what would be expected for my overall level in the language.)</p>
<p>“in one class we did peer reviews of papers. I was STUNNED by the horrible mechanics of the papers I was reviewing. Misspellings, sentence fragments, and tense changes all over the place. And from native English speakers, too.”</p>
<p>This was my experience at Bryn Mawr in freshman English in 1995. Chaotic organization, too – pieces where sentences seemed to be grouped into paragraphs at random. It was shocking and disappointing.</p>
<p>My experience suggests to me the poor writing is almost always the result of poor and inconsistent teaching. (For what it’s worth, in my homeschooling work, I advise parents to not “teach” writing before a child is age 12, unless s/he asks for it.)</p>
<p>Each teacher has a different method. No consistency from one year to another. Writing and editing (which are too entirely different skills) are combined into one. Students browbeaten with grammar and spelling at the expense of expression. Most of all, writing has no purpose - good or bad, it ends up in the circular filing box. </p>
<p>Writing is a form of communication. If it is not communicating anything to anybody, it is not-writing. It is something else, but it isn’t writing. Mostly, teachers teach *not-writing<a href=“and%20hence%20no%20wonder%20that%20so%20many%20kids%20hate%20it.”>/I</a></p>
<p>It’s never too late to improve, but I think that at some point it becomes more of a struggle to become a good writer than the average person is willing to make to become a good writer (not just a mediocre writer).</p>
<p>I am fine with emphasizing grammar and spelling, because I feel it’s easiest to learn at a young age. That said, reading a lot is the best (and most painless) way to improve grammar and spelling IMO. Style is also important, but much harder to teach.</p>
<p>Diagramming sentences, on the other hand, is basically useless.</p>
<p>I don’t see students browbeaten with grammar and spelling. I wish they were. If your grammar and spelling are poor, it doesn’t matter how great your expression may be. Any teacher browbeating students on these points has my full support. If Michael Jordan can’t dribble, it’s really not going to matter that he has the killer fadeaway.</p>
<p>Grammar and spelling are part of the editing process. They have almost nothing to do with writing, except that the finishing stages. You can learn editing better by editing the work of others, rather than your own. Entirely different set of skills. </p>
<p>But we’ve browbeaten the students, and we see the results. We don’t disagree about the result we’d like people to achieve. But using methods that have a proven track record of failure is just silly. (I think that’s why it’s called “education”.) Every year teachers complain that they really can’t get their students to write well, and every year they do exactly the same thing. </p>
<p>Most of all, students have almost no experience of writing. Lots of experience of not-writing, but they do more communication in five minutes of instant messaging than they may do in half a year of what teachers think is "writing’ (but isn’t). That’s why the kids are so good at instant messaging, and tune out when it comes to not-writing. They’ve got it write.</p>
<p>Reading is our way of communicating with the past. Writing is a way of communicating with the future. Not-writing is a way of communicating with absolutely no one.</p>
<p>my own daughter is dysgraphic but has been published. We sent her to school because by the time I thought of homeschooling she wanted to be there to be around her friends. But, reading and writing I taught her myself. The teachers couldn’t teach her and since she was dysgraphic, I didn’t understand that they are not teaching writing well in schools these days.</p>
<p>My younger daughter has no dysgraphia or dyslexia. I ended up teaching her writing at home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This. So obvious. </p>
<p>Writing is a generative process and uses a different skill set than editing or grammar or spelling. My published daughter can’t spell and won’t ever be able to spell, but the computer does that for her, so who cares? Actually, Shakespeare couldn’t spell and nobody complains about the folios.</p>
<p>When I work one on one with the kids I tutor at the local CC, they do amazing work. They surprise themselves. They have been so incredibly short changed.</p>
<p>ETA: ThereseR, I still can’t diagram sentences and it hasn’t stopped me from professionally editing while in grad school, from publishing, or from getting my advanced degrees.</p>
<p>I taught English writing at a Big Ten school for 2 years as a TA and 4 years as an instructor while I finished law school. We had a fine writing lab, good mentoring and a fair degree of autonomy. 45 students in 2 sections were required to write 8 papers in 16 weeks. I spent 15-20 minutes per paper, making marginal and terminal remarks, so I was spending 9 hours every other weekend grading papers. Fortunately, I had taught other subjects overseas for 6 years, so the teaching end of it was comfortable and not too taxing. But grading, teaching, preparing classes and going to grad school was time consuming and required an organized life. Fortunately, I was a bit older by then but some TAs struggled, particularly if they had never taught before.</p>
<p>My Harvard, UChi educated English Lit prof. in grad school decided he too would go to law school and was unpleasantly reminded of the difference between legal writing and literary writing when he received a “C” in Legal Writing his first semester. We both had to adjust to the “roadmap” style of writing emphasized in law school. I was hired out of law school, primarily to write briefs, and he returned to academia, never to practice law.</p>
<p>I agree that reading is the key, at least it was for me, as I grew up as a child reading comic books in a smoke shop owned by my father’s friend. I also think revision, though not obsessive, is important to refine the final product. Seldom can it not be improved through revision, particularly at the high school/college level. It also produces a lot of practice.</p>
<p>I agree. What’s sad is that critical thinking is primary to the generative process, thought being reliant upon vocabulary capable of formulating a concept or argument. The acquisition of a well-spring of words starts extremely early. But that’s a problem for a lot of children who come from word and concept poor home environments. Nobody reads to them. They may spend too many hours watching “reality” shows where no one speaks in complete sentences, or listening to music full of expletives. Natural intelligence is bound to wither on the vine under such circumstances. It’s like hobbling a runner before the start of a race.</p>
<p>I vividly remember discussions I had with teachers and professors oh, maybe 30 years ago about how MY generation could not write to save its life! I also spent years studying in Europe and the professors there had similar discussions with their students about their native languages. I find it funny that I am now in the position to complain to my kids that they can not write as well as my generation did. I also clearly remember my mom (again at least 30 years ago) shaking her head on the way grammar and writing was taught in my school.
She was also shaking her head about the absence of true classic literature and the “watering down” of the Greek and Latin studies.</p>
). I haven’t seen anything that my brother’s written since junior high, but I know he always did well in reading and language arts in school, even though his strengths and interests lie mostly in mechanical things. Studies on literacy and language development show that early, high quality, and plentiful exposure to both spoken and written language is very important in predicting academic success, but interventions on how to increase that exposure have shown mixed results, mainly because language exposure such a huge, multifaceted thing that mostly occurs outside of school.</p>