Two Roads Diverged and I Took Both

 One mistake many teachers make with basic writers is taking things for granted, assuming too much prior knowledge.  This is akin to purchasing a new appliance or furniture item that says “easy assembly” on the box – and since it is so “easy” there are certain terms or tools the originator takes for granted we are familiar with, and we are not.  This is most frustrating for me with technology, and probably the reason the little techie at the cell phone store hides in the back when he sees me coming. The strategy of error correction, while a good one, often makes use of grammatical and rhetorical terminology with which basic writers are unfamiliar.  As established in chapter three, when students don’t understand a comment, they just ignore that suggestion or delete that part of the essay.   This is especially true for basic writers, for whom manageable structure and feedback are so important.  The key is “manageable”.  We must avoid being the proverbial bull with the comments on students’ writing.  “Teachers should not mark an excessive number of errors or correct errors that haven’t yet been taught.  Instead, they should identify one or two skill deficit areas at a time and teach those skills” (Scott and Vitale “Teaching the Writing Process to Students with LD”).  Tell the student his run-ons are keeping readers from understanding how to read his paper.  Explain what needs to be on each side of a semi-colon and let him correct and work on that one area for a while.  Don’t let him just avoid the semi-colon because he is unsure how to use it; have him experiment and use it in every paragraph.  Equally important as the amount and quality of instructor feedback, is that students see the conventions of correctness as part of a context within which literacy operates – that the aspects of writing are not mutually exclusive. (Reynolds and Bruch)  Run-on sentences are not to be avoided simply because it is “the law” but because they obscure meaning. I am a smart person, but no one would know this by my cell phone deficiency. If I knew how to use half the features on that phone, I would be able to perform many tasks in one place that now require me to consult various sources in multiple locations.  I am limited in what I can do only because I just don’t care all that much; I don’t see a connection to my quality of life. Could this be what is limiting so many of our students?  Teach grammar, correctness, all of the conventions of standard academic English as these may help the writers carry out tasks that matter to them.  Students must first desire, for whatever reason, to want to write well; then have access and understanding of the tools required for assembly. . .

A conversation about English language learners always turns political.  In America it is politically correct to expect everyone to adjust to the needs of all citizens – and even, sometimes, those who aren’t citizens.  Virginia Crisco suggests students should be taught in their home languages and to their own needs.  However, according to the National Commission on Writing’s report on a survey of business leaders: 

writing is a ‘gatekeeper’ – an observation with implications for English language learners, for unless our society pays attention to developing all of the education skills (including writing) of all segments of the population, it runs the risk of consigning many students who are poor, members of minority groups, or learning English to relatively low-skill, low-wage, hourly employment.  (VanDeWeghe)

As a writing instructor, I am not responsible for developing “processes for activism through writing”(Crisco 56). I am responsible for providing motivation, access and instruction that will benefit all students in academic and world environments.  As an educator, a writing instructor, it is my job and not the army’s to ensure that my students can “be all they can be.” I assume the students being educated in America want to enter into this mains