The idea of joining a conversation through reading and writing is not new; in his 1941 book  The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action,  Kenneth Burke suggests that the acts of reading and writing are like entering a parlor where others are already conversing. The author explores the place of professional debate within NCTE and in the pages of  English Journal . Regardless, by reading these pages, one is entering into a conversation that is already underway

Zuidema, Leah A.

English

Dordt College

Digital Collections @ DordtFaculty Work: Comprehensive List9-2011Contentious ConversationsLeah A. ZuidemaDordt College, leah.zuidema@dordt.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_workPart of the Creative Writing Commons, Educational Psychology Commons, English Languageand Literature Commons, and the Higher Education and Teaching CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Work:Comprehensive List by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact ingrid.mulder@dordt.edu.Recommended CitationZuidema, Leah A., "Contentious Conversations" (2011). Faculty Work: Comprehensive List. Paper 3.http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/3Contentious ConversationsAbstractThe idea of joining a conversation through reading and writing is not new; in his 1941 book "The Philosophyof Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action," Kenneth Burke suggests that the acts of reading and writing arelike entering a parlor where others are already conversing. The author explores the place of professional debatewithin NCTE and in the pages of "English Journal". Regardless, by reading these pages, one is entering into aconversation that is already underway.KeywordsEnglish, discourse communities, persuasive discourse, debate, professional development, professionaleducation, grammar, language usage, writing for publication, academic discourse, higher educationDisciplinesCreative Writing | Educational Psychology | English Language and Literature | Higher Education andTeaching | Teacher Education and Professional DevelopmentCommentsCopyright © National Council of Teachers of English 2011.This article is available at Digital Collections @ Dordt: http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/343English Journal  101.1 (2011): 43–45Is a heated discussion the kind of conversation you would like to enter? Is it the kind of conversa-tion that unfolds within each new issue of EJ? Is it what you should expect to see from English teach-ers attending the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Annual Convention, or in the on-line discussion forums?Well, no. And yes. It depends on what you mean by “heated discussion.” It is unlikely that you will encounter many shouting matches among En-glish teachers, either here in these pages, in per-son at the Annual Convention, or online. But I am happy to report that if you mingle with the NCTE crowd for much time at all, you will certainly stumble into some contentious conversations, and perhaps you will even join the fray. The Professional Debate My enthusiasm for professional conflict may sur-prise some and alarm others. Since it is not true that I love argument for its own sake, let me ex-plain why I value our heated discussions so much. When my first copy of EJ arrived in November 1996, I was a beginner who was struggling to find an effective way to teach grammar, so I was thrilled to see an entire issue devoted to grammar instruc-tion. It felt as though I was holding in my hands The Answer Manual for life’s teaching questions. I was ready to enact every one of those answers, so it was a surprise when I actually opened the journal and discovered that it was not a how-to manual. The issue theme was there in capitals at the top of the table of contents: “THE GREAT The author explores the place of professional debate within NCTE and in the pages of English Journal. Leah A. ZuidemaContentious Conversationst’s raining and cold. But you have stepped indoors, and you stand at the door of a room where a fire is blazing, the drinks are flowing, and friends, acquaintances, and intriguing strangers are laughing and talking cheerfully. They beckon you to join them, and soon enough, you are part of the conversation.This scene could serve as an analogy for what we do as readers and writers in “rooms” such as En-glish Journal (EJ). Perhaps you have been a longtime reader, or maybe this is your first encounter with EJ. Regardless, by reading these pages, you are en-tering into a conversation that is already underway. But is the discussion here really like the scene I have portrayed? Joining the ConversationThe idea of joining a conversation through reading and writing is not new; in his 1941 book The Philos-ophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action, Ken-neth Burke suggests that the acts of reading and writing are like entering a parlor where others are already conversing. This sounds pleasant enough, but the picture I have drawn for you is not the way that Burke colors the scene. Keep the image of the parlor, and, yes, everyone there is talking. But: they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discus-sion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. (110) IEJ_Sept2011_B.indd   43 8/25/11   2:45 PM44 September  2011Contentious Conversationsas well as the editorial stance of the present and pre-vious editors” (65). Rather than silencing a dissent-ing voice, Nelms put Jost’s piece before readers (and a follow-up missive, too!), and he invited response. The result? What Nelms described later, in 1991, as an “avalanche” of responses—“lively, thoughtful, and well written—an outpouring of genuine profes-sional concern” (78). Jost’s dissenting voice forced us as a field to seek clarity about what we believe, know, and do. Although 20 years have since passed, her rebuttal plays a continuing role in sparking our thinking about teachers as writers. It is a piece that still ap-pears somewhat frequently in professional conver-sations and writing, and its continuing presence in our discussions says something special about NCTE. We have the capacity to truly welcome and learn from/with dissenting voices—both in the short term and over the long term.The Debate TodayAs I write this piece, our field’s contentious conver-sations continue. Recently, there has been heated discussion about grammar. In her July 2010 letter to the EJ editor, Martha Kolln takes to task editor Ken Lindblom for the framing of the call for manuscripts for the “Beyond Grammar” (March 2011) issue. Then Kolln brings out her fightin’ words. She sug-gests that for the past 40 years, schools have “denied the study of grammar a place in the K–12 curricu-lum” (12–13)—a problem that she traces specifi-cally to the work of Constance Weaver and more generally to NCTE publications and conferences.Perhaps you are not yet familiar with Kolln’s and Weaver’s distinctive approaches to grammar pedagogy. However, these names mean a great deal to me, as these individuals authored the two lead pieces in the November 1996 EJ—the issue that re-ally got me thinking about what it means to teach grammar. I have since learned a great deal from both of these grammar giants’ books and articles. So I am again faced with a dilemma: Who is right, Kolln or Weaver? Once again, I find that there are no easy an-swers to my grammar questions. And once again, dissenting voices in EJ require me to think hard about what it means to teach and learn the English language arts. I am having to figure out for myself DEBATE (AGAIN): TEACHING GRAMMAR AND USAGE.” I felt disappointed. A debate? Finding answers to my questions was not going to be as simple as I had thought. But then I began reading, and my dis-appointment was eclipsed by curiosity about what the au-thors were debating and what I might learn about teaching grammar from watching them lay out their best arguments. In retrospect, that November 1996 issue, edited by Leila Christenbury, was much more valuable to me than a how-to manual. Because of the diverse perspectives represented in those pages, I came to a new understanding about the complexi-ties of grammar instruction, and rather than fol-lowing someone else’s teaching script, I learned to ask better questions and more thoughtfully explore what it means to teach and learn grammar. Being privy to professional debates is good not only for individual English teachers, but also for us as a field. In our best moments, we welcome debate. When EJ editor Ben Nelms published Karen Jost’s incendiary “Why High-School Writing Teachers Should Not Write” in 1990, he characterized the piece as “a rebuttal not to any specific previous arti-cle but to the tenor of a number of recent EJ articles We have the capacity to truly welcome and learn from/with dissenting voices—both in the short term and over the long term.The teaching of grammar and usage has long been a point of contention in the field, as this 1996 issue of English Journal edited by Leila Christenbury illustrates.EJ_Sept2011_B.indd   44 8/25/11   2:45 PM45English JournalLeah A. ZuidemaChristenbury, Leila, ed. Focus Issue: The Great Debate (Again): Teaching Grammar and Usage. English Jour-nal 85.7 (1996). Print. Jost, Karen. “Why High-School Writing Teachers Should Not Write.” English Journal 79.3 (1990): 65–66. Print.Kolln, Martha. “It’s Time to Let Go of the ‘Grammar Bogeyman.’” English Journal 99.6 (2010): 12–13. Print.Lindblom, Ken, ed. Focus Issue: Beyond Grammar: The Richness of English Language. English Journal 100.4 (2011). Print.Nelms, Ben F. “Editor’s Note.” English Journal 79.3 (1990): 65. Print.———. “Editor’s Note.” English Journal 80.3 (1991): 78. Print.what it might mean if both Kolln and Weaver are right. I trust that others, too, are doing some of these same mental gymnastics, and that some of us will put our ideas forward here in EJ. There will be some disagreement, perhaps even some heated discussion. If we can be smart and civil while letting the con-flicts play out, we will help each other to hone our thinking. And if we do that, everybody wins. Works CitedBurke, Kenneth. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley: U of California P, 1941. Print.Leah A. Zuidema teaches in the English department of Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa. Her email address is lzuidema@dordt.edu.NCTE 90 YEARS AGOFrom English Journal:The Council has an honorable history and has attained to a good reputation. It must, however, not rest upon its laurels. There is an abundance of work pressing to be done. There is, first of all, the problem of aims. What is English? Upon a clear and definite answer to that question depend the aims of English teaching, and hence the Council must find the answer. (7)James Fleming Hosic. “The National Council of Teachers of English,” English Journal 10.1 (1921): 1–10. Help Shape NCTE Positions by Submitting a ResolutionIf you have concerns about issues that affect your teaching or if you’d like to see NCTE take a stand on a posi-tion you support, you have an opportunity to be heard! Propose a resolution that may be voted upon and passed at NCTE’s Annual Convention. For further details on submitting a resolution, to see resolutions already passed by Council members, or to learn about proposing position statements or guidelines other than resolutions, visit the NCTE website (http://www.ncte.org/positions/call_for_resolutions) or contact Lori Bianchini at NCTE Headquarters (800-369-6283, ext. 3644; lbianchini@ncte.org). Resolutions must be postmarked by October 15, 2011.EJ_Sept2011_B.indd   45 8/25/11   2:45 PM

Contentious Conversations

https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&amp;context=faculty_work

Contentious Conversations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Dordt College