Without doubt, I too have encountered the "inane recommendations" (453) of the MS Word "grammarian" and have, consequently, been awed by the idea of computer programmers teaching the world how to write. I've also felt compelled, just by the sight of those squiggly green lines, to leave off typing in order to go back and "fix" my "mistake," becoming annoyed when I discover that it wants me to change "I am going to the store" to "I is going to the store" and now I've lost my train of thought when I return to my narrative.
I have to say, however, that - until now - I had never thought about which particular grammatical theory these computer gods subscribed to. While I am not sure how much time I will spend taxing my brain on this issue, Mcgee and Ericsson make a great point that, as teachers of end users, we should be aware of what is happening in the magical world of software - the magic is not always quite that strong; it has its share of bugs, and it definitely has its limitations, as the authors point out in the "Code upon code" (458) section of their paper.
It is up to us to point out to our students that we are not putting our first emphasis on grammar - so they really shouldn't worry if Microsoft does.
In fact, we might point out that it will be a good exercise for them to watch the green lines disappear as their writing gets stronger, only to have them return once more when they've reached a point of confidence in their composition that allows them to really play with language and grammar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gosh, Rhonda, I love what you've said here. It is great to imagine using the MS Grammarian's intrusiveness as nothing more than a bellwether of students' ability to write mostly correctly, and then of students' ability to write artfully. And I completely agree that grammar should not be Job #1 in writing class.
ReplyDelete