Home

Other books on teaching English

Reviewed by Patty Stammler

Mina Shaughnessy’s book, Errors and Expectations, has become a seminal work in the field of teaching of writing to under-prepared students. Since it was published in 1970, teaching methods have changed and incorporated some of her ideas. One particular instance of this is her recommendation for writing to be done in all classes at college, not just the English classroom – AKA “writing across the curriculum” (87).  Her discussion of problems inherent in inexperienced writers rings true and the book resounds with the author’s respect for the college student who, for whatever reason, has had a less than adequate preparation for the rigors of the college writing classroom. She spends a large amount of the book giving numerous examples to illustrate her points, which can get tedious. She places great importance on using “error finding” as a diagnostic tool in order to help the student learn. Shaughnessy laments the fact that the students she cites in her book have not been taught basic writing principles in the twelve years they spent in (usually) public schools.

The impetus behind writing this book was the change, in 1970, of admission policies at the City University of New York when it admitted all residents of the city who had a high school diploma. The resulting influx of students who had grossly varying levels of writing competence demanded that the basic writing (BW) teacher re-think the standard approach and drop old assumptions, mainly that students had a certain body of knowledge they brought with them to the university. Many teachers regarded these students as “irremediable” (3). They had no guides or curriculum suited for their needs. Teachers saw three groups of learners: 1. traditional students who were ready for college; 2. students who were surviving in college, but whose writing was barely adequate; and 3. students who were so far behind it seemed they were from another planet (3).

Shaughnessy explicitly states that her reason for writing this book is to be a guide for teachers who are teaching in uncharted territory. She gives precise examples about the kinds of difficulties the teacher will encounter in the BW student and will attempt to explain them without categorizing them with meaningless labels. In each chapter, she will follow the same format: 1. give examples of the problem; 2. discover and discuss the reasons for the problem; and, 3. suggest teaching methods to implement change. The chapters are divided into the areas traditionally taught by the English teacher:

1.      Handwriting and Punctuation

2.      Syntax

3.      Common Errors

4.      Spelling

5.      Vocabulary

6.      Beyond the Sentence. 

Since the advent of computers, handwriting, of course, will be less important as it was in 1970. Shaughnessy also begs forgiveness of the reader for using the pronoun “he” throughout the book.

Shaughnessy discusses various reasons for the ineptitude of the new crop of students. She emphatically reports that these students are in no way slow, non-verbal, indifferent, or incapable. They are beginners and as such, should be expected and allowed to make mistakes. As we have learned from other studies, such as was discussed by Pamela Carroll in “A (W)hole in the Middle,” developing writers need the freedom to make mistakes from which they can grow

( Baines and Simmons, 27). Only in a non-judgmental atmosphere can beginning writers wrestle through the problems that may impede their progress (5). Many teachers will only notice the mistakes, which will sorely inhibit the student. Shaughnessy looks at mistakes as a key with which to unlock the student’s competence as a writer. She suggests that it is the thoughtful teacher, not programs, who will be more instrumental in helping a particular student overcome his particular problems. Therefore, the solutions lie in addressing problems pertaining to a certain situation.

Some readers may take exception to Shaughnessy's dwelling on “error,” but she acknowledges that most English teachers are trained to notice error first. She in no way thinks that the teacher should spend the majority of the time teaching students how to avoid errors. Some teachers would rather focus their attention on options writers have rather than the “constraints they must work under if they are to be read without prejudice” (6). This is the clearest description of what writing with errors does to a student. He or she will be read with prejudice if many errors are found. The goal, then, is to write without errors so that the student may be read without prejudice – in the classroom and in the real world.

In trying to discover why underprepared students present so many errors in their writing, many theories have been advanced. Shaughnessy suggests that, to inexperienced writers, academic writing is a trap that uncovers their shortcomings rather than a means by which their knowledge can be shared. She contrasts writing with spoken language and notes that speech is a “rich orchestration” of loops, interplay between persons, halts, starts, interruptions, the language of hands and faces and eyes, with room for backing up if the meaning is unclear. Writing is not so multi-dimensional; therefore, the writer must learn the “code” that will make up for the lack of these helps. And, if writers have not learned the code as a child, they are embarrassed to be so far behind in knowing the tools of effective writing. Shaughnessy says these students resist and resent this vulnerability. They are inhibited by their fear of error and the teacher’s “F.” They want their writing to be perfect the first time, as soon as pen hits page. Neil Snortum, in his book, Contemporary Rhetoric, postulates that another reason for this resistance may be that BW students are largely African Americans who may “identify middle class standard English with the oldest and deepest source of pain they know” (xi). Some teachers, in their effort to respect “all languages,” may ignore certain errors (who/whom distinctions) and seek to reduce the penalties for being culturally different, believing that our society is enriched by diversity. That is true; however, it is still necessary to learn the language of the “culture of power” in which one lives. In “The Silenced Dialogue,” author Lisa D. Delpit offers powerful insight into the way of thinking of some African American students and teachers and how it is possible to honor diversity while upholding the value of standard formal English. She refers to a black classroom teacher who allows the vernacular in certain contexts, but who also demands standard formal English when the circumstance calls for it. Delpit describes another teacher, a Native American, who “tells the students that there are people, not like those in their village, who judge others by the way they talk or write” (581). In my work as a tutor, I see instances where non-standard English is used effectively when telling a life story, but is inappropriate when used for a different purpose or audience. The task becomes, then, to offer students definitive methods to help translate their thoughts into written form that will be understood by any reader.

Underprepared writers who find themselves in college make one or several of these mistakes: they 1. mix vernacular with standard usage in a strange way; 2. make hypercorrections with no systematic way of thinking about them; 3. make punctuation and spelling errors that were possible never taught; 4. make evasive circumlocutions that obscure the meaning; 5. use timid script; and 6. make near guesses that fog the meaning (10). The lack of clarity is something that I dwell on extensively in my work as a tutor. My questions, “What do you mean by that?” or, “This is a little unclear to me; can you explain?” may set off a discussion that lasts several minutes. When the discussion makes the meaning clear, the students are better able to write their true thoughts. Sometimes, though, the “evasive circumlocutions” are impenetrable, especially if the student is less patient with the process in favor of the quest to expend as little energy as possible. In any case, discussion is a luxury one does not have when reading a paper without the writer there to explain himself.

Shaughnessy discusses the “deal” made between writer and reader as being one where both parties want to expend the least amount of energy as possible. This is a great analogy. When error makes the reader expend too much energy, the deal is broken. Likewise, the writer wants to make his meaning clear with the least amount of effort as possible. The balance is struck when the writer is clear and to the point, and the reader does not have to de-code everything he reads. Writing is much tougher than speaking, therefore, “anything that facilitates the transfer of meaning is important in this tight economy of energy” (12) Errors demand too much energy from the reader, shift attention away from meaning and on to the code, and carry messages about the writer. All these may be even subconscious factors that weigh upon the reader, affecting his or her willingness to understand what is written. “The reader drives a hard bargain” (12) and may give up trying to understand. Conversely, Dennis Baron believes that the reader will forgive and ignore many mistakes when carried along by the writer’s ideas and enthusiasm. I think this is less true than Shaughnessy’s view that errors serve to deflate the reader’s enthusiasm.

Shaughnessy wraps up her introduction by commenting on the fact that the person who does not control the dominant code of literacy (i.e. standard or formal English) is setting himself up for facing more obstacles than those who have already mastered it.  Teachers of basic writing must seek to understand the logic behind the mistake and use this knowledge to construct a curriculum. Shaughnessy firmly believes in the abilities of her students and pleads for BW teachers to not underplay the importance and complexity of the task before them--teaching academic writing to “linguistically sophisticated” students.

In her chapter on “Handwriting and punctuation,” Shaughnessy addresses the fact that, compared with British students who write on average 1,000 words a week, American high school students generally write 350 words a week. This is in sharp contrast with the average BW student who has most likely written 350 a semester if he has, in fact, written anything at all (14). As a tutor of BW students at the University of Toledo, I frequently encounter students who say they have never written anything in high school. However an exaggeration that may be, it is illustrative of their experience, or felt experience. Spelling and punctuation very often is a barrier to writing. BW students feel they can’t write because they don’t have the skills. There is great disparity between talking proficiency and writing inefficiency. When mechanics of language is not automatic, thinking stops, and they have no access to their thoughts through writing. Shaughnessy’s discussion of handwriting is fairly outdated because of the widespread usage of computers today. A comparison may be made between the common usage of handwriting in decades past with computer proficiency today. BW students may not have either received the training on computers that their suburban counterparts have, or may be old enough to have missed being acquainted with computers altogether. In either case, computer proficiency is a must in today’s college classroom and the student who falls behind in this area is at a great disadvantage. It seems that most college instructors assume this computer literacy and give assignments accordingly with not much “give” for ineptitude.

Shaughnessy found that BW students bountifully use the comma, the period and the capital, these being the extent of their “punctuation vocabulary.”  The misuse of these basic marks is indicative of their unfamiliarity with the idea that punctuation is a substitute, of sorts, for the writer’s speech. She asserts that these students have been successfully communicating in sentences for years, but they do not correctly mark off sentences according to acceptable grammatical structure (18). The extensive practice of “run-ons” may offer insight into the student’s unwillingness to end what was so difficult to begin or doesn’t want to finish. He has to “muster himself up” to begin a new sentence and may over-use commas to try to hold things together. They are not so definite.

Grammar separated from context has been shown to be ineffective in teaching writing; consequently, grammar instruction has fallen out of favor in higher education. Some college instructors may be reluctant to teach basic grammar; however, it is imperative, because writing samples have shown the demand. This practical need trumps any theoretical discussion about “self-expression.” Shaughnessy describes the “battle with the page” that unfamiliarity with writing conventions brings and uses the beautiful, and new to me, word “lacunae” to refer to the surprising gaps in what the student should have learned in his twelve years of compulsory education.

At the end of this chapter, Shaughnessy offers an outline of a sequence of lessons the BW student might need to teach punctuation in the context of his own sentence structure. The major points of this pedagogy are as follows:

I.              The concept of a sentence

II.           Recognizing subjects and predicates

III.         Practicing basic types of embedding

IV.        Recognizing fragments

V.           Linking sentences

VI.        Application (using his own writing for analysis)

VII.      Capitalizing

VIII.   Quoting

A series of lessons along this line will enable to student to reason, rather than to guess at punctuation. Shaughnessy acknowledges the seemingly elaborate lessons, but implores the BW teacher to remember where “twelve years of ‘simple’ explanations left his student” (43).

Chapter 3 on syntax offers insight into the innumerable problems that BW students present in their compositions. Many times, they want to evaluate each sentence for its “rightness” and not its effectiveness. They get lost in the language by trying to sound overly formal and lose track of the message. Shaughnessy breaks down these problems into the following categories:

1.      Accidental errors – Normally, these involve simply leaving out a word that makes the reader work too hard trying to decipher the meaning; i.e.: “Life is really hard today so you can imagine what it will * in the coming future and for us generation.” (be, our).

2.      Blurred patterns – The writer fails to perceive his skips and missing words and combines various sentence forms or patterns of speech in bizarre ways: “You would be most likely get a college education.” Blurred forms: “You would most likely get…” and “You would be most likely to get…” The teacher works with the student to get him to objectify his errors so that he can make generalizations that will serve as a rule for subsequent writing.

3.      Consolidation errors – Again, the gap between speech and writing is noted. Shaughnessy remarks that speech is “perfected in the dynamics of dialogue, not at the point of utterance. Writing, however, withholds utterance in order to perfect it” (52). Students often find the complex sentences are needed to express their thoughts, but they do not have the experience to juggle the words. They leave out vital parts of their sentences: “In my opinion the parents have to be more lenient with the their children, to be free to express their opinions and thoughts: (52).

4.      Inversions – The writer rearranges the standard sentence form from subject-noun-complement: “It is my belief that what you do you should be praised for it.” The misuse of the word “it” is discussed here as being a substitute for thought (69). Teaching strategies to address this type of error would include sentence combining to get the student to see the parts of the sentence and then learn how to combine them effectively.

Shaughnessy pleads for teachers to allow the BW student the freedom to make mistakes and to not center all attention around the finished product. The student must be allowed to write “freeform” without fear of being judged until he has clarified what he wants to say and his words reflect exactly that. BW students should be acquainted with how writers behave – lots of revisions, messy, many halts and hesitations – freeing them to think and understand the reason they are writing. BW students should be aware that all writers deliberate over what to write and how to write it. Methods for discovering what to write about can include recognizing his own experience as a valid resource and talking with others.

Odell (1981) asserts that the process of discovery may very well begin with talk. He reports that a graduate student of his acquaintance often talks about his upcoming papers with his roommates, thereby clarifying in his mind the direction his paper will take. Shaughnessy believes that talking is often the very first stage in deciding what to write and generates real thought. She promotes classrooms that have good content and procedures while allowing the students, sometimes in small groups, the independence to think, speak, and write for themselves. Writing can begin with dialogue and end with dialogue as the writers share with each other the contents of their papers. All students thus share the writing (speaking) and the listening (reading). Teachers need to be student-centered by offering direction during the writing process that pertains specifically to that student’s paper.

Shaughnessy discusses the real fear that BW students have that writing will “not only expose, but magnify his inadequacies” (85). This fear is quite the opposite of the reason to write, that is, to share knowledge and to take a risk. This is the paradox of teaching writing to underprepared students. They have lost confidence in their ability to write in academic situations. When BW students have no real purpose in writing, their writing becomes shallow and they write without confidence. They need to write for the real world and under real world conditions in order to give them impetus for clear expression. In his 1981, John O’Dell reiterated the importance of writing for the real world, referencing James Moffatt (1968) who argued for writing for different kinds of audiences: the mayor, a friend, the gas company, etc., anyone who would elicit a real response from the writer. Shaughnessy believes that if writers had enough experiences with writing – especially in other disciplines – they would see more problems disappear. She goes as far as to say the beginning writer should have to write between 1,500 to 2,000 words per week. Writing should become an integral part of every class (88).

In her boldest and most heartfelt proposal, Shaughnessy urges that BW students write in all the course work they encounter in college. The 2,000 words would not be an unachievable goal if all teachers built writing into their course content. She has practical suggestions for working writing into the curriculum: keeping class notes, journals, making lists, and keeping notes from journal articles that pertain to the class. In addition, she proposes that courses be formally linked so that requirements for one course (geography, for example) could serve the writing course as well. Writing for other disciplines would discontinue the need for the writing teacher to dream up topics and give the students a real reason to write. Shaughnessy cites the example of Kenneth Bruffee at Brooklyn College who developed a writing cooperative between teachers in various disciplines who assigned one or two essays which would also be accepted by the writing teachers for instruction and grading.

In discussing common errors in Chapter 4, Shaughnessy draws parallels between Black English Vernacular, and non-black American born students who have grown up in households where another language is frequently spoken. Most often, those errors include problems with “s” or “ed” endings on words, plural and possessive nouns, basic verb combinations, and the use of articles. She does, however, say that many students who do not use standard English try to do so when they write.

Verbs give these students trouble because they try to duplicate speech where, often, the verb ending is not heard. The problem is more than just a hearing deficit, as the following examples illustrates: “There is a lot of things a baby see differently from a grownup” and, “The adult feel it is good that the child is taking an interest in nature for future accomplishment.” The “ed” ending is difficult, because it is sometimes not voiced in the speech pattern: “…used to go,” “He locked the door,” “…walked downtown.” Some students elect to totally ignore the “ed” ending: “When he was finish* I return* to find out why my combatants has left me like that. I ask* them all why and they all had the same answer. Their were scare*. I would has been scare* myself.” Incorrect usage of verbs points to a language “in flux” as the writer tries mightily to use the rules as he understands them, but which become a minefield instead. The teacher must strive to trace the line of reasoning that leads the student to make such errors and help him formulate generalizations of standard usage that can be extrapolated in other situations.

Nouns pose problems when the plural “s” is ignored. Sometimes the plural “s” is ignored because of other words that denote plurality, such as 2.8 million job each year…” When a student repeatedly drops the plural “s,” he must be re-acquainted with the definition of a noun, then understand the rules for marking them (109). Subject-verb agreement is a sticking point, as in, “He don’t believe me.” Shaughnessy believes that, with a careful review of the writer’s errors, the teacher will discover that the writer has all the “linguistic sophistication to correct them” (118). Much depends on the student’s willingness to concentrate on writing formal English.

In addressing BW students’ writing errors, the teacher must always keep in mind that some errors are “okay” outside the classroom. If the error is not glaring and the meaning is clear, some minor mistakes are easily forgiven and they may even go unnoticed. Rigidity and legalistic hyper-correction is uncalled for and is lethal to the beginning writer. Shaughnessy believes that “the teacher should keep in mind the cost to himself and the student of mastering certain forms and be ready to cut his losses when the investment seems no longer commensurate with the return” (122). Some teachers may wonder if the effort is worth it when students persist in using language forms that make sense to them, or have habits so ingrained that is seems impossible to change. Shaughnessy discusses the type of English teachers who have been poorly trained to teach BW students and therefore jump on the slightest error by a student, making him feel stupid. These teachers “of mediocre talent” allow themselves too many “easy victories” (120). The teacher might do well to regard BW students as non-native speakers of English: “His errors reflect upon his linguistic situation, not upon his educability” (121). Teachers in other disciplines may overlook errors in getting to the heart of the material.

Beyond problems in sentence structure, syntax, and vocabulary, are problems with knowing how to support claims made in a paper. When a student is called upon to give examples or proof, the BW student may often think that his opinion is justification enough, and should hold enough weight to carry an argument. It is imperative that in teaching BW students, emphasis be made on backing up statement of claims with proof. The writer must be able to answer the question, “Oh, yeah? How do you now that?” The teacher needs to give two types of methodology: information should be included in the assignment itself, or the teacher must introduce students to “key sources of information” (270). Students may use all sorts of evidence to support his claims, either personal experiences or observations of those around him. Shaughnessy identifies four areas where BW students should focus when writing an argument: “experience consciously the process whereby a writer arrives at a main idea, practice seeing and creating structure in written language, recognize specific patterns of thought that lie embedded in sentences, and point to ways of developing large numbers of sentences into paragraphs and essays” (274).

Finally, Shaughnessy reminds us of the adage “One will always live up to expectations.” If those expectations are high, most students will rise to the occasion and accept the challenge of college level writing to learn new and better ways of expressing thoughts. Teachers need to “grant students the intelligence and will they need to master what is being taught” (292) and be prepared for the hard work ahead. Teachers of BW students will need to draw upon extreme creativity, abandon formerly adequate teaching methods, and tap into an endless reserve of patience, because progress is often painfully slow. Shaughnessy asserts that colleges need to be prepared to teach students who bring with them a great lack of preparation. Students who need help in overcoming writing deficits, usually conquered during primary and secondary school, merely “come to them later than most and must therefore work harder and faster to solve them” (293). BW students challenge teachers’ accepted ways of doing things, but overall, create a more democratic educational society. Thus, Shaughnessy challenges teachers to overcome teaching deficits in order to effectively teach underprepared students 

Works Cited

Baron, Dennis. (2003). “Teaching grammar doesn’t lead to better writing.” Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 49, issue 36, pB20, 1p, 1c.

Carroll, Pamela S. (1998). “A (w)hole in the middle.” In L. Baines & J. Simmons (Eds.), Language Study in Middle School, High School, and Beyond (pp. 20-40). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Delpit, Lisa D. (1997). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children.” In Villanueva, V., (Ed.) Crosstalk in Comp Theory (pp. 565-588). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Snortum, Neil K. (1967). Contemporary Rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Odell, Lee. (1981). Defining and assessing competence in writing.  In Cooper,C. (Ed.), The Nature of Measurement of Compency in English (pp. 95-138).