Spelling counts
Alan’s post reminds me of a question a faculty member asked me while I was giving a presentation last year. I was showing some student weblogs from the U of Minnesota and I commented on just how atrocious the spelling and grammar was in some of those blogs. Of course the faculty member questioned whether we should be encouraging that sort of writing (after all, I was talking about writing across the curriculum). Unfortunately this person missed the point I was trying to drive home, that there are at least 2 types of writing, and the student blogs were more about writing to learn.
But there is another important kind of writing that is less commonly used and valued, and so I want to stress it here: writing for learning. This is low stakes writing. The goal isn’t so much good writing as coming to learn, understand, remember and figure out what you don’t yet know. Even though low stakes writing-to-learn is not always good as writing, it is particularly effective at promoting learning and involvement in course material, and it is much easier on teachers–especially those who aren’t writing teachers. (link; see also here)
The speech and English teachers lent me their support. We also pointed out that we speak differently according to our social context.
I only wish Alan hadn’t chosen to use an Appalachian-ish dialect when writing as if he were stoopid. Probably the only alternatives would be Stoner-guy and Valley Girl. 
