> What if all teachers who work with writing, grade levels K-16 and
> beyond, were to agree that skill in metaphor is more important in
> teaching and assessing writing than skill in crafting thesis
> statements is?
Brian, oh how funny. What you say is exactly the opposite of my
point. We don't have to agree that one skill is more important than
the other because they are both very much needed. It's like
comparing the skill of balancing a checkbook with the ability to make
another person laugh. Why are we comparing these? I love making
people laugh, but if I don't follow through with the drudgery of
keeping my financial affairs in order I many not feel like laughing
myself. Similarly, students can write all the lovely metaphors they
want in an argumentative essay, but without a controlling thesis
(implied or explicit) those lovely metaphors are random thoughts.
But the way, how much of my instruction time is given to thesis
statements compared to metaphors? For every minute I spend on thesis
statements, I spend maybe 3 hours on metaphor.
Susan
On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:03 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
> Susan said
>
> "Metaphors delight me more than all the thesis statements in the
> world could. However, when I teach students how to write an essay
> (i.e. not a journal entry), I teach them they must have a thesis.
> I do not teach them that they must use metaphors. That's my point."
>
> This really made me wonder: What if all teachers who work with
> writing, grade levels K-16 and beyond, were to agree that skill in
> metaphor is more important in teaching and assessing writing than
> skill in crafting thesis statements is?
>
> I think we'd have support from Aristotle. In Poetics, he says, "[T]
> he greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor," and it is
> "a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive
> perception of the similarity in dissimilars."
>
> More importantly, we might have the support of our students.
> Granted, anything can be made boring if it gets too standardized
> and routine, but I can easily imagine playing with metaphors being
> more fun and engaging than focusing on thesis statements.
>
> Most importantly, though, students might make better arguments. I'm
> not saying we should emphasize "creative writing" over
> "argumentative writing"; for civic as wellas academic reasons, I
> don't believe that anything is more important than argumentation in
> teaching writing. But I think Aristotle has a point about the
> "perception of similarity in dissimilars; being able to use
> metaphor skillfully involves being able , to develop non-obvious
> observations and insights,and to to see interesting relationships
> between concepts. If students learn to do all that, maybe they'll
> be able to give unity and purpose to an essay without being taught
> "the thesis statement" per se.
>
> It's just a thought experiment, of the "what if schools had plenty
> of money and the military had to hold bake sales" variety. But I
> think that if we assume that current constraints are inevitable--
> e.g., standarized test readers or teachers at the next level will
> always expect x--and that it is therefore pointless to talk about
> what we'd do without those constraints, then it becomes hard to
> talk about what we really value and what kind of a system we would
> really like to have.
>
> (By the way, besides Metaphors to Live By, another book relevant to
> this discussion is Motives for Metaphor: Literacy, Curriculum
> Reform, and the Teaching of English., in which James Seitz argues
> that metaphor should be central to English Studies, bringing
> writing and literature together.)
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> Craig, you sound like you no longer want to discuss this with me.
> That's fine, but I would like to know how the rest of you on this
> listerv feel about students coming to college understanding the value
> of a thesis. Do you really think high school teachers are over-
> valuing thesis statements? I must say of all the complaints we high
> school English teachers hear about college readiness, this is a new
> and very unexpected one.
>
> Susan
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>> Susan,
>> You should read "Metaphors We Live By" (there are other follow up
>> books)if you haven't already. They are a core aspect of language and
>> cognition, well documented, well researched.
>> If you find my views pointless, it might be better not to respond.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>> It's a huge, huge stretch to think of Once More to the Lake as an
>>>> argument.
>>>
>>> I never said it was an argument. I said it had a thesis.
>>>
>>>> You seem to be equating "thesis" with unity.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. Writers who have and follow a thesis will have
>>> unity. No
>>> big secret there.
>>>
>>>> Your comments about metaphor seem to have no connection to what I
>>>> have
>>>> said. They are more like architecture, essential to language and
>>>> cognition, not just decorative.
>>>
>>> My point about metaphor is that I don't agree with your functional
>>> view of writing v. taste. I think it is rather pointless to value
>>> one over the other (as you claimed to in the email that started
>>> this). One could write a good essay without using a single
>>> metaphor,
>>> but a carpenter could not build a stable building without squares
>>> and
>>> plumbs. So by your own analogy the metaphor is in the category you
>>> label as decorative. I don't think you should put it in that
>>> category, but you made up the categories. I don't think it makes
>>> sense to say I have a functional view of writing therefore I
>>> dispense
>>> with taste. There's a reason we call writing an art. But then what
>>> was your point about taste?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig, is a thesis statement in an essay a high school training
>>>> wheel
>>>>> to you? It is hard enough to get students to write coherently
>>>>> using
>>>>> a thesis as their guide, so for you to then expect high school
>>>>> teachers to also teach students to know how to write without one
>>>>> seems particularly ungrateful of you. But from your latest post I
>>>>> gather you don't even want them coming to you with any thesis--
>>>>> explicit or implied.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think E.B. White has a controlling, implicit idea; therefore
>>>>> he has
>>>>> a thesis: our mortality can sometimes take us by surprise. Sounds
>>>>> like your friend has a thesis about how to be a successful
>>>>> woman in
>>>>> the music industry. If you write random incoherent thoughts about
>>>>> your father then, yes, you will have no controlling idea. Maybe
>>>>> you
>>>>> shouldn't publish it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you equate metaphor with architecture or interior design? From
>>>>> your definition it must be interior design, and since it is a
>>>>> mater
>>>>> of taste to you, you do not value it, right? I believe you
>>>>> said, "My
>>>>> taste is not to value taste?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan,
>>>>>> I'm not sure where "ingrate" comes from. I hope I can
>>>>>> express a
>>>>>> perspective without offending people who see it differently. I
>>>>>> don't remember being critical of other teachers. My views are not
>>>>>> mainstream.
>>>>>> As I said in my post to Bill, I require a reader when I teach
>>>>>> expository writing. For this past semester, it was "the Best
>>>>>> American Essays", 5th edition, edited by Robert Atwan. Most of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> essays in that collection are not thesis centered. I have no
>>>>>> problem with students getting experience in writing arguments,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> having a clear articulation of a central position is certainly
>>>>>> helpful to that. I hope, as I stated in earlier posts, that they
>>>>>> can do so graciously and with sensitivity to opposing sides. It
>>>>>> doesn't follow from that that all good writing requires a
>>>>>> thesis or
>>>>>> even that ideal writing requires a thesis. If I write about my
>>>>>> father, am I expected to have a thesis? I have a good friend who
>>>>>> has an article coming out in a major magazine which will be, as
>>>>>> she
>>>>>> describes it, a profile of a very successful woman in the music
>>>>>> industry. No thesis. That doesn't mean that it is not highly
>>>>>> organized, thoughtful, interesting, engaging, clear--just that it
>>>>>> doesn't have the defense of a central argument as its core
>>>>>> purpose.
>>>>>> In Once More to the Lake, White gives a very thoughtful
>>>>>> perspective about the experience of returning with his son to a
>>>>>> lake he once visited as a child with his father. Being male, old
>>>>>> enough to have children, and having visited the Maine woods as a
>>>>>> child probably all go into making me an ideal reader for the
>>>>>> essay.
>>>>>> But the essay never tries to be an argument. He tells us what he
>>>>>> felt and observed and thought--does a good job, I think, of
>>>>>> evoking
>>>>>> the experience-- but never argues for it as the right way to
>>>>>> understand the human situation he finds himself in.
>>>>>> Any essay, argument or not, will read differently to different
>>>>>> audiences. My son's conversations with his friends about mountain
>>>>>> bikes go right over my head, as they ought to, but that has to do
>>>>>> with background experience, not taste. If you want to expand
>>>>>> "taste' to include the whole range of what we bring to an essay,
>>>>>> then I agree. I thought Bill was using it to denote a kind of
>>>>>> surface packaging, a distraction from substance.
>>>>>> I certainly don't expect you to agree with me, but I hope to
>>>>>> make my point clear. Architecture is a more functional image. A
>>>>>> carpenter squares and plumbs, not just for aesthetic reasons, but
>>>>>> because what he/she is constructing is then stable, strong,
>>>>>> durable, done right. It is not a matter of taste, though I find
>>>>>> great beauty in the harmony of meaning and form.
>>>>>> Metaphor is a core part of our understanding of the world, a
>>>>>> point made very well by Lakoff and Johnson. It's not just a
>>>>>> literary element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan van Druten wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig, I don't get your point about staying away from taste. I
>>>>>>> don't even get Hemingway's point. Lots of architecture is not
>>>>>>> tasteful to me. And the bland interior design from Martha
>>>>>>> Stewart
>>>>>>> is so devoid of personality and statement that while it does not
>>>>>>> lack taste, it is not (to me) very interesting to look at or
>>>>>>> comfortable to live in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you pride yourself in not valuing taste, are you human? Or
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> you Vulcan?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The literature you give is literature that requires taste as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as intellect to appreciate. For example, White's cold swimming
>>>>>>> suit experience is not understood universally. Many of my
>>>>>>> students (male and female) do not get the mortality of it. As a
>>>>>>> woman, I didn't immediately get the mortality of it. It's not
>>>>>>> strictly intellectually true; it's a metaphorical, requiring
>>>>>>> aesthetic understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why the separation of intellect and taste?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also worry that so many students come to college believing
>>>>>>>> writing is supposed to have a single, explicit thesis when so
>>>>>>>> much (I would venture most) good writing doesn't fit that
>>>>>>>> model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This statement is false. Most professional writers (other than
>>>>>>> poets and fiction writers) do have an explicit thesis. Give
>>>>>>> many,
>>>>>>> many examples if this is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> High school teachers work very hard to help students understand
>>>>>>> what a thesis is--nevermind whether one can be implicit. If
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> come to college really knowing what a thesis is, how hard is it
>>>>>>> for you to say, "Go ahead, make your thesis implicit." And if
>>>>>>> they can do it, you have high school teachers to thank. If they
>>>>>>> can't do it, do you really think it would have helped had high
>>>>>>> school teachers not demanded an explicit thesis? Why not turn
>>>>>>> this into a beautiful bonding moment with your students? Tell
>>>>>>> them, "Your high school teacher didn't think you could handle
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> truth. Well, I think you can. Here's the truth..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig, you're a bit of an ingrate. Be glad. Be very, very glad
>>>>>>> that you have students who know what a thesis is. 'Cause you
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>> me any more guff and I swear I will stop teaching explicit
>>>>>>> theses. I will. I'll do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>> Since I have a largely functional view of writing, I would
>>>>>>>> stray away
>>>>>>>> from "taste" as a core analogy. (My taste is not to value
>>>>>>>> taste?) I
>>>>>>>> would think more in terms of "architecture, not interior
>>>>>>>> decoration" as
>>>>>>>> Hemingway phrased it. Same thing with language--what strikes me
>>>>>>>> most,
>>>>>>>> what I admire most, is the author's facility with finding the
>>>>>>>> exact,
>>>>>>>> appropriate word, the exact, appropriate phrasing for the
>>>>>>>> meaning or
>>>>>>>> purpose at hand. Even the "entertaining" function of
>>>>>>>> literature,
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> much a part of it, can be understood as "engagement." So Orwell
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> only discusses the folly of empire, but helps us somewhat
>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>> the death of the elephant. And E. B. White not only comments on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> passing of generations and the contemplation of mortality, but
>>>>>>>> brings
>>>>>>>> us once more to the lake in the woods in Maine to experience it
>>>>>>>> somewhat for ourselves. Coleridge called word play "fancy" and
>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>> of it as superficial in comparison to the primary and secondary
>>>>>>>> imagination, which find solid relations and essential unity
>>>>>>>> in all
>>>>>>>> things. Metaphor is not just a literary device, but an
>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>> aspect
>>>>>>>> of cognition.
>>>>>>>> We can also say, in teaching, that students tend to think of
>>>>>>>> revision
>>>>>>>> as a matter of improving the wording (and sentences), whereas
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> successful writers see it as improving the meanings. In other
>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>> there is ample evidence that successful writers have that
>>>>>>>> functional
>>>>>>>> (language in service of meaning) view. That's basically what
>>>>>>>> Sommers
>>>>>>>> research has shown.
>>>>>>>> I also worry that so many students come to college believing
>>>>>>>> writing is
>>>>>>>> supposed to have a single, explicit thesis when so much (I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> venture most) good writing doesn't fit that model. Rather than
>>>>>>>> being an
>>>>>>>> aid toward good writing, it can narrow the possibilities.
>>>>>>>> What we admire Dylan for is the superb songwriting and
>>>>>>>> occassionally
>>>>>>>> excellent phrasing. I admit to frustration with Chomsky. In
>>>>>>>> comparison,
>>>>>>>> I think Halliday is a much easier read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Good writing" is a bit like "good food"; it can't really be
>>>>>>>>> defined as
>>>>>>>>> separate from the audience that consumes it (I happen to
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>> mustard greens cooked with a decently-smoked ham hock as being
>>>>>>>>> solidly
>>>>>>>>> in the good food category -- but I don't take it to vegetarian
>>>>>>>>> potlucks). We can say it's good food if the audience
>>>>>>>>> appears to
>>>>>>>>> enjoy
>>>>>>>>> it, but not if it's just sitting there in bowls. When we do,
>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>> implicitly saying '"*I* would like it," or "I think I *should*
>>>>>>>>> like it,"
>>>>>>>>> or "My appraisal of my own tastes will present me as a better
>>>>>>>>> person if
>>>>>>>>> I believe I like it."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chomsky's _Aspects_ is a good case in point. I think linguists
>>>>>>>>> emulate
>>>>>>>>> Chomsky's style only to the extent that they signal solidarity
>>>>>>>>> with his
>>>>>>>>> position, and some of his more quirky (or very arguably,
>>>>>>>>> annoying)
>>>>>>>>> strategies aren't included in more general definitions of good
>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>> (e.g., taking major, crucial points and burying them in
>>>>>>>>> endnotes, or
>>>>>>>>> [to insert a blatant opinion statement] using a kind of
>>>>>>>>> faux-mathematical presentation whose benefit is pretty much
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> cosmetic). Many linguists are willing to cut Chomsky a lot of
>>>>>>>>> slack in
>>>>>>>>> terms of writing style because he's Chomsky, just as Bob Dylan
>>>>>>>>> fans
>>>>>>>>> don't complain much if Dylan keeps missing notes. An audience
>>>>>>>>> focused on
>>>>>>>>> one subset of elements may not find relevant problems with
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> subset.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another example (since I know by now I sound like I'm in full
>>>>>>>>> Chomsky-bashing mode, and I want to give myself some plausible
>>>>>>>>> deniability) would be Peirce's works on semiotics. They're of
>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>> importance, but no one accuses them of being good writing. Or
>>>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>>>> Bakhtin's most famous works -- they were put together from his
>>>>>>>>> notes, so
>>>>>>>>> they're in a kind of conceptual shorthand. They're
>>>>>>>>> influential, and
>>>>>>>>> probably should be even more so, but I don't think anyone
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>>> that what they are is better than what they probably would
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> been if
>>>>>>>>> he had composed them with a general audience in mind. And I'd
>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>> include Halliday in some cases, since his tendency to create a
>>>>>>>>> consistent terminology system that is, nevertheless, quite
>>>>>>>>> opaque to
>>>>>>>>> those outside his framework creates some barriers (I work with
>>>>>>>>> SFL, but
>>>>>>>>> I still can't bring myself to say that the grammar "construes"
>>>>>>>>> something, since I think it sounds like I believe the
>>>>>>>>> grammar is
>>>>>>>>> sentient). To go back to the food analogy, we sometimes eat
>>>>>>>>> things we
>>>>>>>>> don't think are particularly good food because they fulfill
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> pressing need at the time -- we're very hungry, or we're
>>>>>>>>> worried
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> what the food we do want will do to our cholesterol level. I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> really like fish, but I'll dutifully eat it for health
>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all of these cases, readers in the audience that most use
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> text
>>>>>>>>> are willing to put extra effort into dealing with it because
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> importance attached to the author. A "difficult" text can, of
>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>> *cause* the author to gain this position of importance, but
>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>> typically because for the particular point being made, there
>>>>>>>>> are no
>>>>>>>>> "competitor" texts. Chomsky's adaptation of Zelig Harris's
>>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>>> added an explicit Platonic element that rendered it
>>>>>>>>> distinctive,
>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>> you liked that position, the marketplace of ideas could at
>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>> sell
>>>>>>>>> you only Chomsky (just as those interested in a ternary,
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>> binary, semiotic system could purchase only Peirce). Following
>>>>>>>>> Chomsky,
>>>>>>>>> there have been a very, very large number of books setting out
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Innatist position, but among these, most people only know
>>>>>>>>> Pinker --
>>>>>>>>> because Pinker *does* do a good job of tailoring his prose
>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> general audience. Nonlinguists who read about this stuff
>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>> Pinker, not Chomsky. Most of us can't get away with supposing
>>>>>>>>> that what
>>>>>>>>> we're saying is of such obvious brilliance that our audiences
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> tolerate lots of quirkiness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, the idea that literary language draws attention to
>>>>>>>>> itself as
>>>>>>>>> language is, I *think*, a fairly standard view among modern
>>>>>>>>> critics,
>>>>>>>>> esp. those who assign a higher value to "writerly" prose.
>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>> is, of
>>>>>>>>> course, a distinction between "literary" and "good," since for
>>>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>>>> us "literary" writing is but one kind of good writing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>> Dept. of English
>>>>>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:06 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>>> I'm glad I provoked this clarification. I would agree with
>>>>>>>>> much of
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> I'm half way through an article (have been for too long,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>> another story) that started by quoting an observation by
>>>>>>>>> Halliday of a
>>>>>>>>> text by William Golding that it is super powerful in its
>>>>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>>>> effect, but doesn't have language that calls attention to
>>>>>>>>> itself. To
>>>>>>>>> me, that's an ideal aesthetic; if the language choices are
>>>>>>>>> all in
>>>>>>>>> service to the text, the language itself will seem almost
>>>>>>>>> invisible. I
>>>>>>>>> say that because even in literature, not everyone would agree
>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>> language itself becomes an end or ought to. Some writers are
>>>>>>>>> brilliant
>>>>>>>>> in their accessibility and in their clarity. I could contrast
>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>> too, with the self-importance of some social science texts,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> sometimes cry out for translation into normal English before
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> discover that they may have very little to say.
>>>>>>>>> I certainly like the idea that work in a discipline frames
>>>>>>>>> itself in
>>>>>>>>> relation to current conversation about the topic, finding
>>>>>>>>> areas of
>>>>>>>>> agreement and/or areas of disagreement. In that sense, it
>>>>>>>>> has a
>>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>> related to the overall work of the discipline. The abstract
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>> an overview of the article that includes its reason for being
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> scope of what it covers. But I'm not sure "thesis" is
>>>>>>>>> identical to
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>> A case in point. I am just now re-reading Chomsky's
>>>>>>>>> "Aspects
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> Theory of Syntax", which purports in its own preface to be "an
>>>>>>>>> exploratory study of various problems that have arisen in the
>>>>>>>>> course of
>>>>>>>>> work on transformational grammar..." He goes on to say that
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> questions "definite answers will be proposed; but more often
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> discussion will merely raise issues and consider possible
>>>>>>>>> approaches to
>>>>>>>>> them without reaching any definite concdlusion." If I
>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>> right,
>>>>>>>>> "Syntactic Structures" was a mildly polished version of his
>>>>>>>>> lecture
>>>>>>>>> notes for a course on syntax.
>>>>>>>>> I believe that good writing has a sense of purpose, which
>>>>>>>>> includes a
>>>>>>>>> sense of audience, and it is organized in such a way that the
>>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>> is not only clear, but clearly realized. It will generally
>>>>>>>>> present a
>>>>>>>>> very clear perspective on a topic or issue. I would use the
>>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>>> "thesis" to refer to writing organized around a single
>>>>>>>>> "argument." I
>>>>>>>>> think we value the writing within a discipline that moves the
>>>>>>>>> conversation forward in some substantial way. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>> different from engaging a public issue in a thoughtful way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was presenting social science research format as a point of
>>>>>>>>> contrast,
>>>>>>>>>> rather than as an eidolon; I picked that particular sub-genre
>>>>>>>>> primarily
>>>>>>>>>> because I'm familiar with it. I suspect many of the same
>>>>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> supported by business writing, or hard-science writing, or
>>>>>>>>>> engineering
>>>>>>>>>> reports. To the degree that writing is judged "literary," it
>>>>>>>>>> demands
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> readers a deep kind of active engagement not just in the
>>>>>>>>>> topic,
>>>>>>>>>> but in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way the topic is discussed, and this kind of engagement isn't
>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>> "optimal" in texts whose consumers primarily want to get
>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> kinds
>>>>>>>>>> of information as quickly as possible. I happen to like
>>>>>>>>>> language play
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> writing a great deal (as my penchant for making up words in
>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>> probably reveals), but if I'm trying to figure out whether a
>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>> result in a research study is "real" or (instead) a kind of
>>>>>>>>>> mechanical
>>>>>>>>>> artifact of the assumptions underlying the research
>>>>>>>>>> design, my
>>>>>>>>>> task is
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> lot easier if I don't have to tease out information that the
>>>>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> have provided in a straightforward manner. Ambiguity in a
>>>>>>>>>> literary
>>>>>>>>> text
>>>>>>>>>> can often be the engine driving a fuller understanding of a
>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>> point;
>>>>>>>>>> ambiguity in a research article is more apt to produce
>>>>>>>>>> dissension that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't go anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In short, I was trying to highlight the different attitudes
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> audiences
>>>>>>>>>> for different genres of texts bring with them. Composition
>>>>>>>>>> classes are
>>>>>>>>>> always in danger of presenting as a model those texts which
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>> highly valued by composition faculty, rather than those which
>>>>>>>>>> are most
>>>>>>>>>> highly valued by whatever audience a particular student
>>>>>>>>>> might be
>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>> for in his/her later life. The "everything is about
>>>>>>>>>> literature"
>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>> to composition is on the far end of that problem scale. I
>>>>>>>>>> worry
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> overemphasizing social science writing when I teach
>>>>>>>>>> composition, for
>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same reason (I formerly had an excuse: the course
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>> "Composition for Social Science"; our "themed" sections were
>>>>>>>>>> done away
>>>>>>>>>> with a couple of years ago, though). I probably overemphasize
>>>>>>>>>> argumentation more generally, since it's what I see
>>>>>>>>>> students as
>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> *least* practice with -- they've been telling each other
>>>>>>>>>> narratives
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> most of their lives, albeit not always developed or highly
>>>>>>>>>> coherent
>>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>>> Also, though, I confess that I probably let a bit of a
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> knee-jerk
>>>>>>>>>> reaction I'm having leak in -- I'm reading some stuff by
>>>>>>>>>> Baudrillard,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I can blame all his preciousness on his
>>>>>>>>>> translator.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A side note: Seminal texts in social science (at least, ones
>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> past eighty years or so, since the genre "jelled") usually DO
>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>> thesis statement. It's just a more general one, like
>>>>>>>>>> "Position
>>>>>>>>>> X is
>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>>>> and the author will advance four pieces of evidence for this
>>>>>>>>>> claim,"
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> "The field has been working under assumption Y, but if we
>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> assumption, we're creating internal consistencies in our
>>>>>>>>>> models."
>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>>>> all, everyone expects an abstract on these things, and it's
>>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> a very concrete abstract.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on
>>>>>>>>>> behalf of
>>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>> Hancock
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Fri 6/5/2009 8:31 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised at how completely you present the academic
>>>>>>>>>> article in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> social sciences as an ideal text. Maybe I'm misreading.
>>>>>>>>>> When I teach expository writing (as I did this past
>>>>>>>>>> spring), we
>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>>> look at a number of acclaimed texts and explore the notion of
>>>>>>>>>> excellence in non-fiction writing. The best of them don't
>>>>>>>>>> simply dress
>>>>>>>>>> up their ideas or show the author as self-important or even
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> language for the pleasure of using language.
>>>>>>>>>> There are many different ways to organize a text, and
>>>>>>>>>> focusing on a
>>>>>>>>>> thesis is only one. Narratives have their own kind of
>>>>>>>>>> structure,
>>>>>>>>> highly
>>>>>>>>>> related to plot and perspective. These have been described
>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>> number of places: abstract, orientation, and so on. Feature
>>>>>>>>>> articles
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> a person or place may have a number of equally important
>>>>>>>>>> perspectives
>>>>>>>>>> to present, and a good writer will select details that fit
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> points. Even when they write about their own lives, good
>>>>>>>>>> writers will
>>>>>>>>>> avoid self-importance.
>>>>>>>>>> Good writing is clear, thoughtful, interesting,
>>>>>>>>>> engaging. It
>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>> us while it challenges our thinking. It certainly does not
>>>>>>>>>> tell us
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> to think, but often offers or provokes alternatives to our
>>>>>>>>>> thinking. A
>>>>>>>>>> good writer pays huge attention to organization and certainly
>>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>>> limited to thesis-argument structure, especially for topics
>>>>>>>>>> that don't
>>>>>>>>>> naturally fit that form.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not an expert on this one, but I wonder if the most
>>>>>>>>>> seminal
>>>>>>>>> texts
>>>>>>>>>> in the social sciences are thesis oriented.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I realized when I read your response that my label was
>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous. By
>>>>>>>>>>> "literary essays," I wasn't referring to essays about
>>>>>>>>>>> literature;
>>>>>>>>>>> rather, I was referring to essays which were chosen as
>>>>>>>>>>> exemplars
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> they had been judged as "literary." Some of them, in fact,
>>>>>>>>>>> were about
>>>>>>>>>>> social or political issues, but would arrive at an
>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>> thesis statement only at the end (in some of these, the
>>>>>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>> a more European-style thesis/antithesis/synthesis pattern,
>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>> synthesis constituting what American style would call the
>>>>>>>>>>> thesis, but
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> others the reader was, in a sense, carried along through a
>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>> vignettes or observations, with the thesis only emerging
>>>>>>>>>>> gradually).
>>>>>>>>>>> They were oriented to an audience that would be at least as
>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>> in the experience of reading the essay as in finding
>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> information in it. Allusion and artful indirection were
>>>>>>>>>>> valued, as
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> some kinds of language play.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a huge difference between that kind of essay and one
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> serves
>>>>>>>>>>> as, for example, a research article in social science. Can
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> the article is about by reading the title? No? It's
>>>>>>>>>>> rejected. Is
>>>>>>>>> there a
>>>>>>>>>>> clear major claim set forth in the first page or two? No?
>>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>> rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you taking up extra space with language whose primary
>>>>>>>>>>> function is
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> highlight how fun language is, or how artistic you are? Yes?
>>>>>>>>>>> Take it
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> or it's rejected. Even a political argument essay not
>>>>>>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>>>>>> for an
>>>>>>>>>>> academic environment at all will be ineffective (or worse)
>>>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>>> audience has to work too hard at it to pull a point out, or
>>>>>>>>>>> gets the
>>>>>>>>>>> impression that it's all there so that the author can feel
>>>>>>>>>>> very, very
>>>>>>>>>>> special. Most work-related writing - and that's what the
>>>>>>>>>>> majority of
>>>>>>>>>>> academic writing *is* -- is there to be used, and used as
>>>>>>>>>>> quickly and
>>>>>>>>>>> efficiently as possible. Enjoyment of its literary
>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions is
>>>>>>>>>>> optional.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dept. of English
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E.
>>>>>>>>>>> Doniger
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:27 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you explain what you meant when you wrote, "the
>>>>>>>>>>> essays I
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to use as models for argumentative writing were
>>>>>>>>>>> literary
>>>>>>>>> essays
>>>>>>>>>>> (which in this case, meant that the authors were
>>>>>>>>>>> distinctively, and
>>>>>>>>>>> productively, violating some of the major rules of essay-
>>>>>>>>>>> writing,
>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>> as 'have a clear thesis statement')?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that writing about literature is antithetical to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>>> of clear thesis statements, or am I misreading your point?
>>>>>>>>>>> Which
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> "major rules of essay writing" are violated by writing about
>>>>>>>>> literature?
>>>>>>>>>>> This is an odd concept to my thinking, so I'd like some
>>>>>>>>> clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it
>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:47:10 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As someone from a social-science background who teaches
>>>>>>>>>>> composition
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> an English department, I've noted some similar issues. Years
>>>>>>>>>>> ago, at
>>>>>>>>>>> another institution, I was teaching composition in a program
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> mandated a particular textbook. It was all about literature,
>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>> essays I was supposed to use as models for argumentative
>>>>>>>>>>> writing were
>>>>>>>>>>> literary essays (which in this case, meant that the authors
>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>> distinctively, and productively, violating some of the major
>>>>>>>>>>> rules of
>>>>>>>>>>> essay-writing, such as "have a clear thesis statement").
>>>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>> *were*
>>>>>>>>>>> good essays from a number of perspectives, but they weren't
>>>>>>>>>>> good in a
>>>>>>>>>>> way that the students could emulate at that point in their
>>>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>>> development, and would not have been publishable as anything
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>> literary essays, in a venue devoted expressly to that genre.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly (well, it's off-topic, but it IS similar....)
>>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>>> objectives such as "Students will demonstrate that they
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>> <insert
>>>>>>>>>>> genre name here>" strike me as at best coercive and at worst
>>>>>>>>>>> deeply
>>>>>>>>>>> creepy. I have no way of reading their minds, and what they
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily within my area of influence, although what they
>>>>>>>>>>> *do* can
>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>> I like Twain, but I'd rather have a student who said
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>> about Twain and carefully analyzed his writing but didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> it at
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> than have a student who obligingly parroted the required
>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>> Twain. I told my science fiction class last semester that
>>>>>>>>>>> despite the
>>>>>>>>>>> course objective that stated they had to value SF, I was
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>> in whether they could discuss and analyze the arguments for
>>>>>>>>>>> valuing
>>>>>>>>> SF
>>>>>>>>>>> than with whether they agreed with those arguments or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In composition teaching, the problem with interpreting
>>>>>>>>>>> "writing" as
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> it were equivalent to "writing about literature" isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>>> extending the academic into the realm of the practical,
>>>>>>>>>>> though. An
>>>>>>>>>>> APA-style analysis of survey results is academic, but not
>>>>>>>>>>> literary.
>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>>> more a side-effect of the somewhat haphazard conflation of
>>>>>>>>>>> literature
>>>>>>>>>>> with composition in English departments, and the tendency
>>>>>>>>>>> for any
>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>> to lose sight of the fact that what they value isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same as what other people do. If we replaced "academic" with
>>>>>>>>>>> "careful
>>>>>>>>>>> and explicit exposition and argumentation that is suited
>>>>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>>>> and audience," we might have fewer problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>>>> Dept. of English
>>>>>>>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of O'Sullivan,
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian P
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A New York Times article,"New Push Seeks to End Need for
>>>>>>>>>>> Pre-
>>>>>>>>>>> College
>>>>>>>>>>> Remedial Classes" (
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/education/28remedial.html?
>>>>>>>>>>> _r=1),
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting in light of Susan's recent critique of the
>>>>>>>>>>> focus on
>>>>>>>>>>> "academic" knowledge in high school education. For me,
>>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>>> Susan's
>>>>>>>>>>> most persuasive points was this: "Students should have to
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>>>>> write argumentatively to promote themselves or their causes,
>>>>>>>>>>> but not
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> lie about why a piece of literature is meaningful because a
>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>> decides they should believe that." The Times article touches
>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>> similar problem; it opens with an anecdote about a high
>>>>>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>>> graduate
>>>>>>>>>>> taking pre-college remedial courses because, among other
>>>>>>>>>>> problems,
>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>>> "senior English class...focused on literature, but little on
>>>>>>>>> writing."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To me, this illustrates that some of the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>> "academic"
>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>> that Susan criticizes is just as ill-suited to the needs of
>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>> college students as it is to the the needs of future
>>>>>>>>>>> plumbers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Many
>>>>>>>>>>> freshman at my college don't take a literature course, but
>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>>> write argumentatively in courses across the curriculum.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think Susan might be right that the "permanent training
>>>>>>>>>>> wheels"
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> of us have been worried about are the result of high
>>>>>>>>>>> schools'
>>>>>>>>>>> overemphasis version of "academic writing." It seems to
>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> version, though, than what I recognize as academic
>>>>>>>>>>> writing in
>>>>>>>>> colleges
>>>>>>>>>>> and universities. For example, Susan is probably right
>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>> prohibition on "I" is intended to "prevent beginning writers
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>> redundant and from weakening the power of their arguments."
>>>>>>>>>>> But,
>>>>>>>>>>> although I've occasionally heard college professors complain
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> overabundance of "I think" and "I feel" and though I have
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> occasionally complained about it myself), I have more often
>>>>>>>>>>> heard and
>>>>>>>>>>> made the complaint that students don't use" I" when
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate and
>>>>>>>>>>> don't put themselves into their writing in effective ways.
>>>>>>>>>>> If my
>>>>>>>>>>> experience is representative (which, OK, is a big if),
>>>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>> school teachers are banning "I" because they're trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>> academic
>>>>>>>>>>> writing to "non-academic" students, then those high school
>>>>>>>>>>> teachers
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>> either mean something different from "college writing" or
>>>>>>>>> misunderstand
>>>>>>>>>>> what college writing teachers value. (Let me acknowledge
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not one of "those high school teachers"; she's made it clear
>>>>>>>>>>> that she
>>>>>>>>>>> teaches students to use "I" when relating personal
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, as I think Herb suggested earlier, the problem of
>>>>>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>>>>>> wheel
>>>>>>>>>>> permanence, so to speak, may have a lot to do with lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> communication between high school teachers and college
>>>>>>>>>>> teachers. If
>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>> groups could agree on what they mean by "academic
>>>>>>>>>>> writing," or
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> "good writing," we might be able to lay down clearer paths
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> students.
>>>>>>>>>>> And I do think that conversations like this can help.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten
>>>>>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:52 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter, I think we should be concerned about teachers who
>>>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>>>> "training wheels" as real life. However, I think it
>>>>>>>>>>> might be
>>>>>>>>>>> wise to
>>>>>>>>>>> consider why those teachers do this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that they are inundated with students who don't
>>>>>>>>>>> ever want
>>>>>>>>>>> to "ride a bike" in their entire lives, but are forced to
>>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> they want to "ride a bike" because society values bike-
>>>>>>>>>>> riding
>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>> carpentry, plumbing, or whatever hands-on skill or craft
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> excel
>>>>>>>>>>> at. In other words, we all have to stop believing that
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>> can't write an academic essay shouldn't get a high school
>>>>>>>>>>> diploma.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, the "training wheel" analogy really messes with my
>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>> If anyone is confused, let me be more clear: If we force all
>>>>>>>>>>> 18-year-
>>>>>>>>>>> old human beings to write academically in order to pass high
>>>>>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>>>>> (or any bar that equates to sentience), then we will produce
>>>>>>>>>>> teachers
>>>>>>>>>>> who will create stupid short-cuts to get non-academically-
>>>>>>>>>>> inclined
>>>>>>>>>>> teens to produce something that is tolerable. If playing
>>>>>>>>>>> hockey,
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of academic writing, were the goal for a high school
>>>>>>>>>>> diploma,
>>>>>>>>>>> you can imagine all the coaches telling the non-
>>>>>>>>>>> athletically-
>>>>>>>>>>> inclined
>>>>>>>>>>> teens that they are good hockey players if they just do
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> best to
>>>>>>>>>>> pass the puck to Lutska.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We should rethink what high schools should require and how
>>>>>>>>>>> long a
>>>>>>>>>>> student should be required to attend (I think 8th grade is a
>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> minimum). We need to teach math so that students can
>>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>>> a check
>>>>>>>>>>> book and know why carrying a balance on a credit card is
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>> Students should have to know how to write argumentatively to
>>>>>>>>>>> promote
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves or their causes, but not to lie about why a
>>>>>>>>>>> piece of
>>>>>>>>>>> literature is meaningful because a teacher decides they
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We should value education. But we have to stop only
>>>>>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>>>>>> academics with education. There are plenty of non-academic
>>>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>>>> that we need. After all, most academic jobs could be
>>>>>>>>>>> shipped
>>>>>>>>>>> overseas, but we need to have "in-house" plumbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Peter Adams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The argument Susan makes for banning the use of first
>>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>> strikes
>>>>>>>>>>>> me as a perfect example of training wheels. There is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> construction involving first person that we might prefer
>>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid. Rather than teach students to avoid that
>>>>>>>>>>>> construction, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply ban all uses of first person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That bothers me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Adams
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weakening
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the power of their arguments. "I believe," "I feel,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and "I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't preface every idea expressed. I tell my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first person only when relating personal experiences in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> essays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contractions are a routine part of all the formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magazine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues and never took issue with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classroom. I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have "logical" views about it separate from my values and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program students for twenty-three years" when I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterize my own background. Other people may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honest about where their views are coming from. This also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortchanges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grown up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot by
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those differing experiences can be acknowledged as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretending to leave our values and experiences at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> door.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never written anything in my life that was so formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>> avoided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contractions. Where do others stand on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Adams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In requiring students to write some papers in "formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English,"
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often come across some gray areas. My tendancy is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative about formal language. I wonder where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others draw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines regarding levels of formality. For example, some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students use words that seem too informal to me, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "morph" (verb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge
>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condemn it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group five times each week. I think that I could get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by meeting with all the groups together on some days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group separately on others. This would reduce total
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing my contact load and spending that time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lessons, and responding to writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not join this debate because I don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strikes
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a different way of handling the same student-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>> ratio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>>> groups
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much less response to writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>> link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between reducing class size and increasing performance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen strongly suggests that the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving student performance is changing what teachers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but there is little research base (that I have seen) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we reduced the size of every class in the country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 15
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that much would change in what students know and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>>>> students,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Woods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS Scottsdale
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agrees
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class size is a vital component in successful learning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially important to the writing classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condemn it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the list member who indicated that class size was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing must have been brought up by a school board
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mater,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> praised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly, had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advisor had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore,
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freshman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, class size is more important in English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> composition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign
>>>>>>>>> languages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **************************************************************
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>> select
>>>>>>>>>>> "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface
>>>>> at:
>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface at:
>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface
>>> at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
