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/
|
