Bob,
   Of course, you don't have the benefit of context, which would, I think,
bring us closer. A sentence is not intended to be a discreet thought.
The gist of the article, as I remember it (it's at work) is that
teachers usually give one side with more passion and eloquence.
Students aren't led to engage texts on their own if they feel a
"correct" answer is already established.
   One problem with nominalized structures is that the actors are often
obscured. There's no way of telling from "oral discussion" or "written
translation" who is doing what. The critical thinking of the student is
being "unwittingly limited" (notice the passive), but we are not overly
clear of the agency fot it. I simply tried to solve those problems. As
I said in the post, that may not fit the writer's intentions. I would
never take over a student's writing in that way. I would ask for
clarification.
   I'll send you more info on the article when I get to work (between a
long line of student conferences.)
   I don't think it's a lack of reading ability on your part; the text can
be interpreted in too many ways to be clear.
   If you believe that all writing in the disciplines is highly
functional, then we may have no way to find common ground. Perhaps
others on the list could join that line of talk. Much of what passes
for academic discourse could be much clearer, much more accessible.
   I have friends who make good money tech writing, and they tell me the
same thing. They are paid to make technical texts readable, largely
because the technical experts can't do it.
   I think we can look closely at the grammar of these texts and
understand the meaning (reading) problems they create. We can try to
understand what happens when this kind of writing goes wrong.
   Writing is not just a written down form of speech. It brings into play
grammatical structures that aren't at all common in speech. We mature
as language users when we learn to function in those worlds.

Craig

Craig,
>
> Thank you for the rewrite.
>
> Here is the sentence you rewrote:
>
> Another reason that students' critical thinking might be unwittingly
> limited through oral
> discussion without written translation might be the passion and
> eloquence with which the instructor's theoretical position is
> communicated.
>
> ****
> I read this sentence as being about how students' critical thinking can
> be limited in oral discussion.
> One factor is the passion and eloquence an instructor may use in
> expressing his/her position.
>
> I appear to suffer from a reading deficit.  This rewrite doesn't capture
> my understanding of the problematic sentence.
>
>  "Teachers should give contrary views, and they should argue for
> alternative sides with equal passion. This will help students go from
> class discussion to a written response without feeling that a "correct"
> view is called for."
>
> It is interesting how the rewrite changes the entire focus of the
> sentence away from how instructors can negatively influence critical
> thinking of students to how to help students not feel they need to give
> a "correct" view.  Perhaps there is little difference between critical
> thinking and a correct view, but I think they are not the same.
>
> I thank you again for your time in answering my questions.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/