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/
|
