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/