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