Susan,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"
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.SusanTo 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"
On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
Bill,Since I have a largely functional view of writing, I would stray awayfrom "taste" as a core analogy. (My taste is not to value taste?) Iwould think more in terms of "architecture, not interior decoration" asHemingway 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 orpurpose at hand. Even the "entertaining" function of literature, verymuch a part of it, can be understood as "engagement." So Orwell notonly discusses the folly of empire, but helps us somewhat experiencethe death of the elephant. And E. B. White not only comments on thepassing of generations and the contemplation of mortality, but bringsus once more to the lake in the woods in Maine to experience itsomewhat for ourselves. Coleridge called word play "fancy" and thoughtof it as superficial in comparison to the primary and secondaryimagination, which find solid relations and essential unity in allthings. Metaphor is not just a literary device, but an essential aspectof cognition.We can also say, in teaching, that students tend to think of revisionas a matter of improving the wording (and sentences), whereas the moresuccessful 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 Sommersresearch has shown.I also worry that so many students come to college believing writing issupposed to have a single, explicit thesis when so much (I wouldventure most) good writing doesn't fit that model. Rather than being anaid toward good writing, it can narrow the possibilities.What we admire Dylan for is the superb songwriting and occassionallyexcellent phrasing. I admit to frustration with Chomsky. In comparison,I think Halliday is a much easier read.CraigCraig,"Good writing" is a bit like "good food"; it can't really be defined asseparate from the audience that consumes it (I happen to considermustard greens cooked with a decently-smoked ham hock as being solidlyin the good food category -- but I don't take it to vegetarianpotlucks). We can say it's good food if the audience appears to enjoyit, but not if it's just sitting there in bowls. When we do, we'reimplicitly 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 ifI believe I like it."Chomsky's _Aspects_ is a good case in point. I think linguists emulateChomsky's style only to the extent that they signal solidarity with hisposition, 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 offaux-mathematical presentation whose benefit is pretty much onlycosmetic). Many linguists are willing to cut Chomsky a lot of slack interms of writing style because he's Chomsky, just as Bob Dylan fansdon't complain much if Dylan keeps missing notes. An audience focused onone subset of elements may not find relevant problems with anothersubset.Another example (since I know by now I sound like I'm in fullChomsky-bashing mode, and I want to give myself some plausibledeniability) would be Peirce's works on semiotics. They're of greatimportance, but no one accuses them of being good writing. Or some ofBakhtin's most famous works -- they were put together from his notes, sothey're in a kind of conceptual shorthand. They're influential, andprobably should be even more so, but I don't think anyone would arguethat what they are is better than what they probably would have been ifhe had composed them with a general audience in mind. And I'd have toinclude Halliday in some cases, since his tendency to create aconsistent terminology system that is, nevertheless, quite opaque tothose outside his framework creates some barriers (I work with SFL, butI still can't bring myself to say that the grammar "construes"something, since I think it sounds like I believe the grammar issentient). To go back to the food analogy, we sometimes eat things wedon't think are particularly good food because they fulfill somepressing need at the time -- we're very hungry, or we're worried aboutwhat the food we do want will do to our cholesterol level. I don'treally like fish, but I'll dutifully eat it for health reasons.In all of these cases, readers in the audience that most use the textare willing to put extra effort into dealing with it because of theimportance attached to the author. A "difficult" text can, of course,*cause* the author to gain this position of importance, but that'stypically because for the particular point being made, there are no"competitor" texts. Chomsky's adaptation of Zelig Harris's frameworkadded an explicit Platonic element that rendered it distinctive, and ifyou liked that position, the marketplace of ideas could at first sellyou only Chomsky (just as those interested in a ternary, rather thanbinary, semiotic system could purchase only Peirce). Following Chomsky,there have been a very, very large number of books setting out theInnatist position, but among these, most people only know Pinker --because Pinker *does* do a good job of tailoring his prose to a moregeneral audience. Nonlinguists who read about this stuff usually readPinker, not Chomsky. Most of us can't get away with supposing that whatwe're saying is of such obvious brilliance that our audiences willtolerate lots of quirkiness.By the way, the idea that literary language draws attention to itself aslanguage is, I *think*, a fairly standard view among modern critics,esp. those who assign a higher value to "writerly" prose. There is, ofcourse, a distinction between "literary" and "good," since for most ofus "literary" writing is but one kind of good writing.Sincerely,Bill SpruiellDept. of EnglishCentral Michigan University-----Original Message-----From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig HancockSent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:06 PMSubject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HSeducationBill,I'm glad I provoked this clarification. I would agree with much ofit.I'm half way through an article (have been for too long, but that'sanother story) that started by quoting an observation by Halliday of atext by William Golding that it is super powerful in its overalleffect, but doesn't have language that calls attention to itself. Tome, that's an ideal aesthetic; if the language choices are all inservice to the text, the language itself will seem almost invisible. Isay that because even in literature, not everyone would agree that thelanguage itself becomes an end or ought to. Some writers are brilliantin their accessibility and in their clarity. I could contrast that,too, with the self-importance of some social science texts, whichsometimes cry out for translation into normal English before youdiscover that they may have very little to say.I certainly like the idea that work in a discipline frames itself inrelation to current conversation about the topic, finding areas ofagreement and/or areas of disagreement. In that sense, it has a purposerelated to the overall work of the discipline. The abstract will givean overview of the article that includes its reason for being and thescope of what it covers. But I'm not sure "thesis" is identical tothat.A case in point. I am just now re-reading Chomsky's "Aspects of theTheory of Syntax", which purports in its own preface to be "anexploratory study of various problems that have arisen in the course ofwork on transformational grammar..." He goes on to say that for somequestions "definite answers will be proposed; but more often thediscussion will merely raise issues and consider possible approaches tothem without reaching any definite concdlusion." If I remember right,"Syntactic Structures" was a mildly polished version of his lecturenotes for a course on syntax.I believe that good writing has a sense of purpose, which includes asense of audience, and it is organized in such a way that the purposeis not only clear, but clearly realized. It will generally present avery clear perspective on a topic or issue. I would use the term"thesis" to refer to writing organized around a single "argument." Ithink we value the writing within a discipline that moves theconversation forward in some substantial way. I'm not sure that'sdifferent from engaging a public issue in a thoughtful way.CraigCraig,I was presenting social science research format as a point ofcontrast,rather than as an eidolon; I picked that particular sub-genreprimarilybecause I'm familiar with it. I suspect many of the same points couldbesupported by business writing, or hard-science writing, or engineeringreports. To the degree that writing is judged "literary," it demandsofreaders a deep kind of active engagement not just in the topic, but intheway the topic is discussed, and this kind of engagement isn'tnecessarily"optimal" in texts whose consumers primarily want to get particularkindsof information as quickly as possible. I happen to like language playinwriting a great deal (as my penchant for making up words in listpostingsprobably reveals), but if I'm trying to figure out whether aparticularresult in a research study is "real" or (instead) a kind of mechanicalartifact of the assumptions underlying the research design, my task isalot easier if I don't have to tease out information that the authorcouldhave provided in a straightforward manner. Ambiguity in a literarytextcan often be the engine driving a fuller understanding of a majorpoint;ambiguity in a research article is more apt to produce dissension thatdoesn't go anywhere.In short, I was trying to highlight the different attitudes thataudiencesfor different genres of texts bring with them. Composition classes arealways in danger of presenting as a model those texts which are mosthighly valued by composition faculty, rather than those which are mosthighly valued by whatever audience a particular student might bewritingfor in his/her later life. The "everything is about literature"approachto composition is on the far end of that problem scale. I worry aboutoveremphasizing social science writing when I teach composition, forexactly the same reason (I formerly had an excuse: the course wascalled"Composition for Social Science"; our "themed" sections were done awaywith a couple of years ago, though). I probably overemphasizeargumentation more generally, since it's what I see students as havingthe*least* practice with -- they've been telling each other narrativesformost of their lives, albeit not always developed or highly coherentones.Also, though, I confess that I probably let a bit of a currentknee-jerkreaction I'm having leak in -- I'm reading some stuff by Baudrillard,andI don't think I can blame all his preciousness on his translator.A side note: Seminal texts in social science (at least, ones withinthepast eighty years or so, since the genre "jelled") usually DO have aclearthesis statement. It's just a more general one, like "Position X iswrong,and the author will advance four pieces of evidence for this claim,"or"The field has been working under assumption Y, but if we maintainthatassumption, we're creating internal consistencies in our models."Afterall, everyone expects an abstract on these things, and it's requiredto bea very concrete abstract.Sincerely,Bill Spruiell-----Original Message-----From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of CraigHancockSent: Fri 6/5/2009 8:31 AMSubject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HSeducationBill,I'm surprised at how completely you present the academic article inthesocial sciences as an ideal text. Maybe I'm misreading.When I teach expository writing (as I did this past spring), weusuallylook at a number of acclaimed texts and explore the notion ofexcellence in non-fiction writing. The best of them don't simply dressup their ideas or show the author as self-important or even uselanguage for the pleasure of using language.There are many different ways to organize a text, and focusing on athesis is only one. Narratives have their own kind of structure,highlyrelated to plot and perspective. These have been described well in anumber of places: abstract, orientation, and so on. Feature articlesona person or place may have a number of equally important perspectivesto present, and a good writer will select details that fit thesepoints. Even when they write about their own lives, good writers willavoid self-importance.Good writing is clear, thoughtful, interesting, engaging. It maymoveus while it challenges our thinking. It certainly does not tell uswhatto think, but often offers or provokes alternatives to our thinking. Agood writer pays huge attention to organization and certainly isn'tlimited to thesis-argument structure, especially for topics that don'tnaturally fit that form.I'm not an expert on this one, but I wonder if the most seminaltextsin the social sciences are thesis oriented.CraigPaul,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 exemplarsbecausethey had been judged as "literary." Some of them, in fact, were aboutsocial or political issues, but would arrive at an equivalent of athesis statement only at the end (in some of these, the author wasusinga more European-style thesis/antithesis/synthesis pattern, with thesynthesis constituting what American style would call the thesis, butinothers the reader was, in a sense, carried along through a set ofvignettes or observations, with the thesis only emerging gradually).They were oriented to an audience that would be at least asinterestedin the experience of reading the essay as in finding specific claimsorinformation in it. Allusion and artful indirection were valued, aswassome kinds of language play.There's a huge difference between that kind of essay and one thatservesas, for example, a research article in social science. Can you tellwhatthe article is about by reading the title? No? It's rejected. Isthere aclear major claim set forth in the first page or two? No? It'srejected.Are you taking up extra space with language whose primary function istohighlight how fun language is, or how artistic you are? Yes? Take itoutor it's rejected. Even a political argument essay not intended for anacademic environment at all will be ineffective (or worse) if theaudience has to work too hard at it to pull a point out, or gets theimpression that it's all there so that the author can feel very, veryspecial. Most work-related writing - and that's what the majority ofacademic writing *is* -- is there to be used, and used as quickly andefficiently as possible. Enjoyment of its literary dimensions isoptional.Sincerely,Bill SpruiellDept. of EnglishCentral Michigan UniversityFrom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. DonigerSent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:27 PMSubject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HSeducationBill,Could you explain what you meant when you wrote, "the essays I wassupposed to use as models for argumentative writing were literaryessays(which in this case, meant that the authors were distinctively, andproductively, violating some of the major rules of essay-writing,suchas 'have a clear thesis statement')?"Do you mean that writing about literature is antithetical to thewritingof clear thesis statements, or am I misreading your point? Whichother"major rules of essay writing" are violated by writing aboutliterature?This is an odd concept to my thinking, so I'd like someclarification.Thanks,Paul"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as animprobable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).________________________________From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:47:10 PMSubject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HSeducationAs someone from a social-science background who teaches compositioninan English department, I've noted some similar issues. Years ago, atanother institution, I was teaching composition in a program thatmandated a particular textbook. It was all about literature, and theessays I was supposed to use as models for argumentative writing wereliterary essays (which in this case, meant that the authors weredistinctively, and productively, violating some of the major rules ofessay-writing, such as "have a clear thesis statement"). They *were*good essays from a number of perspectives, but they weren't good in away that the students could emulate at that point in their writingdevelopment, and would not have been publishable as anything otherthanliterary essays, in a venue devoted expressly to that genre.Similarly (well, it's off-topic, but it IS similar....) courseobjectives such as "Students will demonstrate that they value <insertgenre name here>" strike me as at best coercive and at worst deeplycreepy. I have no way of reading their minds, and what they thinkisn'tnecessarily within my area of influence, although what they *do* canbe.I like Twain, but I'd rather have a student who said interestingthingsabout Twain and carefully analyzed his writing but didn't like it atallthan have a student who obligingly parroted the required opinion ofTwain. I told my science fiction class last semester that despite thecourse objective that stated they had to value SF, I was moreinterestedin whether they could discuss and analyze the arguments for valuingSFthan with whether they agreed with those arguments or not.In composition teaching, the problem with interpreting "writing" asifit were equivalent to "writing about literature" isn't really one ofextending the academic into the realm of the practical, though. AnAPA-style analysis of survey results is academic, but not literary.It'smore a side-effect of the somewhat haphazard conflation of literaturewith composition in English departments, and the tendency for anygroupto lose sight of the fact that what they value isn't automaticallythesame as what other people do. If we replaced "academic" with "carefuland explicit exposition and argumentation that is suited to itspurposeand audience," we might have fewer problems.Bill SpruiellDept. of EnglishCentral Michigan University-----Original Message-----From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of O'Sullivan, Brian PSent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:55 PMSubject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HSeducationA New York Times article,"New Push Seeks to End Need for Pre-CollegeRemedial Classes" (wasinteresting in light of Susan's recent critique of the focus on"academic" knowledge in high school education. For me, one of Susan'smost persuasive points was this: "Students should have to know how towrite argumentatively to promote themselves or their causes, but nottolie about why a piece of literature is meaningful because a teacherdecides they should believe that." The Times article touches on asimilar problem; it opens with an anecdote about a high schoolgraduatetaking pre-college remedial courses because, among other problems,her"senior English class...focused on literature, but little onwriting."To me, this illustrates that some of the so-called "academic" contentthat Susan criticizes is just as ill-suited to the needs of futurecollege students as it is to the the needs of future plumbers. Manyfreshman at my college don't take a literature course, but they allwrite argumentatively in courses across the curriculum.I think Susan might be right that the "permanent training wheels"someof us have been worried about are the result of high schools'overemphasis version of "academic writing." It seems to be adifferentversion, though, than what I recognize as academic writing incollegesand universities. For example, Susan is probably right that theprohibition on "I" is intended to "prevent beginning writers frombeingredundant and from weakening the power of their arguments." But,although I've occasionally heard college professors complain abouttheoverabundance of "I think" and "I feel" and though I have evenoccasionally complained about it myself), I have more often heard andmade the complaint that students don't use" I" when appropriate anddon't put themselves into their writing in effective ways. If myexperience is representative (which, OK, is a big if), and if somehighschool teachers are banning "I" because they're trying to teachacademicwriting to "non-academic" students, then those high school teachersmusteither mean something different from "college writing" ormisunderstandwhat college writing teachers value. (Let me acknowledge that Susanisnot one of "those high school teachers"; she's made it clear that sheteaches students to use "I" when relating personal experiences.)So, as I think Herb suggested earlier, the problem of training wheelpermanence, so to speak, may have a lot to do with lack ofcommunication between high school teachers and college teachers. Ifbothgroups could agree on what they mean by "academic writing," or even"good writing," we might be able to lay down clearer paths forstudents.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 DrutenSent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:52 PMSubject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HSeducationPeter, I think we should be concerned about teachers who present"training wheels" as real life. However, I think it might be wise toconsider why those teachers do this.My guess is that they are inundated with students who don't ever wantto "ride a bike" in their entire lives, but are forced to act likethey want to "ride a bike" because society values bike-riding overcarpentry, plumbing, or whatever hands-on skill or craft they excelat. In other words, we all have to stop believing that people whocan'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 teacherswho will create stupid short-cuts to get non-academically-inclinedteens 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-inclinedteens that they are good hockey players if they just do their best topass the puck to Lutska.We should rethink what high schools should require and how long astudent should be required to attend (I think 8th grade is a betterminimum). We need to teach math so that students can balance a checkbook and know why carrying a balance on a credit card is stupid.Students should have to know how to write argumentatively to promotethemselves or their causes, but not to lie about why a piece ofliterature is meaningful because a teacher decides they shouldbelieve that.We should value education. But we have to stop only equatingacademics with education. There are plenty of non-academic fieldsthat we need. After all, most academic jobs could be shippedoverseas, but we need to have "in-house" plumbers.SusanOn Jun 2, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Peter Adams wrote:The argument Susan makes for banning the use of first person strikesme as a perfect example of training wheels. There is a possibleconstruction involving first person that we might prefer studentsavoid. Rather than teach students to avoid that construction, wesimply ban all uses of first person.That bothers me.Peter AdamsOn Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays is toprevent beginning writers from being redundant and from weakeningthe power of their arguments. "I believe," "I feel," and "I think"shouldn't preface every idea expressed. I tell my students to usefirst person only when relating personal experiences in theiressays.SusanOn Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:Peter,Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing I do. Ihaveyet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine throughfourissues and never took issue with it.I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas shouldbeimpersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may be areasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't matter, Isuppose,who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I can'tforthelife of me separate my understanding of teaching writing from myownschooling or the wealth of my experiences in the classroom. Idon'thave "logical" views about it separate from my values andexperiences.It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educationalopportunityprogram students for twenty-three years" when I'm trying tocharacterize my own background. Other people may have opinionsaboutit, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking studentstoavoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking them to avoidbeinghonest about where their views are coming from. This alsoshortchangesthe dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has grown upwitha hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone shot byafellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to talkunlessthose differing experiences can be acknowledged as legitimate.We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't benefit frompretending to leave our values and experiences at the door. Quiteoften, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the fact.CraigI've never understood some teachers' constraints on first person,so Ilook forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students that theyshouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing to anaudience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also tell themI'venever written anything in my life that was so formal that Iavoidedcontractions. Where do others stand on this?Peter AdamsOn Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English,"Ioften come across some gray areas. My tendancy is to besomewhatconservative about formal language. I wonder where others drawlines regarding levels of formality. For example, some of mystudents use words that seem too informal to me, like"morph" (verbform). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the firstpersonbefore, but I think it is sometimes valuable to challengestudentsto write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first personaltogether. 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 animprobable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PMSubject: 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 teachfourgroups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet witheachgroup five times each week. I think that I could get betterresultsby meeting with all the groups together on some days and witheachgroup separately on others. This would reduce total studentcontacthours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact hours perweek next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefitfromreducing my contact load and spending that time planning,developinglessons, 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)Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PMScott,I'm not join this debate because I don't know the research oneitherside, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week ratherthanfour groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikesmeassimply a different way of handling the same student-teacherratio.Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each groupseems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to fourgroupsof 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing andmuch less response to writing.HerbFrom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar] On Behalf Of Scott WoodsSent: 2009-05-31 11:11Subject: 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 stronglinkbetween reducing class size and increasing performance. TheresearchI have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor inimproving student performance is changing what teachers do.Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in aclass,but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggestthatif we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15studentsthat much would change in what students know and can do.As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer totalstudents,but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, Ihadall 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That wouldgiveme eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to theirwriting.Scott WoodsBASIS 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 agreesthatclass size is a vital component in successful learning. This isespecially important to the writing classroom.Paul E. Doniger"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as animprobable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PMSubject: 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 inteachingwriting must have been brought up by a school board member. Myalmamater,MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praisedhighly, hada secondary program in basic writing skills for those who hadfailedtheEnglish placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but myadvisor hadaccidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore,Ihad totake a non-credit English class on the same semester as my firstFreshmanEnglish class. My advisor apologized to me later but I repliedthatI hadlearned more in Dummy English than in regular English becausetheclass sizewas quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme eachdayinsteadof one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also anexcellentteacher.Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that,inmyexperience, class size is more important in English compositionthanin anyother academic class, including mathematics and foreignlanguages.N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STDProfessor Emeritus***************************************************************************To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's webinterface at: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 webinterface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html andselect "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 webinterface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html andselect "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 webinterface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html andselect "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 webinterface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html andselect "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 webinterface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html andselect "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 webinterfaceat: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html andselect"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 webinterfaceat: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 webinterfaceat: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 webinterfaceat: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 webinterface at: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 interfaceat: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:and select "Join or leave the list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/