Johanna,

Yes, I know about the problems of using student work. I have had to
go through the labor of obtaining student permissions several times.
Yet student examples are useful in many ways, especially to show the
various drafts a paper can go through and how a peer can critique a
draft to give advice on how to revise. The need for so many student
papers at various stages in drafting led me to write my own
imitations of student papers. Then I own the paper and can do
anything I want with it. I can even create four or five different
versions of the same paper for use in teaching about the whole
process of going from lists of ideas to semi-final drafts that only
need copy editing.

I do understand the limitations and abuses of dictionaries. I plan to
begin with dictionaries specifically because they are considered the
voice of authority. That is, if dictionaries consider it necessary to
give pronunciations, parts of speech, word histories, etc., that
helps to prove that these things are important and worth knowing.
Then when we make the bridge from dictionaries to actual texts,
students begin with some technical knowledge as well as their
intuitions in their examinations of words in the texts. One would
hope that they also see the limitations of dictionaries, especially
the definitions, so that they lose a little respect for the authority
of dictionaries.

I recognize the need for something between the dictionary and the
real text. That's where exercises to give students immediate practice
in what they have observed might be helpful.  We shall see.

However, I won't know if this approach will work until we try it in
someone's class. If it doesn't work very well, we modify it or try
something else. Since I don't know of anyone who has tried this kind
of global approach to language I have in mind, much experimentation
will be necessary before we decide whether it can be done.

And if it's not fun for kids to do, then I won't care to use it
whether it works or not. It need not be fun-fun (whoopee! yee-haw!),
but it at least needs to be the kind of intellectual puzzle that kids
can enjoy working on. We have to keep in mind that some kids are not
language-oriented--more interested in physcial activity or music or
art, etc.--and do not find language games to be all that interesting.
We need an approach which will appeal to them and not just to
language buffs like us.

Bill

>Bill, two thoughts:
>
>1 - I've heard that you can get in trouble if you use student work
>without the student's written permission. Nowadays, if I think I
>might want to keep student work for use as examples, I ask a whole
>class to sign a consent form, with the option of not signing, of
>course.
>
>Maybe you do this already. But if you don't, it might be good to ask
>around among publishers.
>
>
>2 - Some thoughts on word analysis and the dictionary. I do believe
>it is crucial that students learn how to use a dictionary and what
>it is for. What I fear is the exaggerated authority people give to
>dictionaries. There is a longstanding idea that the dictionary, not
>the language user, is the only repository of word meanings and how
>words divide up. If I were teaching word analysis, I wouldn't start
>with the dictionary. I would start by having students use their own
>knowledge of English to analyze words. This is good training, not
>only in word analysis, but in stepwise, disciplined thinking. It can
>also be used to demonstrate how detailed that knowledge is -- e.g.,
>the generality of regular inflectional affixes as opposed to
>derivational ones (we can say "payment" and "refusal" but not
>"payal" and "refusement"). It can also bring forward the idea of
>productivity: which suffixes are still very active in forming new
>words? "-ment" is probably much more productive than "-al", if
>either is still productive. The dictionary can be brought  in to see
>how much it agrees with student's intuitions, why it might not, and
>how we work with that, along with the other needs a dictionary
>serves.
>
>Lots of fun can be had with words!
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University
>One Grand Avenue  * San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
>Tel. (805)-756-2184  *  Fax: (805)-756-6374 * Dept. Phone.  756-2596
>* E-mail: [log in to unmask] *      Home page:
>http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>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/