From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Sep 5 13:10:55 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20614 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:10:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GJ700101BU521@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:10:53 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (pc60.eng.nau.edu [134.114.166.103]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GJ700JQKBU43Y@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:10:52 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:10:26 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: [Teaching_basic_writing] Welcome! To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3B966A90.223885F7@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_+27/zUPe0jXqjDV/IQBKqA)" X-Accept-Language: en This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_+27/zUPe0jXqjDV/IQBKqA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find that their articles are published in many of the journals of our discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on issues of institutional context as well as student populations and needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish to address in the coming weeks. As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with some very useful avenues for discussion. Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment and their utility. I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let the dialogue begin… Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University --Boundary_(ID_+27/zUPe0jXqjDV/IQBKqA) Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name=lag.vcf Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=lag.vcf Content-description: Card for Laura Gray-Rosendale begin:vcard n:Gray-Rosendale;Dr. Laura tel;fax:520-523-7074 tel;work:520-523-0956 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu fn:Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale end:vcard --Boundary_(ID_+27/zUPe0jXqjDV/IQBKqA)-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Sep 19 07:45:12 2001 Received: from localhost.localdomain (IDENT:root@[205.232.182.223]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29864 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:45:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.keuka.edu (mail.keuka.edu [205.232.182.3]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f8JCSBn22910 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:28:11 -0400 Received: from KEUKA_LAKE/SpoolDir by mail.keuka.edu (Mercury 1.47); 19 Sep 01 08:44:37 -0600 Received: from SpoolDir by KEUKA_LAKE (Mercury 1.47); 19 Sep 01 08:44:19 -0600 From: "Carole Lillis" Organization: Keuka College To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:44:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Teaching_basic_writing] subscription Message-ID: <3BA85AE2.15999.139CAD@localhost> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) I wish to subscribe to Teaching Basic Writing. Carole Lillis, coordinator, Writing and Tutorial Center, Keuka College From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Sep 19 09:51:07 2001 Received: from blueriver.cc.mo.us (blueriver.cc.mo.us [165.173.121.90]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA11915 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:51:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from BRDOM-Message_Server by blueriver.cc.mo.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:51:07 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.4 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:50:49 -0500 From: "Katona Mulholland" To: Subject: [Teaching_basic_writing] subscribe From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 20 10:54:37 2001 Received: from dns1.epcc.edu (dns1.epcc.edu [208.136.233.3]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26983 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:54:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from epcc.edu (nmail.epcc.edu [208.136.233.6]) by dns1.epcc.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f8KFtoh19205 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:55:51 -0600 (MDT) Received: from EPCC-Message_Server by epcc.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:01:13 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.4 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:01:00 -0600 From: "Peter Maas" To: Subject: [Teaching_basic_writing] reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id KAA26984 sign me up From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 20 14:46:18 2001 Received: from ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu (ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu [164.47.165.133]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23250 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:46:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:44:25 -0600 Message-ID: <38B64122C3C4D311B4430000F80433E101AEA093@ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu> From: "Giddings, Larry" To: "'teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com'" Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Apologies in Advance Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:44:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Greetings Everyone, I hope: I apologize in advance here for posting this bit of nothing, but I tried to subscribe to the list and I'm not certain that I was successful. I've read DeGenaro and White's _Assessment and the Basic Writer_, and I've been considering an initial response, but I want to make sure that I may respond on list. No need for anyone to reply. I'll see my note if it posts. Larry Giddings Pikes Peak Community College, Colorado Springs From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 20 19:39:47 2001 Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21748 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 19:39:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Dgkives@aol.com Received: from Dgkives@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.134.1d91245 (4452) for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <134.1d91245.28dbe64c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:39:40 EDT Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] help download To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_134.1d91245.28dbe64c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 --part1_134.1d91245.28dbe64c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Help on downloading or accessing items e.g. Peter Mass reply, 09/20. dgkives@aol.com --part1_134.1d91245.28dbe64c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Help on downloading or accessing items  e.g. Peter Mass reply, 09/20.

dgkives@aol.com --part1_134.1d91245.28dbe64c_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 20 21:06:01 2001 Received: from clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com (clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com [65.24.0.112]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29105 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:06:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from oemcomputer (a2-2c055.neo.rr.com [24.93.202.55]) by clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f8L222p04422 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c1424a$1fd12d60$37ca5d18@neo.rr.com> From: "Clayton E. Samels" To: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Hello, world Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:04:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Hello, world, or at least those who are subscribed to the Teaching Basic Writing list! :-) From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 21 08:47:43 2001 Received: from clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com (clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com [65.24.0.112]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14863 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 08:47:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from oemcomputer (a2-2c055.neo.rr.com [24.93.202.55]) by clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f8LDhip20087 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Clayton E. Samels" To: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Hello, world Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:46:06 -0500 Message-ID: <000601c142ac$25c414a0$37ca5d18@neo.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal Hello, world, or at least hello to those on the Teaching Basic Writing List! I'm glad I subscribed. Clayton E. Samels The University of Akron - Wayne College clayton@uakron.edu csamels@neo.rr.comH From the Shores of Beautiful Lake Dorothy From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 21 22:58:53 2001 Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA25084 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:58:53 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.13d.1d33cb3 (17380) for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <13d.1d33cb3.28dd6658@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:58:16 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Hello, world To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13d.1d33cb3.28dd6658_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_13d.1d33cb3.28dd6658_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hello i am a new subscriber, but an older professor. I volunteered to teach basic writing this year and find it really interesting. It might be interesting to swap syllabae. Would anyone find this useful? just me Roger Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis --part1_13d.1d33cb3.28dd6658_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hello

i am a new subscriber, but an older professor.

I volunteered to teach basic writing this year and find it really interesting.

It might be interesting to swap syllabae. Would anyone find this useful?

just me

Roger

Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis

--part1_13d.1d33cb3.28dd6658_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Sep 22 13:49:09 2001 Received: from localhost.localdomain (titus.npgco.com [207.192.213.20]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22280 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:49:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ed ([24.246.122.147]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f8MIncu04851 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:49:38 -0500 From: "Ed White" To: Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:47:45 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200109221701.MAA13724@grue.eppg.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Swapping Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: -----Original Message----- From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 10:01 AM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #5 - 1 msg Send Teaching_Basic_Writing mailing list submissions to teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com You can reach the person managing the list at teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Basic_Writing digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Hello, world (RREasson333@aol.com) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: RREasson333@aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:58:16 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Hello, world To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com --part1_13d.1d33cb3.28dd6658_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Roger and others: I too would be interested in seeing some syllabuses, as well as some texts, now in use. Most of all, I'd like to see a response to the statement on BW that Bill and I put together. Time for all of us to tear ourselves away from the breaking news for a while. --Ed White From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Sep 22 14:16:36 2001 Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26000 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:16:36 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.30.1b1c167b (3894) for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <30.1b1c167b.28de3d91@aol.com> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:16:33 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Swapping To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_30.1b1c167b.28de3d91_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_30.1b1c167b.28de3d91_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/01 1:50:24 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes: > Roger and others: I too would be interested in seeing some syllabuses, as > well as some texts, now in use. Most of all, I'd like to see a response to > the statement on BW that Bill and I put together. Time for all of us to tear > ourselves away from the breaking news for a while. Ah, Ed. I'd love to respond to it. But somehow I got on the list after the posting of that statement. Can you profide a url for it. I will happily read and respond. just me roger Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com --part1_30.1b1c167b.28de3d91_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/01 1:50:24 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes:


Roger and others: I too would be interested in seeing some syllabuses, as
well as some texts, now in use.  Most of all, I'd like to see a response to
the statement on BW that Bill and I put together. Time for all of us to tear
ourselves away from the breaking news for a while.   --Ed White


Ah, Ed. I'd love to respond to it.  But somehow I got on the list after the posting of that statement.  Can you profide a url for it. I will happily read and respond.

just me
roger


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com --part1_30.1b1c167b.28de3d91_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Sep 24 14:32:47 2001 Received: from femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.106]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01653; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:32:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cc188248a ([24.3.176.241]) by femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010924193238.TCVZ1596.femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc188248a>; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:32:38 -0700 Message-ID: <00c401c14530$ff013320$f1b00318@sumt1.nj.home.com> From: "Suzanna Ellison" To: , Cc: "Vaccaro, Todd" , "Touborg, Sarah" , Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:42:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C1_01C1450F.775A09E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Problems with list software for TBW and TC Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C1_01C1450F.775A09E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I apologize for having this problem just as we're trying to get the = lists started. I've been informed there's been an upgrade in the Mailman = software that runs the list, and it's resulted in a number of problems = for people trying to subscribe to the Teaching Basic Writing and = Teaching Comp lists.=20 These problems should be fixed very soon, I'm told. In the meantime, = I'll keep anyone's name who lets me know of trouble, and make sure they = get subscribed as soon as possible. How untimely! But, McGraw-Hill's webmaster is on top of it and I'm told = it's just a temporary glitch. Thanks for your patience. Suzanna Ellison =20 Ellison Consulting http://members.home.net/ellison tel: 908-608-0160 2 Nassau Drive fax: 908-608-0161 Summit, NJ 07901 ellison@home.com ------=_NextPart_000_00C1_01C1450F.775A09E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I apologize for having this problem = just as we're=20 trying to get the lists started. I've been informed there's been an = upgrade=20 in the Mailman software that runs the list, and it's resulted in a = number of=20 problems for people trying to subscribe to the Teaching Basic Writing = and=20 Teaching Comp lists.
 
These problems should be fixed very = soon, I'm told.=20 In the meantime, I'll keep anyone's name who lets me know of trouble, = and make=20 sure they get subscribed as soon as possible.
 
How untimely! But, McGraw-Hill's = webmaster is on=20 top of it and I'm told it's just a temporary glitch. Thanks for your=20 patience.
 
Suzanna=20 Ellison
          &n= bsp;=20
Ellison=20 Consulting          &nb= sp;     =20 http://members.home.net/ellison<= /A>
           =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;       =20 tel: 908-608-0160
2 Nassau=20 Drive           &n= bsp;       =20 fax: 908-608-0161
Summit, NJ=20 07901           &n= bsp;   =20 ellison@home.com
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00C1_01C1450F.775A09E0-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Sep 24 14:43:00 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02495 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:42:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GK600801MRM3C@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:42:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (ts10-5.ppp.nau.edu [134.114.14.174]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GK600AEPMRH77@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:42:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:51:25 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Swapping To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3BAF8EBD.341F70D3@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_0L9wCLzwqx8u5Qnhi6Efsg)" X-Accept-Language: en References: <30.1b1c167b.28de3d91@aol.com> Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --Boundary_(ID_0L9wCLzwqx8u5Qnhi6Efsg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Some of you may have just signed on and not received my welcome message. Here it is! I know this has been a tough time for many of you, your friends and family. And, as a result, it may be hard to refocus our energies on BW issues right now. But, as we know, BW teaching and practices are central to truly democratic possibilities in education, and are as important now as our country struggles with how to make sense of recent events. I want to support Ed's comments that we begin with a discussion of the excellent insights Bill and Ed have offered us in their module in terms of comments on basic writing issues and assessment. Many thanks! Laura ---------------- Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find that their articles are published in many of the journals of our discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on issues of institutional context as well as student populations and needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish to address in the coming weeks. As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with some very useful avenues for discussion. Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment and their utility. I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let the dialogue begin… Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University RREasson333@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/22/01 1:50:24 PM Central Daylight Time, > emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes: > > > >> Roger and others: I too would be interested in seeing some >> syllabuses, as >> well as some texts, now in use. Most of all, I'd like to see a >> response to >> the statement on BW that Bill and I put together. Time for all of us >> to tear >> ourselves away from the breaking news for a while. --Ed White > > Ah, Ed. I'd love to respond to it. But somehow I got on the list > after the posting of that statement. Can you profide a url for it. I > will happily read and respond. > > just me > roger > > > Roger Easson > Professor > Director of the Writing Center > Christian Brothers University > Memphis TN > reasson@cbu.edu > RReasson333@aol.com --Boundary_(ID_0L9wCLzwqx8u5Qnhi6Efsg) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Some of you may have just signed on and not received my welcome message. Here it is!
I know this has been a tough time for many of you, your friends and family. And, as a result,
it may be hard to refocus our energies on BW issues right now. But, as we know,
BW teaching and practices are central to truly democratic possibilities in education, and
are as important now as our country struggles with how to make sense of recent events.
I want to support Ed's comments that we begin with a discussion of the excellent insights
Bill and Ed have offered us in their module in terms of comments on basic writing issues and assessment.

Many thanks!
Laura
----------------
 

Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find that their articles are published in many of the journals of our discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication.

The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches.

In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on issues of institutional context as well as student populations and needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish to address in the coming weeks.

As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with some very useful avenues for discussion.

Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment and their utility.

I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let the dialogue begin…

Best wishes,
Laura
Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale
Northern Arizona University
 

RREasson333@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 9/22/01 1:50:24 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes:
 
 
Roger and others: I too would be interested in seeing some syllabuses, as
well as some texts, now in use.  Most of all, I'd like to see a response to
the statement on BW that Bill and I put together. Time for all of us to tear
ourselves away from the breaking news for a while.   --Ed White

Ah, Ed. I'd love to respond to it.  But somehow I got on the list after the posting of that statement.  Can you profide a url for it. I will happily read and respond.

just me
roger
 

Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com

--Boundary_(ID_0L9wCLzwqx8u5Qnhi6Efsg)-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Sep 24 17:36:47 2001 Received: from martin.u.arizona.edu (IDENT:degenaro@martin.U.Arizona.EDU [128.196.137.11]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22261 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:36:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (degenaro@localhost) by martin.u.arizona.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA37836 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:36:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:36:44 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com In-Reply-To: <3BAF8EBD.341F70D3@jan.ucc.nau.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Since Ed White and I are leading the listserv's first discussion, let me try to jump-start the conversation. 'Assessment' is a concept that often upsets the sensibilities of those of us in the humanities. And often assessment lacks humanity, so our negative feelings might be quite sensible. But for those of us who teach basic writing, assessment (in some form or another) is inescapable. On the small scale, we all do *some type* of evaluation. On the larger scale, our institutions do *something* to designate who is and who is not a "basic writer." I hope you all have gotten a chance to look at the short piece Ed and I wrote (www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/ct/degenaro.html). One of our central points is that the way in which we understand the group of college students known as basic writers is contingent upon the forms of large-scale assessmen used at our institutions. I'd like to start by asking the general questions: What does your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that arrangement working out? I wonder if we could start there and see where the discussion goes. --Bill DeGenaro, The University of Arizona From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Sep 24 19:16:06 2001 Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02453 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:16:06 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.13d.1f59fb4 (25914) for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <13d.1f59fb4.28e1269b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:15:23 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13d.1f59fb4.28e1269b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_13d.1f59fb4.28e1269b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 9/24/01 5:37:53 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes: > Bill writes>>I'd like to start by asking the general questions: What does=20 > your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that arrangemen= t=20 > working > out? >=20 > Roger writes>>I think Christian Brothers University does a pretty good job= =20 > at identifying students at risk who need some additional focus on writing.= =20 > Could we do it better, probably? Many students come to the Writing Center= =20 > who could have benefited from a Basic Writing romp. Most of our students=20 > are increasingly aliterate, and it shows. I don't think this phenomenon i= s=20 > confined to the midsouth, by any means. Krashan's notion that we learn t= o=20 > write intuitively by reading is sound I believe, which makes the lack of=20 > reading among out students doubly troubling.=20 As to whether there is an instrument capable of identifying such students wh= o=20 could benefit from a course in Basic Writing more appropriately I'm sure you= =20 may well be more informed than I.=20 You write in your article "Who is the basic writer? Someone who hasn't=20 produced writings to include in an impressive portfolio of their work?=20 Someone who can't write a sentence? Someone who chokes in a high-pressure=20 thirty-minute exam (or went to a big party the night before)? Someone weak a= t=20 standardized tests like the SAT? How writing programs go about sorting=20 students speaks volumes about their institutional values. The form of=20 assessment dictates how a =E2=80=9Cbasic writer=E2=80=9D is defined." Let me see if I can offer some other issues which might be useful to conside= r=20 as we struggle to reach a definition of this kind of student. 1) I think a basic writer is someone who has a great deal of writing=20 apprehension. Hence a test of writing apprehension might well be a useful=20 index. 2) Fluency is clearly an issue basic writers lack. The reason they often do= =20 poorly in essay exams is that they cannot record their thoughts efficiently.= =20 For this reason, in my sections of Basic Writing we spend Wednesday each wee= k=20 in a computer lab just doing freewriting in response to an article we found=20 on the Monday previous. We always do a word count working to achieve higher=20 scores than the previous week. We write 15 five page papers during the=20 semester of which six are graded. 3) I pair this fluency issue with the size and efficiency of their recall=20 vocabulary, as opposed to their recognition vocabulary. Basic Writers have i= n=20 my experience, a very poor recall vocabulary. For this reason, we work a=20 great deal in my section of Basic writing on vocabulary acquisition. =20 Thinking is greatly impaired, I believe, if the mind has not got access to a= n=20 extensive recall vocabulary with which to shape and frame and transport=20 thought. Friday is vocabulary day, where we work with a list of 10 new words= =20 the students bring to class each week. 4) Correctness is the essential issue we confront in one on one meetings. =20 Basic writers for some reason have never learned to correct particular=20 patterns of error which recur in their writing. It is the identification of= =20 these patterns, how to detect them and repair them which is the focus of muc= h=20 of our work together. In these sessions, I work hard to differentiate=20 between style and grammar focusing primarily on standard grammar and=20 mechanics. 5) Few basic writers arrive in my classes ever having heard about this=20 distinction between grammar and style. I generally assume that basic writers= =20 are works in progress and will develop their own styles as they become more=20 comfortable as writers. But I also teach them that style is a function of=20 Subject, Audience and Occasion so that good writers may have many styles and= =20 as many voices. =20 Consequently, I teach them how to use Microsoft Word to do sequential=20 copyediting, rather than global copyediting. And we generate a set of tools= =20 as a result of these meetings which remind them of the editing challenges=20 they have as they approach this phase of the writing process. I never mark=20 on a student's paper, and I never take a grade a student's paper without him= =20 or her being at my shoulder as I do. Students learn to redline their work=20 after an editing session to see the patterns of correction in their writing,= =20 patterns they find surprising and useful. 6) Basic Writers are often wounded writers. They have often been savaged by= =20 the red pen, beaten up over such American peculiarities as the dreaded comma= =20 splice. Consequently, their writing often is characterized by avoidance=20 strategies. I am very affirmative and nurturing in my work with these=20 writers as a consequence, heaping praise on them and practicing the yoga of=20 the bitten tongue when I see something amiss. =20 7) Basic writers frequently have had little experience with focused writing=20 instruction. Their vocabulary of terms about writing and ability to discuss=20 writing is usually impoverished. =20 There is a lot of very poor teaching of writing going on in our public=20 schools in Memphis, so many basic writers come to CBU never having written=20 much of anything. In addition, they have been told some very bizarre things= =20 about grammar and mechanics which have to be dealt with as well. =20 Mostly, however, they have never had anyone teach them how to copyedit their= =20 own work, so copyediting is a skill we work hard to sharpen. =20 In my past lives, I have earned my living in Industry as a Technical Editor,= =20 and in Business as a Managing Editor of several Publishing houses, so I have= =20 honed my skills as a manager of writers with professional writers as well as= =20 students. =20 This is probably way more than you wanted to know Bill. I look forward to=20 the discussion on this list. Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu=20 RReasson333@aol.com --part1_13d.1f59fb4.28e1269b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 9/24/0= 1 5:37:53 PM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes:


Bill writes>>I'd like= to start by asking the general questions: What does your school do to place= students in basic writing?  How is that arrangement working
out?

Roger writes>>I think Christian Brothers University does a pretty=20= good job at identifying students at risk who need some additional focus on w= riting.  Could we do it better, probably?  Many students come to t= he Writing Center who could have benefited from a Basic Writing romp.  = Most of our students are increasingly aliterate, and it shows.  I don't= think this phenomenon is confined to the midsouth, by any means.  &nbs= p;Krashan's notion that we learn to write intuitively by reading is sound I=20= believe, which makes the lack of reading among out students doubly troubling= .


As to whether there is an instrument capable of identifying such student= s who could benefit from a course in Basic Writing more appropriately I'm su= re you may well be more informed than I.=20

You write in your article "Who is the basic writer? Someone who hasn't p= roduced writings to include in an impressive portfolio of their work? Someon= e who can't write a sentence? Someone who chokes in a high-pressure thirty-m= inute exam (or went to a big party the night before)? Someone weak at standa= rdized tests like the SAT? How writing programs go about sorting students sp= eaks volumes about their institutional values. The form of assessment dictat= es how a =E2=80=9Cbasic writer=E2=80=9D is defined."

Let me see if I can offer some other issues which might be useful to con= sider as we struggle to reach a definition of this kind of student.

1) I think a basic writer is someone who has a great deal of writing app= rehension. Hence a test of writing apprehension might well be a useful index= .

2) Fluency is clearly an issue basic writers lack.  The reason they= often do poorly in essay exams is that they cannot record their thoughts ef= ficiently. For this reason, in my sections of Basic Writing we spend Wednesd= ay each week in a computer lab just doing freewriting in response to an arti= cle we found on the Monday previous. We always do a word count working to ac= hieve higher scores than the previous week. We write 15 five page papers dur= ing the semester of which six are graded.

3) I pair this fluency issue with the size and efficiency of their recal= l vocabulary, as opposed to their recognition vocabulary. Basic Writers have= in my experience, a very poor recall vocabulary. For this reason, we work a= great deal in my section of Basic writing on vocabulary acquisition.  = Thinking is greatly impaired, I believe, if the mind has not got access to a= n extensive recall vocabulary with which to shape and frame and transport th= ought. Friday is vocabulary day, where we work with a list of 10 new words t= he students bring to class each week.

4)  Correctness is the essential issue we confront in one on one me= etings.  Basic writers for some reason have never learned to correct pa= rticular patterns of error which recur in their writing.  It is the ide= ntification of these patterns, how to detect them and repair them which is t= he focus of much of our work  together.   In these sessions,=20= I work hard to differentiate between style and grammar focusing primarily on= standard grammar and mechanics.

5) Few basic writers arrive in my classes ever having heard about this d= istinction between grammar and style. I generally assume that basic writers=20= are works in progress and will develop their own styles as they become more=20= comfortable as writers. But I also teach them that style is a function of Su= bject, Audience and Occasion so that good writers may have many styles and a= s many voices.  

Consequently, I teach them how to use Microsoft Word to do sequential co= pyediting, rather than global copyediting. And we generate a  set of to= ols as a result of these meetings which remind them of the editing challenge= s they have as they approach this phase of the writing process.  I neve= r mark on a student's paper, and I never take a grade a student's paper with= out him or her being at my shoulder as I do. Students learn to redline their= work after an editing session to see the patterns of correction in their wr= iting, patterns they find surprising and useful.

6) Basic Writers are often wounded writers.  They have often been s= avaged by the red pen, beaten up over such American peculiarities as the dre= aded comma splice.  Consequently, their writing often is characterized=20= by avoidance strategies.  I am very affirmative and nurturing in my wor= k with these writers as a consequence, heaping praise on them and practicing= the yoga of the bitten tongue when I see something amiss.  

7) Basic writers frequently have had little experience with focused writ= ing instruction. Their vocabulary of terms about writing and ability to disc= uss writing is usually impoverished.  

There is a lot of very poor teaching of writing going on in our public s= chools in Memphis, so many basic writers come to CBU never having written mu= ch of anything.  In addition, they have been told some very bizarre thi= ngs about grammar and mechanics which have to be dealt with as well.  

Mostly, however, they have never had anyone teach them how to copyedit t= heir own work, so copyediting is a skill we work hard to sharpen.  

In my past lives, I have earned my living in Industry as a Technical Edi= tor, and in Business as a Managing Editor of several Publishing houses, so I= have honed my skills as a manager of writers with professional writers as w= ell as students.  

This is probably way more than you wanted to know Bill.  I look for= ward to the discussion on this list.


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu=20
RReasson333@aol.com
--part1_13d.1f59fb4.28e1269b_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 12:45:59 2001 Received: from email.boisestate.edu (email.boisestate.edu [132.178.210.6]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10343 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:45:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from boisestate.edu (BSU99790.boisestate.edu [132.178.185.2]) by email.boisestate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12850 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:45:57 -0600 Message-ID: <3BB36603.A7898D52@boisestate.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:46:45 -0600 From: Karen Uehling X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion going? Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I haven't received any messages lately and checked the archives--nothing in the archives since Monday describing a list problem. Are we up and running yet? --Karen Uehling From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 14:17:53 2001 Received: from austin.hccs.cc.tx.us ([198.64.34.11]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28695 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:17:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from oracle@localhost) by austin.hccs.cc.tx.us (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA13439 for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:19:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200109271919.OAA13439@austin.hccs.cc.tx.us> Date: 27 Sep 2001 14:16:00 -0500 From: "Iris Rozencwajg" To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Oracle InterOffice (version 4.2.1.3.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id OAA28701 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 14:27:02 2001 Received: from loras.edu ([192.152.29.111]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02827 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:26:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lcdomain-Message_Server by loras.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:23:18 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:23:10 -0500 From: "Rita Dudley" To: , Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_2A70AFB6.BADB8EBC" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_2A70AFB6.BADB8EBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic = writing course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take = before they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it = in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same = writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course. I've = taught such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. = Any ideas what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through = this course to go on to the required one? What percent in your institution= s need to retake the course? "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what = we do not do." --Moliere >>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us 09/27/01 02:16PM >>> First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com= http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing --=_2A70AFB6.BADB8EBC Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a = basic=20 writing course this semester.  The course is for low ACT scorers to = take=20 before they take the required English Composition.  We're trying to = tie it=20 in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same = writing=20 assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course.  I've = taught such=20 a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not.  Any = ideas what=20 to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to = go on=20 to the required one?  What percent in your institutions need to = retake the=20 course?
 
 
"It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also = what=20 we do not do."  --Moliere

>>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.= us=20 09/27/01 02:16PM >>>
First posting. Looking forward to reading = what=20 other BW instructors are
doing these days.

Iris Rozencwajg
Hou= ston=20 Community=20 College
rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us
__________________________________= _____________
Teaching_Basic_Writing=20 maillist  -  Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com
ht= tp://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing
= --=_2A70AFB6.BADB8EBC-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 13:58:57 2001 Received: from ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu (ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu [164.47.165.133]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18915 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:58:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:04:24 -0600 Message-ID: <38B64122C3C4D311B4430000F80433E101AEA0B8@ppccs1.ppcc.cccoes.edu> From: "Giddings, Larry" To: "'teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com'" Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:04:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello Everyone! Larry Giddings here from Pikes Peak Community College in Colorado Springs. As a professional, I've been working with teaching "basic writers," for about 12 years, and before that as a student, I suppose I were one for at least that many years. I want to thank Professors Degenaro and White for their opening comments regarding assessing writing (specifically basic writers), and I want to file a complaint-not directed precisely at what they said, but more generally towards what I see as a major problem for writing teachers everywhere. I read "Assessment and the Basic Writer," hoping to see specific characteristics, maybe even quantifiable markers to help us define what today's basic writer might look like in profile. I was hoping to see reading level ranges, writing characteristics, sociological indicators, and maybe even socio-economic tags or attitude generalizations. Alas, this sort of information was not included in their stimulating and thoughtful discussion. And I'm back to wondering where I can turn for specific information (other than anecdotal) that will help me and my colleagues in the Colorado community colleges explain to our various curriculum committees and administrators the natures of our "basic writing" students. Perhaps, however, our colleges are concerned about assessment for reasons other than teaching, learning, and self-improvement. In the Community Colleges of Colorado (14 colleges), we use Accuplacer (most), Compass (one or two), and most use in-class writing samples for placement verification. There is much that I can relate about how placement has been redefined over the course of the last few years here in Colorado (mandatory placement by state law), but I'll not trouble you with any of that now. Thanks again, Bill and Ed, Gidd -----Original Message----- From: William Degenaro [mailto:degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 4:37 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Since Ed White and I are leading the listserv's first discussion, let me try to jump-start the conversation. 'Assessment' is a concept that often upsets the sensibilities of those of us in the humanities. And often assessment lacks humanity, so our negative feelings might be quite sensible. But for those of us who teach basic writing, assessment (in some form or another) is inescapable. On the small scale, we all do *some type* of evaluation. On the larger scale, our institutions do *something* to designate who is and who is not a "basic writer." I hope you all have gotten a chance to look at the short piece Ed and I wrote (www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/ct/degenaro.html). One of our central points is that the way in which we understand the group of college students known as basic writers is contingent upon the forms of large-scale assessmen used at our institutions. I'd like to start by asking the general questions: What does your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that arrangement working out? I wonder if we could start there and see where the discussion goes. --Bill DeGenaro, The University of Arizona _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 14:54:14 2001 Received: from post2.inre.asu.edu (post2.inre.asu.edu [129.219.110.73]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07605 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:54:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from conversion.post2.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #47347) id <0GKC0010179SUK@asu.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:53:53 -0700 (MST) Received: from mainex1.asu.edu (mainex1.asu.edu [129.219.10.200]) by asu.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #47347) with ESMTP id <0GKC000BD79S36@asu.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:53:52 -0700 (MST) Received: by mainex1.asu.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:25:22 -0700 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:25:20 -0700 From: Gregory Glau Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion going? To: "'teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_JA3lF89a71m4i6p7sFPItw)" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_JA3lF89a71m4i6p7sFPItw) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, Karen, yours is also the only message I've seen. Best, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Karen Uehling [mailto:kuehling@boisestate.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:47 AM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion going? I haven't received any messages lately and checked the archives--nothing in the archives since Monday describing a list problem. Are we up and running yet? --Karen Uehling _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing --Boundary_(ID_JA3lF89a71m4i6p7sFPItw) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion going?

Hi, Karen,

yours is also the only message I've seen.

Best,

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Uehling [mailto:kuehling@boisestate.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:47 AM
To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion = going?


I haven't received any messages lately and checked = the archives--nothing
in the archives since Monday describing a list = problem. Are we up and
running yet?
--Karen Uehling

_______________________________________________
Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist  -  = Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basi= c_writing

= --Boundary_(ID_JA3lF89a71m4i6p7sFPItw)-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 15:08:27 2001 Received: from bsu.boisestate.edu (bsu.boisestate.edu [132.178.176.115]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11010 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:08:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from bsu-Message_Server by bsu.boisestate.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:09:06 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:08:46 -0600 From: "Karen Uehling" To: Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion going? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id PAA11011 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Greg, I've gotten two messages from TBW since my own, so maybe they'll appear for you too. BTW, I looked at your textbook website and was impressed. I assume you use this book in your first regular comp. class since you are using the stretch program for BW--it seems like it might apply at BSU to our second regular course on research and argument. The website is excellent and really helpful. --Karen >>> gglau@asu.edu 09/27/01 01:25PM >>> Hi, Karen, yours is also the only message I've seen. Best, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Karen Uehling [mailto:kuehling@boisestate.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:47 AM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Is the discussion going? I haven't received any messages lately and checked the archives--nothing in the archives since Monday describing a list problem. Are we up and running yet? --Karen Uehling _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Sep 27 16:28:21 2001 Received: from bsu.boisestate.edu (bsu.boisestate.edu [132.178.176.115]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA20073 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:28:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from bsu-Message_Server by bsu.boisestate.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:29:00 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:28:57 -0600 From: "Karen Uehling" To: Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id QAA20074 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I am delighted to have the opportunity to get the response of experts William Degenaro and Ed White. This discussion is a fantastic idea, and I'm pretty sure things are moving now. And I also want anyone else's response. I want to learn together. Regarding assessment for placement into BW-- I work at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho: six-year institution, 16,000 students considering both part-time and full-time enrollment or 10,000 full-time equivalent students (FTEs); urban, commuter institution with a number of older students (average age = roughly 27). BSU also fulfills a community college function and the Vocational Technical College offers two-year degrees and certificate programs. Our institution places students into basic writing based on test scores. Beginning fall term 2000, the State Board of Education raised the scores necessary for admission to English 101, "English Composition," the first of two required writing courses, and consequently doubled the number of students in basic writing. Currently, students place into BW by these scores: ACT in English, scores of 0-17; SAT Verbal:200-440; COMPASS test: 0-67. The writing portion of the COMPASS test, an ACT product. According to the ACT website, it is a "comprehensive computerized placement and diagnostic assessment system." The test costs $5.00, is given on campus, and takes 30-60 minutes. It is an on-line revision test, and students receive their score immediately. The COMPASS test was chosen by the State Board of Education. Higher scores on any of these tests would place students into English 101 or higher. I am not thrilled that the Sate Board made this decision unilaterally. We have now had it in place for a year. I am seeing two groups of students--about a third are what I used to see, students with obvious weaknesses at the surface level and other areas of writing (generating, drafting, revising, arranging, etc.). The second group often write a kind of bland, weakly connected prose, full of "which" and vague word choice. Our BW course has now become what I would call an upper-level basic, lower level freshman comp. course. Re. placement generally: We get a fair number of often older students who choose to take BW as a review before beginning freshman comp. Those who have to take it seem to come around in a relatively short time about the importance of the course. So I don't worry too much about moving people to freshman comp. unless they are persistent that this was a misplacement. Also, our classes are so crowded, there's nowhere to move to. And I think four months is a very short time to work on writing. --Karen Uehling Boise State University -----Original Message----- From: William Degenaro [mailto:degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 4:37 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Since Ed White and I are leading the listserv's first discussion, let me try to jump-start the conversation. 'Assessment' is a concept that often upsets the sensibilities of those of us in the humanities. And often assessment lacks humanity, so our negative feelings might be quite sensible. But for those of us who teach basic writing, assessment (in some form or another) is inescapable. On the small scale, we all do *some type* of evaluation. On the larger scale, our institutions do *something* to designate who is and who is not a "basic writer." I hope you all have gotten a chance to look at the short piece Ed and I wrote (www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/ct/degenaro.html). One of our central points is that the way in which we understand the group of college students known as basic writers is contingent upon the forms of large-scale assessmen used at our institutions. I'd like to start by asking the general questions: What does your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that arrangement working out? I wonder if we could start there and see where the discussion goes. --Bill DeGenaro, The University of Arizona _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 28 02:10:19 2001 Received: from ptah.u.arizona.edu (IDENT:degenaro@ptah.u.Arizona.EDU [128.196.133.224]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA10281 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 02:10:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (degenaro@localhost) by ptah.u.arizona.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8S7AF212338 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:10:16 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.u.arizona.edu: degenaro owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:10:15 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id CAA10282 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] assessing grammar instruction? Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Roger, Thanks for opening up this discussion with your detailed description of strategies for contending with usage and fluency issues. Of course much research in our field suggests that instruction in formal grammar or proof-reading is an ineffective way to teach writing. At the same time, we are aware that you, like every teacher, know your students and can tailor your instruction to their needs. Later groups on this list will be focusing on instructional strategies, though, so perhaps we'll delay talk about that. Since we are framing this discussion around issues of assessment, I wonder if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teaching methods. You already mentioned doing word counts to assess fluency (but are "fluency" and "length" the same thing?). How do you assess other writing issues? Of course, this gets at the more difficult question WHAT IS GOOD WRITING? I think this is illustrative of our point about the power of assessment. If all we test is word count, we are implying a great deal about what we consider "good writing" to be. And also what we consider "basic writers" to lack. This is not to say you are teaching the wrong thing -- or testing the wrong thing -- but rather to push harder to find out how you gauge whether or not what you're doing is effective. On the larger scale, does your institution assess their BW curriculum? If so, how? I hope others jump in here and join the conversation. We are lucky enough to have quite a large number of people aroung the country (and maybe beyond?)signed on--please speak up when you feel like weighing in on these issues. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bill DeGenaro degenaro@u.arizona.edu http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degenaro ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:15:23 EDT From: RREasson333@aol.com Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment In a message dated 9/24/01 5:37:53 PM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes: > Bill writes>>I'd like to start by asking the general questions: What does > your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that arrangement > working > out? > > Roger writes>>I think Christian Brothers University does a pretty good job > at identifying students at risk who need some additional focus on writing. > Could we do it better, probably? Many students come to the Writing Center > who could have benefited from a Basic Writing romp. Most of our students > are increasingly aliterate, and it shows. I don't think this phenomenon is > confined to the midsouth, by any means. Krashan's notion that we learn to > write intuitively by reading is sound I believe, which makes the lack of > reading among out students doubly troubling. As to whether there is an instrument capable of identifying such students who could benefit from a course in Basic Writing more appropriately I'm sure you may well be more informed than I. You write in your article "Who is the basic writer? Someone who hasn't produced writings to include in an impressive portfolio of their work? Someone who can't write a sentence? Someone who chokes in a high-pressure thirty-minute exam (or went to a big party the night before)? Someone weak at standardized tests like the SAT? How writing programs go about sorting students speaks volumes about their institutional values. The form of assessment dictates how a “basic writer†is defined." Let me see if I can offer some other issues which might be useful to consider as we struggle to reach a definition of this kind of student. 1) I think a basic writer is someone who has a great deal of writing apprehension. Hence a test of writing apprehension might well be a useful index. 2) Fluency is clearly an issue basic writers lack. The reason they often do poorly in essay exams is that they cannot record their thoughts efficiently. For this reason, in my sections of Basic Writing we spend Wednesday each week in a computer lab just doing freewriting in response to an article we found on the Monday previous. We always do a word count working to achieve higher scores than the previous week. We write 15 five page papers during the semester of which six are graded. 3) I pair this fluency issue with the size and efficiency of their recall vocabulary, as opposed to their recognition vocabulary. Basic Writers have in my experience, a very poor recall vocabulary. For this reason, we work a great deal in my section of Basic writing on vocabulary acquisition. Thinking is greatly impaired, I believe, if the mind has not got access to an extensive recall vocabulary with which to shape and frame and transport thought. Friday is vocabulary day, where we work with a list of 10 new words the students bring to class each week. 4) Correctness is the essential issue we confront in one on one meetings. Basic writers for some reason have never learned to correct particular patterns of error which recur in their writing. It is the identification of these patterns, how to detect them and repair them which is the focus of much of our work together. In these sessions, I work hard to differentiate between style and grammar focusing primarily on standard grammar and mechanics. 5) Few basic writers arrive in my classes ever having heard about this distinction between grammar and style. I generally assume that basic writers are works in progress and will develop their own styles as they become more comfortable as writers. But I also teach them that style is a function of Subject, Audience and Occasion so that good writers may have many styles and as many voices. Consequently, I teach them how to use Microsoft Word to do sequential copyediting, rather than global copyediting. And we generate a set of tools as a result of these meetings which remind them of the editing challenges they have as they approach this phase of the writing process. I never mark on a student's paper, and I never take a grade a student's paper without him or her being at my shoulder as I do. Students learn to redline their work after an editing session to see the patterns of correction in their writing, patterns they find surprising and useful. 6) Basic Writers are often wounded writers. They have often been savaged by the red pen, beaten up over such American peculiarities as the dreaded comma splice. Consequently, their writing often is characterized by avoidance strategies. I am very affirmative and nurturing in my work with these writers as a consequence, heaping praise on them and practicing the yoga of the bitten tongue when I see something amiss. 7) Basic writers frequently have had little experience with focused writing instruction. Their vocabulary of terms about writing and ability to discuss writing is usually impoverished. There is a lot of very poor teaching of writing going on in our public schools in Memphis, so many basic writers come to CBU never having written much of anything. In addition, they have been told some very bizarre things about grammar and mechanics which have to be dealt with as well. Mostly, however, they have never had anyone teach them how to copyedit their own work, so copyediting is a skill we work hard to sharpen. In my past lives, I have earned my living in Industry as a Technical Editor, and in Business as a Managing Editor of several Publishing houses, so I have honed my skills as a manager of writers with professional writers as well as students. This is probably way more than you wanted to know Bill. I look forward to the discussion on this list. Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 28 02:53:25 2001 Received: from ptah.u.arizona.edu (IDENT:degenaro@ptah.u.Arizona.EDU [128.196.133.224]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11420 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 02:53:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (degenaro@localhost) by ptah.u.arizona.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8S7rMp12859 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:53:22 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.u.arizona.edu: degenaro owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:53:22 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] beyond anecdote Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Larry Giddings: <> To my knowledge, no such document exists. The most exhaustive taxonomy or descriptive study of who basic writers are and what their writing looks like is Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations (now twenty-five years old). And even that book drew largely on a particular, localized set of conditions (Shaughnessy's data consisted of placement essays at CUNY in the early 70s). Should we turn our energies to trying to create the kind of generalized profile you call for? On one hand, institutions ought to respond to the particular needs of their own student body. The profile of a basic writer at the University of Arizona might look different than the profile of a basic writer at Pikes Peak CC. On the other hand, it sounds like you are suggesting that various institutional audiences at your school would respond well to something less anecdotal and more far-reaching. One resource you might find useful is a 1998 study done by The Institute for Higher Education Policy and called "College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What's at Stake." Most BW teachers and scholars will never read this text, but it might hold the type of credibility and specific, quantified information you're looking for. Do you think, Larry, that we've become "too theoretical"? Karen Uehling and Rita Dudley have posted about some of the externally imposed procedures (Compass and ACT scores, etc)...maybe the question is how can those of us in the trenches, teaching BW and running BW programs, use our own disciplinary knowledge to improve practice at our institutions, in our states, etc. --Bill -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bill DeGenaro degenaro@u.arizona.edu http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degenaro From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 28 10:34:53 2001 Received: from loras.edu ([192.152.29.111]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18673 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:34:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lcdomain-Message_Server by loras.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:32:03 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:31:54 -0500 From: "Rita Dudley" To: , Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] beyond anecdote Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_93C911E3.B7D6839C" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_93C911E3.B7D6839C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Although I posed a practical question attempting to identify BWers, I am = keenly interested in their make-up. I'm most curious about how a BWer got = to be one, at what point in a writer's "career" do we begin to label her a = BWer. Perhaps some ethnographic study would be a possibility. I usually = start each semester having my BWers tell me their "Writer History", but I = find a need to know more about how they got themselves into this category. = Guess it goes back to my days as a remedial reading teacher, trying to = "fix" the problem and get the student back on the right road. Rita Dudley "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what = we do not do." --Moliere >>> degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU 09/28/01 02:53AM >>> Larry Giddings: <> To my knowledge, no such document exists. The most exhaustive taxonomy or descriptive study of who basic writers are and what their writing looks like is Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations (now twenty-five years old). And even that book drew largely on a particular, localized set of conditions (Shaughnessy's data consisted of placement essays at CUNY in the early 70s). Should we turn our energies to trying to create the kind of generalized profile you call for? On one hand, institutions ought to respond to the particular needs of their own student body. The profile of a basic writer at the University of Arizona might look different than the profile of a basic writer at Pikes Peak CC. On the other hand, it sounds like you are suggesting that various institutional audiences at your school would respond well to something less anecdotal and more far-reaching. One resource you might find useful is a 1998 study done by The Institute for Higher Education Policy and called "College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What's at Stake." Most BW teachers and scholars will never read this text, but it might hold the type of credibility and specific, quantified information you're looking for. Do you think, Larry, that we've become "too theoretical"? Karen Uehling and Rita Dudley have posted about some of the externally imposed procedures (Compass and ACT scores, etc)...maybe the question is how can those of us in the trenches, teaching BW and running BW programs, use our own disciplinary knowledge to improve practice at our institutions, in our states, etc. --Bill -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Bill DeGenaro degenaro@u.arizona.edu http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degenaro _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com= http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing --=_93C911E3.B7D6839C Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Although I posed a practical question attempting to identify BWers, I = am=20 keenly interested in their make-up. I'm most curious about how a BWer got = to be=20 one, at what point in a writer's "career" do we begin to label her = a=20 BWer.  Perhaps some ethnographic study would be a possibility.  = I=20 usually start each semester having my BWers tell me their "Writer = History", but=20 I find a need to know more about how they got themselves into this = category.=20 Guess it goes back to my days as a remedial reading teacher, trying to = "fix" the=20 problem and get the student back on the right road.
Rita Dudley
 
"It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also = what=20 we do not do."  --Moliere

>>> degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU= =20 09/28/01 02:53AM >>>
Larry Giddings:
<<I read = "Assessment=20 and the Basic Writer," hoping to see specific
characteristics, maybe = even=20 quantifiable markers to help us define what
today's basic writer might = look=20 like in profile.  I was hoping to see
reading level ranges, = writing=20 characteristics, sociological indicators,
and maybe even socio-economic = tags=20 or attitude generalizations.  Alas,
this sort of information was = not=20 included in their stimulating and
thoughtful discussion.>>

= To my=20 knowledge, no such document exists.  The most exhaustive taxonomy=20 or
descriptive study of who basic writers are and what their writing=20 looks
like is Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations (now twenty-five = years=20 old).
And even that book drew largely on a particular, localized set=20 of
conditions (Shaughnessy's data consisted of placement essays at = CUNY=20 in
the early 70s).  Should we turn our energies to trying to = create the=20 kind
of generalized profile you call for?  On one hand, institution= s=20 ought to
respond to the particular needs of their own student body. = ; The=20 profile of
a basic writer at the University of Arizona might look = different=20 than the
profile of a basic writer at Pikes Peak CC.

On the = other=20 hand, it sounds like you are suggesting that various
institutional = audiences=20 at your school would respond well to something
less anecdotal and = more=20 far-reaching.  One resource you might find useful
is a 1998 study = done=20 by The Institute for Higher Education Policy and
called "College = Remediation:=20 What It Is, What It Costs, What's at Stake."
Most BW teachers and = scholars=20 will never read this text, but it might hold
the type of credibility = and=20 specific, quantified information you're
looking for.

Do you = think,=20 Larry, that we've become "too theoretical"?  Karen Uehling
and = Rita=20 Dudley have posted about some of the externally imposed
procedures = (Compass=20 and ACT scores, etc)...maybe the question is how can
those of us in = the=20 trenches, teaching BW and running BW programs, use our
own disciplinary= =20 knowledge to improve practice at our institutions, in our
states,=20 etc.

--Bill

-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
= Bill=20 DeGenaro
degenaro@u.arizona.edu
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degen= aro


_______________________________________________
Teach= ing_Basic_Writing=20 maillist  -  Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com
ht= tp://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing
= --=_93C911E3.B7D6839C-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 28 14:03:18 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12572 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:03:17 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:05:28 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B48F1@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:05:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, Rita. Here at Whatcom (a two-year school which serves, among other things, as a kind of feeder school for the University in town) we have English 100, a course more than half of our students take before going on to 101. It's a pass/fail course, and student papers (an in-class and an out-of-class essay) are read at the end of the quarter by a panel of English instructors as well as instructors from other disciplines. In the past, when 100 was a more grammar-based course, and what constituted "passing" student writing was more clear-cut, as many as thirty percent of the students who submitted to the panel would have to repeat the course. Now, with a different focus in the class itself, we usually see a 90 percent pass rate. Fall quarter--our biggest quarter population-wise--we usually have more than 400 students submitting to the panel: 10 percent of them take the class over. I don't know if this is helpful or not. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Rita Dudley [mailto:RDUDLEY@loras.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:23 PM To: ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us; teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic writing course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take before they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course. I've taught such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. Any ideas what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to go on to the required one? What percent in your institutions need to retake the course? "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what we do not do." --Moliere >>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us 09/27/01 02:16PM >>> First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Sep 28 14:38:18 2001 Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17385 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:38:17 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.104.9ecf76c (3974) for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <104.9ecf76c.28e62b86@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:37:42 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] assessing grammar instruction? To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_104.9ecf76c.28e62b86_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_104.9ecf76c.28e62b86_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 9/28/01 2:12:12 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes: > Roger, >=20 > Thanks for opening up this discussion with your detailed description of > strategies for contending with usage and fluency issues. Of course much > research in our field suggests that instruction in formal grammar or > proof-reading is an ineffective way to teach writing.=20 Roger writes>>Yes i know about this research. And I agree that if we=20 substitute the teaching of grammar for actual writing, then the development=20 of writing skills diminish. What I find annoying about this research is how= =20 we read it. The research does not say that a vocabulary focused on language,= =20 structure and even grammar and style does not in and of it self damage a=20 writer. For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can discuss=20 copyediting or for that matter the issue of correctness without a lexical=20 grid to pin our conversations on. The writing process focuses on Fluency, Form and Correctness. In order to=20 understand how these work we have to have a lexical set for discussion. I am= =20 aware of Diaker et all and their reduced set of terms. I do not find those=20 helpful, however, at the college level.=20 More on this later: I'm off to judge a short story competition. just me roger Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com At the same time, > we are aware that you, like every teacher, know your students and can tail= or > your instruction to their needs. Later groups on this list will be focusin= g > on instructional strategies, though, so perhaps we'll delay talk about tha= t. >=20 > Since we are framing this discussion around issues of assessment, I wonder > if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teaching > methods. You already mentioned doing word counts to assess fluency (but > are "fluency" and "length" the same thing?). How do you assess other writi= ng > issues? Of course, this gets at the more difficult question WHAT IS GOOD > WRITING? I think this is illustrative of our point about the power of=20 > assessment. > If all we test is word count, we are implying a great deal about what we > consider "good writing" to be. And also what we consider "basic writers" > to lack. >=20 > This is not to say you are teaching the wrong thing -- or testing the > wrong thing -- but rather to push harder to find out how you gauge whether > or not what you're doing is effective. On the larger scale, does your=20 > institution > assess their BW curriculum? If so, how? >=20 > I hope others jump in here and join the conversation. We are lucky enough > to have quite a large number of people aroung the country (and maybe=20 > beyond?)signed > on--please speak up when you feel like weighing in on these issues. >=20 > -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > Bill DeGenaro > degenaro@u.arizona.edu > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degenaro >=20 > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:15:23 EDT > From: RREasson333@aol.com > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment >=20 > In a message dated 9/24/01 5:37:53 PM Central Daylight Time, > degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes: >=20 >=20 > > Bill writes>>I'd like to start by asking the general questions: What doe= s > > your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that > arrangement > > working > > out? > > > > Roger writes>>I think Christian Brothers University does a pretty good > job > > at identifying students at risk who need some additional focus on writin= g. > > Could we do it better, probably? Many students come to the Writing Cente= r > > who could have benefited from a Basic Writing romp. Most of our students > > are increasingly aliterate, and it shows. I don't think this phenomenon > is > > confined to the midsouth, by any means. Krashan's notion that we learn > to > > write intuitively by reading is sound I believe, which makes the lack > of > > reading among out students doubly troubling. >=20 > As to whether there is an instrument capable of identifying such students > who > could benefit from a course in Basic Writing more appropriately I'm sure > you > may well be more informed than I. >=20 > You write in your article "Who is the basic writer? Someone who hasn't > produced writings to include in an impressive portfolio of their work? > Someone who can't write a sentence? Someone who chokes in a high-pressure > thirty-minute exam (or went to a big party the night before)? Someone weak > at > standardized tests like the SAT? How writing programs go about sorting > students speaks volumes about their institutional values. The form of > assessment dictates how a =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93basic writer=C3=A2=E2=82= =AC=C2=9D is defined." >=20 > Let me see if I can offer some other issues which might be useful to > consider > as we struggle to reach a definition of this kind of student. >=20 > 1) I think a basic writer is someone who has a great deal of writing > apprehension. Hence a test of writing apprehension might well be a useful > index. >=20 > 2) Fluency is clearly an issue basic writers lack. The reason they often > do > poorly in essay exams is that they cannot record their thoughts efficientl= y. > For this reason, in my sections of Basic Writing we spend Wednesday each > week > in a computer lab just doing freewriting in response to an article we foun= d > on the Monday previous. We always do a word count working to achieve highe= r > scores than the previous week. We write 15 five page papers during the > semester of which six are graded. >=20 > 3) I pair this fluency issue with the size and efficiency of their recall > vocabulary, as opposed to their recognition vocabulary. Basic Writers have > in > my experience, a very poor recall vocabulary. For this reason, we work a > great deal in my section of Basic writing on vocabulary acquisition. > Thinking is greatly impaired, I believe, if the mind has not got access > to > an > extensive recall vocabulary with which to shape and frame and transport > thought. Friday is vocabulary day, where we work with a list of 10 new wor= ds > the students bring to class each week. >=20 > 4) Correctness is the essential issue we confront in one on one meetings. > Basic writers for some reason have never learned to correct particular > patterns of error which recur in their writing. It is the identification > of > these patterns, how to detect them and repair them which is the focus of > much > of our work together. In these sessions, I work hard to differentiate > between style and grammar focusing primarily on standard grammar and > mechanics. >=20 > 5) Few basic writers arrive in my classes ever having heard about this > distinction between grammar and style. I generally assume that basic write= rs > are works in progress and will develop their own styles as they become mor= e > comfortable as writers. But I also teach them that style is a function of > Subject, Audience and Occasion so that good writers may have many styles > and > as many voices. >=20 > Consequently, I teach them how to use Microsoft Word to do sequential > copyediting, rather than global copyediting. And we generate a set of tool= s > as a result of these meetings which remind them of the editing challenges > they have as they approach this phase of the writing process. I never mark > on a student's paper, and I never take a grade a student's paper without > him > or her being at my shoulder as I do. Students learn to redline their work > after an editing session to see the patterns of correction in their writin= g, > patterns they find surprising and useful. >=20 > 6) Basic Writers are often wounded writers. They have often been savaged > by > the red pen, beaten up over such American peculiarities as the dreaded com= ma > splice. Consequently, their writing often is characterized by avoidance > strategies. I am very affirmative and nurturing in my work with these > writers as a consequence, heaping praise on them and practicing the yoga > of > the bitten tongue when I see something amiss. >=20 > 7) Basic writers frequently have had little experience with focused writin= g > instruction. Their vocabulary of terms about writing and ability to discus= s > writing is usually impoverished. >=20 > There is a lot of very poor teaching of writing going on in our public > schools in Memphis, so many basic writers come to CBU never having written > much of anything. In addition, they have been told some very bizarre thing= s > about grammar and mechanics which have to be dealt with as well. >=20 > Mostly, however, they have never had anyone teach them how to copyedit the= ir > own work, so copyediting is a skill we work hard to sharpen. >=20 > In my past lives, I have earned my living in Industry as a Technical Edito= r, > and in Business as a Managing Editor of several Publishing houses, so I > have > honed my skills as a manager of writers with professional writers as well > as > students. >=20 > This is probably way more than you wanted to know Bill. I look forward to > the discussion on this list. >=20 >=20 > Roger Easson > Professor > Director of the Writing Center > Christian Brothers University > Memphis TN > reasson@cbu.edu > RReasson333@aol.com >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.co= m > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Roger Easson Professor=20 Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis Roger Easson Professor=20 Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis --part1_104.9ecf76c.28e62b86_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 9/28/0= 1 2:12:12 AM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes:


Roger,

Thanks for opening up this discussion with your detailed description of
strategies for contending with usage and fluency issues. Of course much
research in our field suggests that instruction in formal grammar or
proof-reading is an ineffective way to teach writing.

Roger writes>>Yes i know about this research. And I ag= ree that if we substitute the teaching of grammar for actual writing, then t= he development of writing skills diminish.  What I find annoying about=20= this research is how we read it. The research does not say that a vocabulary= focused on language, structure and even grammar and style does not in and o= f it self damage a writer.  For the life of me, I cannot understand how= we can discuss copyediting or for that matter the issue of correctness with= out a lexical grid to pin our conversations on.

The writing process focuses on Fluency, Form and Correctness.  In o= rder to understand how these work we have to have a lexical set for discussi= on. I am aware of Diaker et all and their reduced set of terms. I do not fin= d those helpful, however, at the college level.=20

More on this later: I'm off to judge a short story competition.

just me
roger

Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com



At the same time,

we are aware th= at you, like every teacher, know your students and can tailor
your instruction to their needs. Later groups on this list will be focus= ing
on instructional strategies, though, so perhaps we'll delay talk about t= hat.

Since we are framing this discussion around issues of assessment, I wond= er
if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teachi= ng
methods. You already mentioned doing word counts to assess fluency (but
are "fluency" and "length" the same thing?). How do you assess other wri= ting
issues? Of course, this gets at the more difficult question WHAT IS GOOD
WRITING? I think this is illustrative of our point about the power of as= sessment.
If all we test is word count, we are implying a great deal about what we
consider "good writing" to be. And also what we consider "basic writers"
to lack.

This is not to say you are teaching the wrong thing -- or testing the
wrong thing -- but rather to push harder to find out how you gauge wheth= er
or not what you're doing is effective. On the larger scale, does your in= stitution
assess their BW curriculum? If so, how?

I hope others jump in here and join the conversation. We are lucky enoug= h
to have quite a large number of people aroung the country (and maybe bey= ond?)signed
on--please speak up when you feel like weighing in on these issues.

-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
Bill DeGenaro
degenaro@u.arizona.edu
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degenaro

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:15:23 EDT
From: RREasson333@aol.com
Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com
To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment

In a message dated 9/24/01 5:37:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes:


> Bill writes>>I'd like to start by asking the general question= s: What does
> your school do to place students in basic writing? How is that
arrangement
> working
> out?
>
> Roger writes>>I think Christian Brothers University does a pr= etty good
job
> at identifying students at risk who need some additional focus on w= riting.
> Could we do it better, probably? Many students come to the Writing=20= Center
> who could have benefited from a Basic Writing romp. Most of our stu= dents
> are increasingly aliterate, and it shows. I don't think this phenom= enon
is
> confined to the midsouth, by any means. Krashan's notion that we le= arn
to
> write intuitively by reading is sound I believe, which makes the la= ck
of
> reading among out students doubly troubling.

As to whether there is an instrument capable of identifying such student= s
who
could benefit from a course in Basic Writing more appropriately I'm sure
you
may well be more informed than I.

You write in your article "Who is the basic writer? Someone who hasn't
produced writings to include in an impressive portfolio of their work?
Someone who can't write a sentence? Someone who chokes in a high-pressur= e
thirty-minute exam (or went to a big party the night before)? Someone we= ak
at
standardized tests like the SAT? How writing programs go about sorting
students speaks volumes about their institutional values. The form of
assessment dictates how a =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93basic writer=C3=A2=E2=82= =AC=C2=9D is defined."

Let me see if I can offer some other issues which might be useful to
consider
as we struggle to reach a definition of this kind of student.

1) I think a basic writer is someone who has a great deal of writing
apprehension. Hence a test of writing apprehension might well be a usefu= l
index.

2) Fluency is clearly an issue basic writers lack. The reason they often
do
poorly in essay exams is that they cannot record their thoughts efficien= tly.
For this reason, in my sections of Basic Writing we spend Wednesday each
week
in a computer lab just doing freewriting in response to an article we fo= und
on the Monday previous. We always do a word count working to achieve hig= her
scores than the previous week. We write 15 five page papers during the
semester of which six are graded.

3) I pair this fluency issue with the size and efficiency of their recal= l
vocabulary, as opposed to their recognition vocabulary. Basic Writers ha= ve
in
my experience, a very poor recall vocabulary. For this reason, we work a
great deal in my section of Basic writing on vocabulary acquisition.
Thinking is greatly impaired, I believe, if the mind has not got access
to
an
extensive recall vocabulary with which to shape and frame and transport
thought. Friday is vocabulary day, where we work with a list of 10 new w= ords
the students bring to class each week.

4) Correctness is the essential issue we confront in one on one meetings= .
Basic writers for some reason have never learned to correct particular
patterns of error which recur in their writing. It is the identification
of
these patterns, how to detect them and repair them which is the focus of
much
of our work together. In these sessions, I work hard to differentiate
between style and grammar focusing primarily on standard grammar and
mechanics.

5) Few basic writers arrive in my classes ever having heard about this
distinction between grammar and style. I generally assume that basic wri= ters
are works in progress and will develop their own styles as they become m= ore
comfortable as writers. But I also teach them that style is a function o= f
Subject, Audience and Occasion so that good writers may have many styles
and
as many voices.

Consequently, I teach them how to use Microsoft Word to do sequential
copyediting, rather than global copyediting. And we generate a set of to= ols
as a result of these meetings which remind them of the editing challenge= s
they have as they approach this phase of the writing process. I never ma= rk
on a student's paper, and I never take a grade a student's paper without
him
or her being at my shoulder as I do. Students learn to redline their wor= k
after an editing session to see the patterns of correction in their writ= ing,
patterns they find surprising and useful.

6) Basic Writers are often wounded writers. They have often been savaged
by
the red pen, beaten up over such American peculiarities as the dreaded c= omma
splice. Consequently, their writing often is characterized by avoidance
strategies. I am very affirmative and nurturing in my work with these
writers as a consequence, heaping praise on them and practicing the yoga
of
the bitten tongue when I see something amiss.

7) Basic writers frequently have had little experience with focused writ= ing
instruction. Their vocabulary of terms about writing and ability to disc= uss
writing is usually impoverished.

There is a lot of very poor teaching of writing going on in our public
schools in Memphis, so many basic writers come to CBU never having writt= en
much of anything. In addition, they have been told some very bizarre thi= ngs
about grammar and mechanics which have to be dealt with as well.

Mostly, however, they have never had anyone teach them how to copyedit t= heir
own work, so copyediting is a skill we work hard to sharpen.

In my past lives, I have earned my living in Industry as a Technical Edi= tor,
and in Business as a Managing Editor of several Publishing houses, so I
have
honed my skills as a manager of writers with professional writers as wel= l
as
students.

This is probably way more than you wanted to know Bill. I look forward t= o
the discussion on this list.


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com





_______________________________________________
Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist  -  Teaching_Basic_Writing@mai= lman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing







Roger Easson
Professor=20
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis

Roger Easson
Professor=20
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis --part1_104.9ecf76c.28e62b86_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Sep 29 12:37:58 2001 Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18470 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 12:37:57 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.31.1b71bd21 (4568) for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <31.1b71bd21.28e760ef@aol.com> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:37:51 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] assessing grammar instruction? To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_31.1b71bd21.28e760ef_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_31.1b71bd21.28e760ef_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/01 2:40:21 PM Central Daylight Time, RREasson333@aol.com writes: > Bill Writes>>Since we are framing this discussion around issues of > assessment, I wonder > if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teaching > methods. Roger>>Effectiveness for me means that at the end of the semester a student who could hardly produce 400 words of prose at week one, can at week 15 produce in an hour a lengthy text of at least 2000 words with few errors. As I think about my objectives in Basic Writing, I try to limit what I teach to the ability of the student to capture what he/she thinks easily quickly on the keyboard. Fluency for me is simply this: That there is an easy transfer of thinking to text, a transfer that is quick and full, ready for revision and editing in subsequent passes. I work on Correctness with them as a function of our practice, I do not teach grammar except in response to their own texts as a part of a copyediting process. This is where grammar should be I suspect. Bill writes>>> > are "fluency" and "length" the same thing?). Roger writes>> Word counts are only the most clumsy of fluency indicators, but in terms of the ability to capture thinking in the discovery process of composing, I think it is an intersting measure. There is something amazing in the 15 paper task whereby they have to produce 15 five page word processed texts in courier 12 point. This exercises the muscles of their hands, develops the hand eye coordination linkage required to record thinking easily and effectively. By the end of the semester they are WORD mavens. Are they good writes. Probably not. They are works in progress and now ready for Composition One however. Comp 1 and 2 is where some of the higher level tasks of orgaqnization, deveopment and critical thinking are taught. I intentionally do not concern myself with those matters in this basic writing class. I am very happy if they learn fluency--how to produce text in response to their thinking quickly and efficiently--and become effective managers of their own correctness issues. Bill writes>>> issues? Of course, this gets at > the more difficult question WHAT IS GOOD WRITING? I think this is > illustrative of our point about the power of assessment. > > Roger writes>> I am not much intersted in good writing, as that is a matter > of taste and aesthetics for the most part. And I really think that the most > pernicious element of contemporary--or for that matter our tradition as > composition teachers in the main--is our interest in producing Good Writers > whatever that may mean. What I am interested in, however, is the students > development of a set of attitudes which will help him/her continue the > learning process. So for example I work with students to differientate > early between grammar issues, issues from the language code of Standard > Edited American English and issues of style which are determined by the > requirements of subject, audience, occassion and the expectations of the > discourse community out of which the writer emerges. If James Britton taught us anything it is that the worst thing we can do as single > person audiences is to impose our sense of style on the student writer, to > appropriate the student's writing as if it were out own. Style issues are > matters of judgement and enormously difficult to teach as a result. What > we can do is to discuss these issues of style and share with students our > own experiences as writers and how we might think through the decisions > which the stylistic determinants require of us. > > Frequently I am confronted by students showing me instructor marked papers > in the writing center, and in the review of the paper I realize that for > the most part the so called errors are disagreements in style, not > grammatical at all. They are inevitavbly marked as if there were no > disctinction between grammar and style at all. It is very difficult to > help students sort these kinds of problems out, if they are not presented > as managable and discussable issues. Mostly, it comes down to the power of > the grade book, and the student realizes the has to please his teacher > rather than really think about how language works. > Good writing? lord have mercy preserve us from having to figure that one out. Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com --part1_31.1b71bd21.28e760ef_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/01 2:40:21 PM Central Daylight Time, RREasson333@aol.com writes:


Bill Writes>>Since we are framing this discussion around issues of assessment, I wonder
if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teaching
methods.


Roger>>Effectiveness for me means that at the end of the semester a student who could hardly produce 400 words of prose at week one, can at week 15 produce in an hour a lengthy text of at least 2000 words with few errors.

As I think about my objectives in Basic Writing, I try to limit what I teach to the ability of the student to capture what he/she thinks easily quickly on the keyboard. Fluency for me is simply this: That there is an easy transfer of thinking to text, a transfer that is quick and full, ready for revision and editing in subsequent passes.

I work on Correctness with them as a function of our practice, I do not teach grammar except in response to their own texts as a part of a copyediting process.
This is where grammar should be I suspect.

Bill writes>>You already mentioned doing word counts to assess fluency (but
are "fluency" and "length" the same thing?).


Roger writes>> Word counts are only the most clumsy of fluency indicators, but in terms of the ability to capture thinking in the discovery process of composing, I think it is an intersting measure.  There is something amazing in the 15 paper task whereby they have to produce 15 five page word processed texts in courier 12 point.  This exercises the muscles of their hands, develops the hand eye coordination linkage required to record thinking easily and effectively.   By the end of the semester they are WORD mavens. Are they good writes. Probably not. They are works in progress and now ready for Composition One however.  Comp 1 and 2 is where some of the higher level tasks of orgaqnization, deveopment and critical thinking are taught.  I intentionally do not concern myself with those matters in this basic writing class.  I am very happy if they learn fluency--how to produce text in response to their thinking quickly and efficiently--and become effective managers of their own correctness issues.


Bill writes>>How do you assess other writing
issues? Of course, this gets at the more difficult question WHAT IS GOOD WRITING? I think this is illustrative of our point about the power of assessment.

Roger writes>> I am not much intersted in good writing, as that is a matter of taste and aesthetics for the most part. And I really think that the most pernicious element of contemporary--or for that matter our tradition as composition teachers in the main--is our interest in producing Good Writers whatever that may mean. What I am interested in, however, is the students development of a set of attitudes which will help him/her continue the learning process. So for example I work with students to differientate early between grammar issues, issues from the language code of Standard Edited American English and issues of style which are determined by the requirements of subject, audience, occassion and the expectations of the discourse community out of which the writer emerges.   
If James Britton taught us anything it is that the worst thing we can do as single
person audiences is to impose our sense of style on the student writer, to appropriate the student's writing as if it were out own.  Style issues are matters of judgement and enormously difficult to teach as a result.  What we can do is to discuss these issues of style and share with students our own experiences as writers and how we might think through the decisions which the stylistic determinants require of us.

Frequently I am confronted by students showing me instructor marked papers in the writing center, and in the review of the paper I realize that for the most part the so called errors are disagreements in style, not grammatical at all. They are inevitavbly marked as if there were no disctinction between grammar and style at all.  It is very difficult to help students sort these kinds of problems out, if they are not presented as managable and discussable issues.  Mostly, it comes down to the power of the grade book, and the student realizes the has to please his teacher rather than really think about how language works.

Good writing? lord have mercy preserve us from having to figure that one out.








Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com --part1_31.1b71bd21.28e760ef_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Sep 29 20:03:29 2001 Received: from localhost.localdomain (titus.npgco.com [207.192.213.20]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17047 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:03:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ed ([24.246.122.147]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f8U13kJ03117 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:03:46 -0500 From: "Ed White" To: Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 18:02:00 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <200109281536.KAA18789@grue.eppg.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Some responses Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Ed White here, commenting on some of the interesting posts at last appearing on our list. First to Rita's query: Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:23:10 -0500 From: "Rita Dudley" To: , Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com "Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic = writing course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take = before they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it = in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same = writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course. I've = taught such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. = Any ideas what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through = this course to go on to the required one? What percent in your institution= s need to retake the course?" EW: Tying the BW course in with the First Year Experience sounds like exactly the right thing to do, though we can't have much faith in ACT as a placement device. I sure hope the First Year Experience involves more than finding editorial errors in other people's writing! And I'm sure that some writing is involved in the BW course, though not on the ACT. Lots of slippage in test validity here. The second query, about how many students will or will not make it through is also an assessment question: how do you define "make it through"? I don't think anyone else's experience will help much here, since that definition is so completely local. On some campuses almost everyone makes it through; on others very few do. As Bill and I said in our initial post, you really can't look for outside help when you are in charge of your own assessments and definitions, as you really ought to be. Larry Giddings has a similar desire to see generalizable definitions: From: "Giddings, Larry" To: "'teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com'" Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:04:23 -0600 Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com "Hello Everyone! Larry Giddings here from Pikes Peak Community College in Colorado Springs. As a professional, I've been working with teaching "basic writers," for about 12 years, and before that as a student, I suppose I were one for at least that many years. "I want to thank Professors Degenaro and White for their opening comments regarding assessing writing (specifically basic writers), and I want to file a complaint-not directed precisely at what they said, but more generally towards what I see as a major problem for writing teachers everywhere. "I read "Assessment and the Basic Writer," hoping to see specific characteristics, maybe even quantifiable markers to help us define what today's basic writer might look like in profile. I was hoping to see reading level ranges, writing characteristics, sociological indicators, and maybe even socio-economic tags or attitude generalizations. Alas, this sort of information was not included in their stimulating and thoughtful discussion. "And I'm back to wondering where I can turn for specific information (other than anecdotal) that will help me and my colleagues in the Colorado community colleges explain to our various curriculum committees and administrators the natures of our "basic writing" students. "Perhaps, however, our colleges are concerned about assessment for reasons other than teaching, learning, and self-improvement. "In the Community Colleges of Colorado (14 colleges), we use Accuplacer (most), Compass (one or two), and most use in-class writing samples for placement verification. "There is much that I can relate about how placement has been redefined over the course of the last few years here in Colorado (mandatory placement by state law), but I'll not trouble you with any of that now. "Thanks again, Bill and Ed, Gidd" EW: I sure wish that the multiple-choice tests, and Gidd refers to the two most commonly used ones, the misnamed Accuplacer and the unmagnetic Compass, could be no more than a minor piece of the placement puzzled. When you think of the difference in abilities needed to fill in the bubbles on those tests as opposed to thinking and generating prose, it shouldn't need much convincing to cast questions of the meaning of those test scores. (Compass does have some writing but see Karen's post which follows for its problems.) We do have convincing evidence that many students who call themselves "white" and who have middle-class upbringing will do quite well on those tests, no matter how they write, while other students who define themselves as racial or ethnic minorities tend to do poorly, even if they write OK. But the m/c tests are relatively cheap and easy to administer, so they keep getting used anyway. This is a bit embarrassing, no? As for Gidd's understandable frustration that we haven't given usable guidelines for defining BWs, do notice why we don't. All we really can say is that YOU (through your assessments) define whoever it is you want to call a BW. There is no general rule. It might make our lives easier if the "quantifiable markers" were out there. But think. Do you want Harvard and Stanford to set them for you? Or some state or federal agency? The markers you use only have meaning in your own context, for your own students, for your own curriculum--if, indeed, they have any meaning at all. The only evidence that really matters is, are you helping students who might well drop out of college stay in and succeed. That evidence is easy enought to gather and recent studies show that we are as a nation doing very well in that regard. Karen's post, which follows, lets us see what happens when a state board decides IT will take charge of assessment. (White's first law of assessment: Assess Thyself or Assessment Shall be Done Unto Thee.) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:28:57 -0600 From: "Karen Uehling" To: Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com "I am delighted to have the opportunity to get the response of experts William Degenaro and Ed White. This discussion is a fantastic idea, and I'm pretty sure things are moving now. And I also want anyone else's response. I want to learn together. "Regarding assessment for placement into BW-- "I work at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho: six-year institution, 16,000 students considering both part-time and full-time enrollment or 10,000 full-time equivalent students (FTEs); urban, commuter institution with a number of older students (average age = roughly 27). BSU also fulfills a community college function and the Vocational Technical College offers two-year degrees and certificate programs. Our institution places students into basic writing based on test scores. Beginning fall term 2000, the State Board of Education raised the scores necessary for admission to English 101, "English Composition," the first of two required writing courses, and consequently doubled the number of students in basic writing. "Currently, students place into BW by these scores: ACT in English, scores of 0-17; SAT Verbal:200-440; COMPASS test: 0-67. The writing portion of the COMPASS test, an ACT product. According to the ACT website, it is a "comprehensive computerized placement and diagnostic assessment system." The test costs $5.00, is given on campus, and takes 30-60 minutes. It is an on-line revision test, and students receive their score immediately. The COMPASS test was chosen by the State Board of Education. Higher scores on any of these tests would place students into English 101 or higher. "I am not thrilled that the Sate Board made this decision unilaterally. We have now had it in place for a year. I am seeing two groups of students--about a third are what I used to see, students with obvious weaknesses at the surface level and other areas of writing (generating, drafting, revising, arranging, etc.). The second group often write a kind of bland, weakly connected prose, full of "which" and vague word choice. Our BW course has now become what I would call an upper-level basic, lower level freshman comp. course. "Re. placement generally: We get a fair number of often older students who choose to take BW as a review before beginning freshman comp. Those who have to take it seem to come around in a relatively short time about the importance of the course. So I don't worry too much about moving people to freshman comp. unless they are persistent that this was a misplacement. Also, our classes are so crowded, there's nowhere to move to. And I think four months is a very short time to work on writing." --Karen Uehling Boise State University EW: Boise State, if I'm not mistaken, used to be a leader in portfolio assessment, a much more valid and responsible form of assessment for placement and for other matters as well. What happened? Roger Easson had a very interesting post, to which my colleague Bill replied, so I won't pursue those issues here. But now I notice that Bill also replied to Gidd, so let's see if he and I agreed or disagreed. --__--__-- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:53:22 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] beyond anecdote Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Larry Giddings: <> To my knowledge, no such document exists. The most exhaustive taxonomy or descriptive study of who basic writers are and what their writing looks like is Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations (now twenty-five years old). And even that book drew largely on a particular, localized set of conditions (Shaughnessy's data consisted of placement essays at CUNY in the early 70s). Should we turn our energies to trying to create the kind of generalized profile you call for? On one hand, institutions ought to respond to the particular needs of their own student body. The profile of a basic writer at the University of Arizona might look different than the profile of a basic writer at Pikes Peak CC. On the other hand, it sounds like you are suggesting that various institutional audiences at your school would respond well to something less anecdotal and more far-reaching. One resource you might find useful is a 1998 study done by The Institute for Higher Education Policy and called "College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What's at Stake." Most BW teachers and scholars will never read this text, but it might hold the type of credibility and specific, quantified information you're looking for. Do you think, Larry, that we've become "too theoretical"? Karen Uehling and Rita Dudley have posted about some of the externally imposed procedures (Compass and ACT scores, etc)...maybe the question is how can those of us in the trenches, teaching BW and running BW programs, use our own disciplinary knowledge to improve practice at our institutions, in our states, etc. --Bill EW: I'm glad Bill and I agreed on the basic issues here. For those of you who don't really know of us, I'm the old-timer, still teaching after retirement, while Bill is the up-and-coming new scholar. Nice combination, isn't it? Finally, Rita returns to the longing for outside identification of BW students: Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:31:54 -0500 From: "Rita Dudley" To: , Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] beyond anecdote Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Although I posed a practical question attempting to identify BWers, I am = keenly interested in their make-up. I'm most curious about how a BWer got = to be one, at what point in a writer's "career" do we begin to label her a = BWer. Perhaps some ethnographic study would be a possibility. I usually = start each semester having my BWers tell me their "Writer History", but I = find a need to know more about how they got themselves into this category. = Guess it goes back to my days as a remedial reading teacher, trying to = "fix" the problem and get the student back on the right road. Rita Dudley EW: Interesting turn of phrase here: "How they got themselves into this categorey." Fact is, they DIDN'T get themselves into this category; WE put them into it by our assessment. Of course, what Rita means is, what went wrong with their education that they read and write so poorly. That's a long and tough issue. But one answer to that keeps coming up in the studies: the students were unwise enough to choose the wrong parents. Now, how do we respond to that? Good conversation, folks. Let's keep it going. --Ed White From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Sep 29 22:20:09 2001 Received: from mail.btc-bci.com (mail.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.2]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27273 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 22:20:08 -0500 (CDT) From: jordanc@btc-bci.com Received: from Debug (www.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.8]) by mail.btc-bci.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f8U3EWo07142; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 23:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200109300314.f8U3EWo07142@mail.btc-bci.com> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Some responses Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 23:17:22 US/Michigan X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.22 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > I think it's interesting that writing assessment and what makes a basic writer seems to have emerged like Sylla and Charybdis. There is no perfect answer to assessment that's doable. So what we get are basic writers in Comp 1 and comp 1 writers in Basic Writing. We can set the scores (whichever you like) wherever, to achieve the desired result. We either get more Basic Writers or we get more failures in Comp 1. And yes it does seem political, arbitrary and capricious. So we do the best we can meeting the student, each one, where he or she can benefit the most. Here in the trenches, Chuck Jordan Lake Michigan College > Ed White here, commenting on some of the interesting posts at last appearing > on our list. First to Rita's query: > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:23:10 -0500 > From: "Rita Dudley" > To: , > Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > > "Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic > = > writing course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take = > before they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it = > in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same = > writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course. I've = > taught such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. = > Any ideas what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through = > this course to go on to the required one? What percent in your institution= > s need to retake the course?" > > EW: Tying the BW course in with the First Year Experience sounds like > exactly the right thing to do, though we can't have much faith in ACT as a > placement device. I sure hope the First Year Experience involves more than > finding editorial errors in other people's writing! And I'm sure that some > writing is involved in the BW course, though not on the ACT. Lots of > slippage in test validity here. The second query, about how many students > will or will not make it through is also an assessment question: how do you > define "make it through"? I don't think anyone else's experience will help > much here, since that definition is so completely local. On some campuses > almost everyone makes it through; on others very few do. As Bill and I said > in our initial post, you really can't look for outside help when you are in > charge of your own assessments and definitions, as you really ought to be. > > Larry Giddings has a similar desire to see generalizable definitions: > > From: "Giddings, Larry" > To: "'teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com'" > > Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:04:23 -0600 > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > "Hello Everyone! Larry Giddings here from Pikes Peak Community College in > Colorado Springs. As a professional, I've been working with teaching "basic > writers," for about 12 years, and before that as a student, I suppose I were > one for at least that many years. > > "I want to thank Professors Degenaro and White for their opening comments > regarding assessing writing (specifically basic writers), and I want to file > a complaint-not directed precisely at what they said, but more generally > towards what I see as a major problem for writing teachers everywhere. > > "I read "Assessment and the Basic Writer," hoping to see specific > characteristics, maybe even quantifiable markers to help us define what > today's basic writer might look like in profile. I was hoping to see > reading level ranges, writing characteristics, sociological indicators, and > maybe even socio-economic tags or attitude generalizations. Alas, this sort > of information was not included in their stimulating and thoughtful > discussion. > > "And I'm back to wondering where I can turn for specific information (other > than anecdotal) that will help me and my colleagues in the Colorado > community colleges explain to our various curriculum committees and > administrators the natures of our "basic writing" students. > > "Perhaps, however, our colleges are concerned about assessment for reasons > other than teaching, learning, and self-improvement. > > "In the Community Colleges of Colorado (14 colleges), we use Accuplacer > (most), Compass (one or two), and most use in-class writing samples for > placement verification. > > "There is much that I can relate about how placement has been redefined over > the course of the last few years here in Colorado (mandatory placement by > state law), but I'll not trouble you with any of that now. > > "Thanks again, Bill and Ed, > Gidd" > > EW: I sure wish that the multiple-choice tests, and Gidd refers to the two > most commonly used ones, the misnamed Accuplacer and the unmagnetic Compass, > could be no more than a minor piece of the placement puzzled. When you > think of the difference in abilities needed to fill in the bubbles on those > tests as opposed to thinking and generating prose, it shouldn't need much > convincing to cast questions of the meaning of those test scores. (Compass > does have some writing but see Karen's post which follows for its problems.) > We do have convincing evidence that many students who call themselves > "white" and who have middle-class upbringing will do quite well on those > tests, no matter how they write, while other students who define themselves > as racial or ethnic minorities tend to do poorly, even if they write OK. > But the m/c tests are relatively cheap and easy to administer, so they keep > getting used anyway. This is a bit embarrassing, no? As for Gidd's > understandable frustration that we haven't given usable guidelines for > defining BWs, do notice why we don't. All we really can say is that YOU > (through your assessments) define whoever it is you want to call a BW. > There is no general rule. It might make our lives easier if the > "quantifiable markers" were out there. But think. Do you want Harvard and > Stanford to set them for you? Or some state or federal agency? The markers > you use only have meaning in your own context, for your own students, for > your own curriculum--if, indeed, they have any meaning at all. The only > evidence that really matters is, are you helping students who might well > drop out of college stay in and succeed. That evidence is easy enought to > gather and recent studies show that we are as a nation doing very well in > that regard. Karen's post, which follows, lets us see what happens when a > state board decides IT will take charge of assessment. (White's first law > of assessment: Assess Thyself or Assessment Shall be Done Unto Thee.) > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:28:57 -0600 > From: "Karen Uehling" > To: > Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] let's start with assessment > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > "I am delighted to have the opportunity to get the response of experts > William Degenaro and Ed White. This discussion is a fantastic idea, and I'm > pretty sure things are moving now. And I also want anyone else's response. I > want to learn together. > > "Regarding assessment for placement into BW-- > > "I work at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho: six-year institution, > 16,000 students considering both part-time and full-time enrollment or > 10,000 full-time equivalent students (FTEs); urban, commuter institution > with a number of older students (average age = roughly 27). BSU also > fulfills a community college function and the Vocational Technical College > offers two-year degrees and certificate programs. Our institution places > students into basic writing based on test scores. Beginning fall term 2000, > the State Board of Education raised the scores necessary for admission to > English 101, "English Composition," the first of two required writing > courses, and consequently doubled the number of students in basic writing. > > "Currently, students place into BW by these scores: ACT in English, scores > of 0-17; SAT Verbal:200-440; COMPASS test: 0-67. The writing portion of the > COMPASS test, an ACT product. According to the ACT website, it is a > "comprehensive computerized placement and diagnostic assessment system." The > test costs $5.00, is given on campus, and takes 30-60 minutes. It is an > on-line revision test, and students receive their score immediately. The > COMPASS test was chosen by the State Board of Education. Higher scores on > any of these tests would place students into English 101 or higher. > > "I am not thrilled that the Sate Board made this decision unilaterally. We > have now had it in place for a year. I am seeing two groups of > students--about a third are what I used to see, students with obvious > weaknesses at the surface level and other areas of writing (generating, > drafting, revising, arranging, etc.). The second group often write a kind of > bland, weakly connected prose, full of "which" and vague word choice. Our BW > course has now become what I would call an upper-level basic, lower level > freshman comp. course. > > "Re. placement generally: We get a fair number of often older students who > choose to take BW as a review before beginning freshman comp. Those who have > to take it seem to come around in a relatively short time about the > importance of the course. So I don't worry too much about moving people to > freshman comp. unless they are persistent that this was a misplacement. > Also, our classes are so crowded, there's nowhere to move to. And I think > four months is a very short time to work on writing." > > --Karen Uehling > Boise State University > > EW: Boise State, if I'm not mistaken, used to be a leader in portfolio > assessment, a much more valid and responsible form of assessment for > placement and for other matters as well. What happened? > > Roger Easson had a very interesting post, to which my colleague Bill > replied, so I won't pursue those issues here. But now I notice that Bill > also replied to Gidd, so let's see if he and I agreed or disagreed. > --__--__-- > > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:53:22 -0700 (MST) > From: William Degenaro > To: > Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] beyond anecdote > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > Larry Giddings: > < characteristics, maybe even quantifiable markers to help us define what > today's basic writer might look like in profile. I was hoping to see > reading level ranges, writing characteristics, sociological indicators, > and maybe even socio-economic tags or attitude generalizations. Alas, > this sort of information was not included in their stimulating and > thoughtful discussion.>> > > To my knowledge, no such document exists. The most exhaustive taxonomy or > descriptive study of who basic writers are and what their writing looks > like is Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations (now twenty-five years old). > And even that book drew largely on a particular, localized set of > conditions (Shaughnessy's data consisted of placement essays at CUNY in > the early 70s). Should we turn our energies to trying to create the kind > of generalized profile you call for? On one hand, institutions ought to > respond to the particular needs of their own student body. The profile of > a basic writer at the University of Arizona might look different than the > profile of a basic writer at Pikes Peak CC. > > On the other hand, it sounds like you are suggesting that various > institutional audiences at your school would respond well to something > less anecdotal and more far-reaching. One resource you might find useful > is a 1998 study done by The Institute for Higher Education Policy and > called "College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What's at Stake." > Most BW teachers and scholars will never read this text, but it might hold > the type of credibility and specific, quantified information you're > looking for. > > Do you think, Larry, that we've become "too theoretical"? Karen Uehling > and Rita Dudley have posted about some of the externally imposed > procedures (Compass and ACT scores, etc)...maybe the question is how can > those of us in the trenches, teaching BW and running BW programs, use our > own disciplinary knowledge to improve practice at our institutions, in our > states, etc. > > --Bill > > EW: I'm glad Bill and I agreed on the basic issues here. For those of you > who don't really know of us, I'm the old-timer, still teaching after > retirement, while Bill is the up-and-coming new scholar. Nice combination, > isn't it? Finally, Rita returns to the longing for outside identification > of BW students: > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:31:54 -0500 > From: "Rita Dudley" > To: , > Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] beyond anecdote > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > > Although I posed a practical question attempting to identify BWers, I am = > keenly interested in their make-up. I'm most curious about how a BWer got = > to be one, at what point in a writer's "career" do we begin to label her a = > BWer. Perhaps some ethnographic study would be a possibility. I usually = > start each semester having my BWers tell me their "Writer History", but I = > find a need to know more about how they got themselves into this category. = > Guess it goes back to my days as a remedial reading teacher, trying to = > "fix" the problem and get the student back on the right road. > Rita Dudley > > EW: Interesting turn of phrase here: "How they got themselves into this > categorey." Fact is, they DIDN'T get themselves into this category; WE put > them into it by our assessment. Of course, what Rita means is, what went > wrong with their education that they read and write so poorly. That's a > long and tough issue. But one answer to that keeps coming up in the > studies: the students were unwise enough to choose the wrong parents. Now, > how do we respond to that? > > Good conversation, folks. Let's keep it going. --Ed White > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using B-dale mail program. http://www.btc-bci.com/ From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Sep 29 22:55:21 2001 Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28299 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 22:55:21 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.51.11f61da0 (3980) for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 23:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51.11f61da0.28e7f1a6@aol.com> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 23:55:18 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_51.11f61da0.28e7f1a6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Good writing in Basic Writing is not one of my goals Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_51.11f61da0.28e7f1a6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roger Writes>> This message seems not to have made the list somehow, so I=20 thought I would repost it with emendations. I hope I am not being redundant= ,=20 if this is a duplicate posting, please excuse me. Since the WTC catastrophe= =20 my e-mails are acting very strangely.=20 just me roger > Bill Writes>>Since we are framing this discussion around issues of=20 > assessment, I wonder=20 > if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teaching= =20 > methods.=20 Roger>>Effectiveness for me means that at the end of the semester a student=20 who could hardly produce 400 words of prose at week one, can at week 15=20 produce in an hour a lengthy text of at least 2000 words with few errors.=20 As I think about my objectives in Basic Writing, I try to limit what I teach= =20 to the ability of the student to capture what he/she thinks easily quickly o= n=20 the keyboard. Fluency for me is simply this: That there is an easy transfer=20 of thinking to text, a transfer that is quick and full, ready for revision=20 and editing in subsequent passes.=20 I work on Correctness with them as a function of our practice, I do not teac= h=20 grammar except in response to their own texts as a part of a copyediting=20 process.=20 This is where grammar should be I suspect.=20 Bill writes>>You already mentioned doing word counts to assess fluency (but=20 > are "fluency" and "length" the same thing?).=20 Roger writes>> Word counts are only the most clumsy of fluency indicators,=20 but in terms of the ability to capture thinking in the discovery process of=20 composing, I think it is an interesting measure. =A0There is something amazi= ng=20 in the 15 paper task whereby they have to produce 15 five page word processe= d=20 texts in courier 12 point. =A0This exercises the muscles of their hands,=20 develops the hand eye coordination linkage required to record thinking easil= y=20 and effectively. =A0 =A0By the end of the semester they are WORD mavens.=20 Are they good writers. Probably not.=20 They are works in progress and now ready for Composition One, however. =A0Co= mp=20 1 and 2 is where some of the higher level tasks of organization, development= =20 and critical thinking are taught. =A0I intentionally do not concern myself w= ith=20 those matters in this basic writing class. =A0I am very happy if they learn=20 fluency--how to produce text in response to their thinking quickly and=20 efficiently--and become effective managers of their own correctness issues.=20= =20 I happily leave those other objectives to Comp 1 and 2. Bill writes>>> issues? Of course, this gets at=20 > the more difficult question WHAT IS GOOD WRITING? I think this is=20 > illustrative of our point about the power of assessment.=20 >=20 > Roger writes>> I am not much interested in good writing, as that is a=20 > matter of taste and aesthetics for the most part. We have critics and all=20 > sorts of intellectual gymnasts in our schools of literary criticism who=20 > can't agree on what is good writing. Let's focus rather on the learning=20 > objectives which will prepare students to flourish in Composition 1.=20 And I really think that the most pernicious element of contemporary--or for=20 that=20 > matter our tradition as composition teachers in the main--is our interest=20= in=20 > producing Good Writers whatever that may mean. What I am interested in,=20 > however, is the students' development of a set of attitudes which will hel= p=20 > him/her continue the learning process.=20 So for example I work with students to differentiate early between grammar=20 issues,=20 > issues from the language code of Standard Edited American English and issu= es=20 > of style which are determined by the requirements of subject, audience,=20 > occasion and the expectations of the discourse community out of which the=20 > writer emerges. =A0=A0 As one who works with all sorts of engineering codes, Sandard Building Codes= =20 of all sorts, I recognize that Standard Edited American English is simply=20 another standardized code which permits communication across our continent=20 and across disciplines.=20 As I also teach Business English and Technical Writing, I am often confronte= d=20 with the need to differientate between Academic, Business and Technical=20 writing. These kinds of texts present very different stylistic agenda and w= e=20 need to help students focus on these different agenda. So Style has become a= n=20 essential issue in my teaching. If James Britton taught us anything it is that the worst thing we can do as=20 single=20 > person audiences is to impose our sense of style on the student writer, to= =20 > appropriate the student's writing as if it were out own. =A0In my opinion,= =20 > style issues are matters of judgment and enormously difficult to teach as=20= a=20 > result. =A0What we can do is to discuss these issues of style and share wi= th=20 > students our own experiences as writers and how we might think through the= =20 > decisions which the stylistic determinants require of us.=20 >=20 > Frequently I am confronted by students showing me instructor marked papers= =20 > in the writing center, and in the review of the paper I realize that for=20 > the most part the so called errors are disagreements in style, not=20 > grammatical at all. They are inevitably marked as if there were no=20 > distinction between grammar and style at all. =A0It is very difficult to h= elp=20 > students sort these kinds of problems out, if they are not presented as=20 > manageable and discussable issues. =A0Mostly, it comes down to the power o= f=20 > the grade book, and the student realizes the has to please his teacher=20 > Good writing? lord have=20 mercy preserve us from having to figure that one out in basic writing classe= s. just me roger Roger Easson=20 Professor=20 Director of the Writing Center=20 Christian Brothers University=20 Memphis TN=20 reasson@cbu.edu=20 RReasson333@aol.com=20 --part1_51.11f61da0.28e7f1a6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roger Writes>> This= message seems not to have made the list somehow, so I thought I would repos= t it with emendations.  I hope I am not being redundant, if this is a d= uplicate posting, please excuse me.  Since the WTC catastrophe my e-mai= ls are acting very strangely.=20


just me
roger



Bill Writes>>Since we= are framing this discussion around issues of assessment, I wonder=20
if you could talk about how you measure the effectiveness of your teachi= ng=20
methods.




Roger>>Effectiveness for me means that at the end of t= he semester a student who could hardly produce 400 words of prose at week on= e, can at week 15 produce in an hour a lengthy text of at least 2000 words w= ith few errors.=20

As I think about my objectives in Basic Writing, I try to limit what I t= each to the ability of the student to capture what he/she thinks easily quic= kly on the keyboard. Fluency for me is simply this: That there is an easy tr= ansfer of thinking to text, a transfer that is quick and full, ready for rev= ision and editing in subsequent passes.=20

I work on Correctness with them as a function of our practice, I do not=20= teach grammar except in response to their own texts as a part of a copyediti= ng process.=20
This is where grammar should be I suspect.=20

Bill writes>>You already mentioned doing word counts to assess flu= ency (but=20
are "fluency" and "length"=20= the same thing?).


Roger writes>> Word counts are only the most clumsy of= fluency indicators, but in terms of the ability to capture thinking in the=20= discovery process of composing, I think it is an interesting measure. =A0The= re is something amazing in the 15 paper task whereby they have to produce 15= five page word processed texts in courier 12 point. =A0This exercises the m= uscles of their hands, develops the hand eye coordination linkage required t= o record thinking easily and effectively. =A0

=A0By the end of the semester they are WORD mavens.=20

Are they good writers. Probably not.

They are works in progress and now ready for Composition One, however.=20= =A0Comp 1 and 2 is where some of the higher level tasks of organization, dev= elopment and critical thinking are taught. =A0I intentionally do not concern= myself with those matters in this basic writing class. =A0I am very happy i= f they learn fluency--how to produce text in response to their thinking quic= kly and efficiently--and become effective managers of their own correctness=20= issues.  I happily leave those other objectives to Comp 1 and 2.

Bill writes>>How do you assess other writing
issues? Of course, this gets at the more difficult q= uestion WHAT IS GOOD WRITING? I think this is illustrative of our point abou= t the power of assessment.=20

Roger writes>> I am not much interested in good writing, as that i= s a matter of taste and aesthetics for the most part. We have critics and al= l sorts of intellectual gymnasts in our schools of literary criticism who ca= n't agree on what is good writing.   Let's focus rather on the lea= rning objectives which will prepare students to flourish in Composition 1. <= /FONT>


And I really think that the most pernicious element of conte= mporary--or for that
matter our trad= ition as composition teachers in the main--is our interest in producing Good= Writers whatever that may mean. What I am interested in, however, is the st= udents' development of a set of attitudes which will help him/her continue t= he learning process.


So for example I work with students to differentiate early b= etween grammar issues,
issues from the= language code of Standard Edited American English and issues of style which= are determined by the requirements of subject, audience, occasion and the e= xpectations of the discourse community out of which the writer emerges. =A0= =A0

As one who works with all sorts of engineering codes, Sandar= d Building Codes of all sorts, I recognize that Standard Edited American Eng= lish is simply another standardized code which permits communication across=20= our continent and across disciplines.=20

As I also teach Business English and Technical Writing, I am often confr= onted with the need to differientate between Academic, Business and Technica= l writing.  These kinds of texts present very different stylistic agend= a and we need to help students focus on these different agenda. So Style has= become an essential issue in my teaching.

If James Britton taught us anything it is that the worst thing we can do= as single
person audience= s is to impose our sense of style on the student writer, to appropriate the=20= student's writing as if it were out own. =A0In my opinion, style issues are=20= matters of judgment and enormously difficult to teach as a result. =A0What w= e can do is to discuss these issues of style and share with students our own= experiences as writers and how we might think through the decisions which t= he stylistic determinants require of us.=20

Frequently I am confronted by students showing me instructor marked pape= rs in the writing center, and in the review of the paper I realize that for=20= the most part the so called errors are disagreements in style, not grammatic= al at all. They are inevitably marked as if there were no distinction betwee= n grammar and style at all. =A0It is very difficult to help students sort th= ese kinds of problems out, if they are not presented as manageable and discu= ssable issues. =A0Mostly, it comes down to the power of the grade book, and=20= the student realizes the has to please his teacher rather than really think=20= about how language works.
Good writing? lord have mercy preserv= e us from having to figure that one out in basic writing classes.

just me
roger

Roger Easson=20
Professor=20
Director of the Writing Center=20
Christian Brothers University=20
Memphis TN=20
reasson@cbu.edu=20
RReasson333@aol.com --part1_51.11f61da0.28e7f1a6_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 13:53:36 2001 Received: from localhost.localdomain (titus.npgco.com [207.192.213.20]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21945 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:53:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ed ([24.246.122.147]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f8UIs2J21346 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:54:03 -0500 From: "Ed White" To: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:52:17 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <200109301701.MAA13769@grue.eppg.com> Importance: Normal Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Teaching_Basic_Writing:Response to Bill Easson Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Ed White here. I'm really taken with Bill Easson's distinction betwee teaching "style" and focusing on fluency. Over the last few years, there has been a series of studies on teacher response to student writing, starting with an essay in CCC by Nancy Sommers in 1987, I think it was. That essay and some of the scholarship is available in a new book by Rick Straub, Responding to Student Writing. A fascinating study was published by Straub and Ron Lunsford just a few years ago: Twelve Readers Reading, they called it, based on the responses of 12 well-known compositionists to the same set of student papers. These studies have called attention to the point Bill makes: much teacher commentary on student papers is confusing or even destructive. Sounds to me as if Bill is doing wonders with his students, in part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish. But I do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth about topics to the regular courses; shouldn't fluency include writing as discovery and development of ideas, particularly for the BW? I'm not talking here about style but substance, and how do you assess that? --Ed White From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 14:05:08 2001 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22636 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:05:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [64.152.169.93] (dialup-64.152.169.93.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.152.169.93]) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11393 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 12:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200109301905.MAA11393@scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:05:56 -0700 From: "M&M Zezima" To: Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] remove me Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Please remove from your list. Thanks, MZ From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 14:06:38 2001 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24538 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:06:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [64.152.169.93] (dialup-64.152.169.93.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.152.169.93]) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16345 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 12:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200109301906.MAA16345@scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:07:27 -0700 Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] remove me From: "M&M Zezima" To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Please remove from your list. > > Thanks, > > MZ > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - > Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 16:17:14 2001 Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05389 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:17:13 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.90.1aa5f1b5 (4420) for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <90.1aa5f1b5.28e8e5b7@aol.com> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:16:39 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_90.1aa5f1b5.28e8e5b7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Once more into the lists, Substance and Style. Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_90.1aa5f1b5.28e8e5b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/30/01 1:54:42 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes: > Ed Writes>>Sounds to me as if Roger is doing wonders with his students, in > part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish. Roger Writes>>Thanks. Clarity seems always important when teaching writing. Clear objectives and clear distinctions are essential for thinkers as well as for teachers. Ed Writes>>> do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth > about topics to the regular courses. Roger>>Thinking in depth, interesting metaphor. I do try to teach elements of invention early in the semester, revisiting Aristotles Common Topics and such. Fluency is as much a product of how to think through something as it is the ability to make thinking ooze down the nerves are the shoulder, into the arms and out the ends of the fingers onto the keys. We do find recently published essays from The NY Times or the Wall Street Journal or any number of recent periodicals which we read and respond to. Each of these essays is attached to the back of each of the 15 papers. Ed asks>>> development of > ideas, particularly for the BW? Roger writes>>Well this is a line I have drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, as I do not want to focus on critical thinking or any of the more advanced issues we tackle in comp 1 and 2. We have so much work to do to unlearn bad habits, to learn things we should have learned and have never learned. For most students writing is so invisible it seems like smoke and mirrors. So part of my task during the semester is to remind students that Writing is a Technology, a very ancient dense storage technology. Do you know that most students who have never thought very much about the utterly trivial COMMA have never ever studied the rules or thought about the idea that there even were rules? I have a whole sthick i do on the history of Punctuation derived from several places but most importantly from a marvelous book by M. B. Parkes called Pause and Effect: Puynctuation in the West. [Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1993]. Its utterly fascinating to watch students suddenly begin to understand where punctuation came from and where that utterly absurd notion of placing a comma whenever you breathe originates. Or take for instance the idea that a question mark or an expanation mark are not punctuation marks at all, but abbreviations. There is a whole world here they have never considered that precedes exercises in Critical Thinking or Careful Reading or Argument Construiction or any of those exceptional issues we focus on in the subsequent semesters. Not to mention the whole issue of pixilated texts versus ink and fiber texts. One of my most serious goals is to liberate them from writing things out in long hand and then entering them into the word processor as if the word processor were a typewriter. They are working in depth in all sorts of ways. They have another seven semesters to be challenged into conscious thought of the sort we academics delight in. I am very happy if they are fluent, and aware of the technology we call writing and word processing and have begun to take responsibility seriously for their correctness issues. Besides, we do take three of the best essays and begin to polish them--we are in the midst of that even as we speak. And by polish we do begin to challenge ideas and think more about an idea. But I am just as interested in the development of vocabulary without which I suspect that no "in depth thinking" can occur anyway. To my way of thinking, Vocabulary is a kind of packaging technology, I think. Its like a vessel for carrying water. Imagine if you belonged to a tribe which did not know how to carry water around from one place to another. The same is true for an idea. Imagine if you did not know how to carry an idea around without its container. Vocabulary is utterly preliminary for "thinking in depth." And the impoverished vocabularies of these students is just amazing. Ed>>> style but substance, and how do you assess > that? > > Roger writes>>Ed? Substance? Matter? our vocabulary begins to disentigrate > here. I have always thought that we misunderstand developmentally our freshmen > students. Look at the readers we give them. Essays abound there that are > full of substance. And they are all written by men and women who are in > their prime intellectually, and mostly way past 18 or 19. These are great essays: I love them, revere them. But I cannot ask my students to > be E.B. White. And yes i remember my Browning and stuff about reaching and > grasping. Yet I want them to have success experiences, I want to praise > them for their good work. I am not wanting to introduce conceptual defeats > into the process just yet. They will meet those later often enough I > suspect. > > Oddly, you know the best writing coach I ever knew, never said one negative > thing to me or any of her students. And they worked their hearts out for > her. My students are just are who they are and their substance is at the moment in need of some > thickening agents which I think practice and > practice and more practice provides. I am very happy if they can stitch > thoughts in sequence and begin somewhere and end somewhere, and consider > what comes next. Oddly, the teachers of freshman comp who get my students always comment when they connect the dots, that these students are more than ready for what they have to teach. I hope this helps Ed. just me roger Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com --part1_90.1aa5f1b5.28e8e5b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/30/01 1:54:42 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes:


Ed Writes>>Sounds to me as if Roger is doing wonders with his students, in
part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish.


Roger Writes>>Thanks. Clarity seems always important when teaching writing. Clear objectives and clear distinctions are essential for thinkers as well as for teachers.

Ed Writes>> But I
do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth about topics to the regular courses.


Roger>>Thinking in depth, interesting metaphor.  I do try to teach elements of invention early in the semester, revisiting Aristotles Common Topics and such.  Fluency is as much a product of how to think through something as it is the ability to make thinking ooze down the nerves are the shoulder, into the arms and out the ends of the fingers onto the keys.   We do find recently published essays from The NY Times or the Wall Street Journal or any number of recent periodicals which we read and respond to.  Each of these essays is attached to the back of each of the 15 papers.

Ed asks>> shouldn't fluency include writing as discovery and
development of ideas, particularly for the BW?  


Roger writes>>Well this is a line I have drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, as I do not want to focus on critical thinking or any of the more advanced issues we tackle in comp 1 and 2.  We have so much work to do to unlearn bad habits, to learn things we should have learned and have never learned.  

For most students writing is so invisible it seems like smoke and mirrors. So part of my task during the semester is to remind students that Writing is a Technology, a very ancient dense storage technology.   Do you know that most students who have never thought very much about the utterly trivial COMMA have never ever studied the rules or thought about the idea that there even were rules?  I have a whole sthick i do on the history of Punctuation derived from several places but most importantly from a marvelous book by M. B. Parkes called Pause and Effect: Puynctuation in the West. [Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1993]. Its utterly fascinating to watch students suddenly begin to understand where punctuation came from and where that utterly absurd notion of placing a comma whenever you breathe originates.  Or take for instance the idea that a question mark or an expanation mark are not punctuation marks at all, but abbreviations. There is a whole world here they have never considered that precedes exercises in Critical Thinking or Careful Reading or Argument Construiction or any of those exceptional issues we focus on in the subsequent semesters.

Not to mention the whole issue of pixilated texts versus ink and fiber texts. One of my most serious goals is to liberate them from writing things out in long hand and then entering them into the word processor as if the word processor were a typewriter.   They are working in depth in all sorts of ways.  They have another seven semesters to be challenged into conscious thought of the sort we academics delight in.  I am very happy if they are fluent, and aware of the technology we call writing and word processing and have begun to take responsibility seriously for their correctness issues.  

Besides, we do take three of the best essays and begin to polish them--we are in the midst of that even as we speak.  And by polish we do begin to challenge ideas and think more about an idea.  But I am just as interested in the development of vocabulary without which I suspect that no "in depth thinking" can occur anyway. To my way of thinking, Vocabulary is a kind of packaging technology, I think. Its like a vessel for carrying water. Imagine if you belonged to a tribe which did not know how to carry water around from one place to another. The same is true for an idea. Imagine if you did not know how to carry an idea around without its container.  Vocabulary is utterly preliminary for "thinking in depth." And the impoverished vocabularies of these students is just amazing.

Ed>>I'm not talking here about
style but substance, and how do you assess that?

Roger writes>>Ed? Substance? Matter? our vocabulary begins to disentigrate here.


I have always thought that we misunderstand developmentally our freshmen
students.  Look at the readers we give them.  Essays abound there that are full of substance. And they are all written by men and women who are in their prime intellectually, and mostly way past 18 or 19.   
These are great essays: I love them, revere them. But I cannot ask my students to
be E.B. White. And yes i remember my Browning and stuff about reaching and grasping.  Yet I want them to have success experiences, I want to praise them for their  good work. I am not wanting to introduce conceptual defeats into the process just yet. They will meet those later often enough I suspect.

Oddly, you know the best writing coach I ever knew, never said one negative thing to me or any of her students.  And they worked their hearts out for her.


      My students are just are who they are and their substance is at the moment in need of some  
thickening agents which I think practice and practice and more practice provides.  I am very happy if they can stitch thoughts in sequence and begin somewhere and end somewhere, and consider what comes next.


Oddly, the teachers of freshman comp who get my students always comment when they connect the dots, that these students are more than ready for what they have to teach.

I hope this helps Ed.

just me
roger


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com

Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com --part1_90.1aa5f1b5.28e8e5b7_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 16:26:13 2001 Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05719 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:26:12 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.f7.101aaa37 (4420) for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:26:09 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Once more into the lists, Substance and Style. Edited version Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_alt_boundary" --part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh, he says. :-( {using the punctuation marks this new medium is beginning to demand} I am teaching a unit just now in Business Writing on E-mail, and i continually tell my students never to send e-mail messages without editing them. Erk, and yet here I am doing the very same thing. rre <<>><<>><<>><<>> > >> d Writes>>Sounds to me as if Roger is doing wonders with his students, in >> > > > Roger Writes>>Thanks. Clarity seems always important when teaching writing. > Clear objectives and clear distinctions are essential for thinkers as well > as for teachers. > > Ed Writes>>>> do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in >> > > Roger>>Thinking in depth, interesting metaphor. I do try to teach elements > of invention early in the semester, revisiting Aristotle's Common Topics > and such. Fluency is as much a product of how to think through something > as it is the ability to make thinking ooze down the nerves are the > shoulder, into the arms and out the ends of the fingers onto the keys. We > do find recently published essays from The NY Times or the Wall Street > Journal or any number of recent periodicals which we read and respond to. > Each of these essays is attached to the back of each of the 15 papers. > > Ed asks>> shouldn't fluency include writing as discovery and > >> development of ideas, particularly for the BW? > > > Roger writes>>Well this is a line I have drawn quite arbitrarily in the > sand, as I do not want to focus on critical thinking or any of the more > advanced issues we tackle in comp 1 and 2. We have so much work to do to > unlearn bad habits, to learn things we should have learned and have never > learned. > > For most students writing is so invisible it seems like smoke and mirrors. > So part of my task during the semester is to remind students that Writing > is a Technology, a very ancient dense storage technology. Do you know > that most students who have never thought very much about the utterly > trivial COMMA have never ever studied the rules or thought about the idea > that there even were rules? I have a whole shtick I do on the history of > Punctuation derived from several places but most importantly from a > marvelous book by M. B. Parkes called Pause and Effect: Punctuation in the > West. [Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1993]. Its utterly fascinating > to watch students suddenly begin to understand where punctuation came from > and where that utterly absurd notion of placing a comma whenever you > breathe originates. Or take for instance the idea that a question mark or > an explanation mark are not punctuation marks at all, but abbreviations. > There is a whole world here they have never considered that precedes > exercises in Critical Thinking or Careful Reading or Argument Construction > or any of those exceptional issues we focus on in the subsequent semesters. > > Not to mention the whole issue of pixilated texts versus ink and fiber > texts. One of my most serious goals is to liberate them from writing things > out in long hand and then entering them into the word processor as if the > word processor were a typewriter. They are working in depth in all sorts > of ways. They have another seven semesters to be challenged into conscious > thought of the sort we academics delight in. I am very happy if they are > fluent and aware of the technology we call writing and word processing and > have begun to take responsibility seriously for their correctness issues. > > Besides, we do take three of the best essays and begin to polish them--we > are in the midst of that even as we speak. And as we polish we do begin to > challenge ideas and think more about an idea. But I am just as interested > in the development of vocabulary without which I suspect that no "in depth > thinking" can occur anyway. To my way of thinking, Vocabulary is a kind of > packaging technology, I think. Its like a vessel for carrying water. > Imagine if you belonged to a tribe which did not know how to carry water > around from one place to another. The same is true for an idea. Imagine if > you did not know how to carry an idea around without its container. > Vocabulary is utterly preliminary for "thinking in depth." And the > impoverished vocabularies of these students is just amazing. > > Ed>>>> style but substance, and how do you assess >> that? >> >> Roger writes>>Ed? Substance? Matter? our vocabulary begins to disintegrate >> > > > I have always thought that we misunderstand developmentally our freshmen > >> students. Look at the readers we give them. Essays abound there that >> are full of substance. And they are all written by men and women who are >> in their prime intellectually, and mostly way past 18 or 19. > > > These are great essays: I love them, revere them. But I cannot ask my > students to > >> be E.B. White. And yes I remember my Browning and stuff about reaching >> and grasping. Yet I want them to have success experiences, I want to >> praise them for their good work. I am not wanting to introduce conceptual >> defeats into the process just yet. They will meet those later often enough >> I suspect. >> Oddly, you know the best writing coach I ever knew, never said one negative thing to > >> me or any of her students. > > My students are just are who they are and their substance is at the moment > in need of some >> thickening agents which I think practice and practice >> and more practice provides. I am very happy if they can stitch thoughts >> in sequence and begin somewhere and end somewhere, and consider what comes >> > > Oddly, the teachers of freshman comp who get my students always comment > when they connect the dots, that these students are more than ready for > what they have to teach. > > I hope this helps Ed. > > just me > roger > > > Roger Easson > Professor > Director of the Writing Center > Christian Brothers University > Memphis TN > reasson@cbu.edu > --part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh, he says. :-(

{using the punctuation marks this new medium is beginning to demand}

I am teaching a unit just now in Business Writing on E-mail, and i continually tell my students never to send e-mail messages without editing them. Erk, and yet here I am doing the very same thing.  
rre
<<>><<>><<>><<>>

E
d Writes>>Sounds to me as if Roger is doing wonders with his students, in
part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish.



Roger Writes>>Thanks. Clarity seems always important when teaching writing. Clear objectives and clear distinctions are essential for thinkers as well as for teachers.

Ed Writes>> But I
do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth about topics to the regular courses.


Roger>>Thinking in depth, interesting metaphor.  I do try to teach elements of invention early in the semester, revisiting Aristotle's Common Topics and such.  Fluency is as much a product of how to think through something as it is the ability to make thinking ooze down the nerves are the shoulder, into the arms and out the ends of the fingers onto the keys.  We do find recently published essays from The NY Times or the Wall Street Journal or any number of recent periodicals which we read and respond to.  Each of these essays is attached to the back of each of the 15 papers.

Ed asks>> shouldn't fluency include writing as discovery and
development of ideas, particularly for the BW?  



Roger writes>>Well this is a line I have drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, as I do not want to focus on critical thinking or any of the more advanced issues we tackle in comp 1 and 2.  We have so much work to do to unlearn bad habits, to learn things we should have learned and have never learned.  

For most students writing is so invisible it seems like smoke and mirrors. So part of my task during the semester is to remind students that Writing is a Technology, a very ancient dense storage technology.   Do you know that most students who have never thought very much about the utterly trivial COMMA have never ever studied the rules or thought about the idea that there even were rules?  I have a whole shtick I do on the history of Punctuation derived from several places but most importantly from a marvelous book by M. B. Parkes called Pause and Effect: Punctuation in the West. [Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1993]. Its utterly fascinating to watch students suddenly begin to understand where punctuation came from and where that utterly absurd notion of placing a comma whenever you breathe originates.  Or take for instance the idea that a question mark or an explanation mark are not punctuation marks at all, but abbreviations. There is a whole world here they have never considered that precedes exercises in Critical Thinking or Careful Reading or Argument Construction or any of those exceptional issues we focus on in the subsequent semesters.

Not to mention the whole issue of pixilated texts versus ink and fiber texts. One of my most serious goals is to liberate them from writing things out in long hand and then entering them into the word processor as if the word processor were a typewriter.   They are working in depth in all sorts of ways.  They have another seven semesters to be challenged into conscious thought of the sort we academics delight in.  I am very happy if they are fluent and aware of the technology we call writing and word processing and have begun to take responsibility seriously for their correctness issues.  

Besides, we do take three of the best essays and begin to polish them--we are in the midst of that even as we speak.  And as we polish we do begin to challenge ideas and think more about an idea.  But I am just as interested in the development of vocabulary without which I suspect that no "in depth thinking" can occur anyway. To my way of thinking, Vocabulary is a kind of packaging technology, I think. Its like a vessel for carrying water. Imagine if you belonged to a tribe which did not know how to carry water around from one place to another. The same is true for an idea. Imagine if you did not know how to carry an idea around without its container.  Vocabulary is utterly preliminary for "thinking in depth." And the impoverished vocabularies of these students is just amazing.

Ed>>I'm not talking here about
style but substance, and how do you assess that?

Roger writes>>Ed? Substance? Matter? our vocabulary begins to disintegrate here.



I have always thought that we misunderstand developmentally our freshmen
students.  Look at the readers we give them.  Essays abound there that are full of substance. And they are all written by men and women who are in their prime intellectually, and mostly way past 18 or 19.   



These are great essays: I love them, revere them. But I cannot ask my students to
be E.B. White. And yes I remember my Browning and stuff about reaching and grasping.  Yet I want them to have success experiences, I want to praise them for their  good work. I am not wanting to introduce conceptual defeats into the process just yet. They will meet those later often enough I suspect.


Oddly, you know the best writing coach I ever knew, never said one negative thing to
me or any of her students.  And they worked their hearts out for her.


My students are just are who they are and their substance is at the moment in need of some  
thickening agents which I think practice and practice and more practice provides.  I am very happy if they can stitch thoughts in sequence and begin somewhere and end somewhere, and consider what comes next.


Oddly, the teachers of freshman comp who get my students always comment when they connect the dots, that these students are more than ready for what they have to teach.

I hope this helps Ed.

just me
roger


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com


 --part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_alt_boundary-- --part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: RREasson333@aol.com Full-name: RREasson333 Message-ID: <90.1aa5f1b5.28e8e5b7@aol.com> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:16:39 EDT Subject: Once more into the lists, Substance and Style. To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_f7.101aaa37.28e8e5b7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 --part2_f7.101aaa37.28e8e5b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/30/01 1:54:42 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes: > Ed Writes>>Sounds to me as if Roger is doing wonders with his students, in > part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish. Roger Writes>>Thanks. Clarity seems always important when teaching writing. Clear objectives and clear distinctions are essential for thinkers as well as for teachers. Ed Writes>>> do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth > about topics to the regular courses. Roger>>Thinking in depth, interesting metaphor. I do try to teach elements of invention early in the semester, revisiting Aristotles Common Topics and such. Fluency is as much a product of how to think through something as it is the ability to make thinking ooze down the nerves are the shoulder, into the arms and out the ends of the fingers onto the keys. We do find recently published essays from The NY Times or the Wall Street Journal or any number of recent periodicals which we read and respond to. Each of these essays is attached to the back of each of the 15 papers. Ed asks>>> development of > ideas, particularly for the BW? Roger writes>>Well this is a line I have drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, as I do not want to focus on critical thinking or any of the more advanced issues we tackle in comp 1 and 2. We have so much work to do to unlearn bad habits, to learn things we should have learned and have never learned. For most students writing is so invisible it seems like smoke and mirrors. So part of my task during the semester is to remind students that Writing is a Technology, a very ancient dense storage technology. Do you know that most students who have never thought very much about the utterly trivial COMMA have never ever studied the rules or thought about the idea that there even were rules? I have a whole sthick i do on the history of Punctuation derived from several places but most importantly from a marvelous book by M. B. Parkes called Pause and Effect: Puynctuation in the West. [Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1993]. Its utterly fascinating to watch students suddenly begin to understand where punctuation came from and where that utterly absurd notion of placing a comma whenever you breathe originates. Or take for instance the idea that a question mark or an expanation mark are not punctuation marks at all, but abbreviations. There is a whole world here they have never considered that precedes exercises in Critical Thinking or Careful Reading or Argument Construiction or any of those exceptional issues we focus on in the subsequent semesters. Not to mention the whole issue of pixilated texts versus ink and fiber texts. One of my most serious goals is to liberate them from writing things out in long hand and then entering them into the word processor as if the word processor were a typewriter. They are working in depth in all sorts of ways. They have another seven semesters to be challenged into conscious thought of the sort we academics delight in. I am very happy if they are fluent, and aware of the technology we call writing and word processing and have begun to take responsibility seriously for their correctness issues. Besides, we do take three of the best essays and begin to polish them--we are in the midst of that even as we speak. And by polish we do begin to challenge ideas and think more about an idea. But I am just as interested in the development of vocabulary without which I suspect that no "in depth thinking" can occur anyway. To my way of thinking, Vocabulary is a kind of packaging technology, I think. Its like a vessel for carrying water. Imagine if you belonged to a tribe which did not know how to carry water around from one place to another. The same is true for an idea. Imagine if you did not know how to carry an idea around without its container. Vocabulary is utterly preliminary for "thinking in depth." And the impoverished vocabularies of these students is just amazing. Ed>>> style but substance, and how do you assess > that? > > Roger writes>>Ed? Substance? Matter? our vocabulary begins to disentigrate > here. I have always thought that we misunderstand developmentally our freshmen > students. Look at the readers we give them. Essays abound there that are > full of substance. And they are all written by men and women who are in > their prime intellectually, and mostly way past 18 or 19. These are great essays: I love them, revere them. But I cannot ask my students to > be E.B. White. And yes i remember my Browning and stuff about reaching and > grasping. Yet I want them to have success experiences, I want to praise > them for their good work. I am not wanting to introduce conceptual defeats > into the process just yet. They will meet those later often enough I > suspect. > > Oddly, you know the best writing coach I ever knew, never said one negative > thing to me or any of her students. And they worked their hearts out for > her. My students are just are who they are and their substance is at the moment in need of some > thickening agents which I think practice and > practice and more practice provides. I am very happy if they can stitch > thoughts in sequence and begin somewhere and end somewhere, and consider > what comes next. Oddly, the teachers of freshman comp who get my students always comment when they connect the dots, that these students are more than ready for what they have to teach. I hope this helps Ed. just me roger Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com --part2_f7.101aaa37.28e8e5b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/30/01 1:54:42 PM Central Daylight Time, emwhite@u.arizona.edu writes:


Ed Writes>>Sounds to me as if Roger is doing wonders with his students, in
part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish.


Roger Writes>>Thanks. Clarity seems always important when teaching writing. Clear objectives and clear distinctions are essential for thinkers as well as for teachers.

Ed Writes>> But I
do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth about topics to the regular courses.


Roger>>Thinking in depth, interesting metaphor.  I do try to teach elements of invention early in the semester, revisiting Aristotles Common Topics and such.  Fluency is as much a product of how to think through something as it is the ability to make thinking ooze down the nerves are the shoulder, into the arms and out the ends of the fingers onto the keys.   We do find recently published essays from The NY Times or the Wall Street Journal or any number of recent periodicals which we read and respond to.  Each of these essays is attached to the back of each of the 15 papers.

Ed asks>> shouldn't fluency include writing as discovery and
development of ideas, particularly for the BW?  


Roger writes>>Well this is a line I have drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, as I do not want to focus on critical thinking or any of the more advanced issues we tackle in comp 1 and 2.  We have so much work to do to unlearn bad habits, to learn things we should have learned and have never learned.  

For most students writing is so invisible it seems like smoke and mirrors. So part of my task during the semester is to remind students that Writing is a Technology, a very ancient dense storage technology.   Do you know that most students who have never thought very much about the utterly trivial COMMA have never ever studied the rules or thought about the idea that there even were rules?  I have a whole sthick i do on the history of Punctuation derived from several places but most importantly from a marvelous book by M. B. Parkes called Pause and Effect: Puynctuation in the West. [Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1993]. Its utterly fascinating to watch students suddenly begin to understand where punctuation came from and where that utterly absurd notion of placing a comma whenever you breathe originates.  Or take for instance the idea that a question mark or an expanation mark are not punctuation marks at all, but abbreviations. There is a whole world here they have never considered that precedes exercises in Critical Thinking or Careful Reading or Argument Construiction or any of those exceptional issues we focus on in the subsequent semesters.

Not to mention the whole issue of pixilated texts versus ink and fiber texts. One of my most serious goals is to liberate them from writing things out in long hand and then entering them into the word processor as if the word processor were a typewriter.   They are working in depth in all sorts of ways.  They have another seven semesters to be challenged into conscious thought of the sort we academics delight in.  I am very happy if they are fluent, and aware of the technology we call writing and word processing and have begun to take responsibility seriously for their correctness issues.  

Besides, we do take three of the best essays and begin to polish them--we are in the midst of that even as we speak.  And by polish we do begin to challenge ideas and think more about an idea.  But I am just as interested in the development of vocabulary without which I suspect that no "in depth thinking" can occur anyway. To my way of thinking, Vocabulary is a kind of packaging technology, I think. Its like a vessel for carrying water. Imagine if you belonged to a tribe which did not know how to carry water around from one place to another. The same is true for an idea. Imagine if you did not know how to carry an idea around without its container.  Vocabulary is utterly preliminary for "thinking in depth." And the impoverished vocabularies of these students is just amazing.

Ed>>I'm not talking here about
style but substance, and how do you assess that?

Roger writes>>Ed? Substance? Matter? our vocabulary begins to disentigrate here.


I have always thought that we misunderstand developmentally our freshmen
students.  Look at the readers we give them.  Essays abound there that are full of substance. And they are all written by men and women who are in their prime intellectually, and mostly way past 18 or 19.   
These are great essays: I love them, revere them. But I cannot ask my students to
be E.B. White. And yes i remember my Browning and stuff about reaching and grasping.  Yet I want them to have success experiences, I want to praise them for their  good work. I am not wanting to introduce conceptual defeats into the process just yet. They will meet those later often enough I suspect.

Oddly, you know the best writing coach I ever knew, never said one negative thing to me or any of her students.  And they worked their hearts out for her.


      My students are just are who they are and their substance is at the moment in need of some  
thickening agents which I think practice and practice and more practice provides.  I am very happy if they can stitch thoughts in sequence and begin somewhere and end somewhere, and consider what comes next.


Oddly, the teachers of freshman comp who get my students always comment when they connect the dots, that these students are more than ready for what they have to teach.

I hope this helps Ed.

just me
roger


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com

Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com --part2_f7.101aaa37.28e8e5b7_boundary-- --part1_f7.101aaa37.28e8e7f1_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 20:12:08 2001 Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24067 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:12:07 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.15e.1b12c8a (25915) for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <15e.1b12c8a.28e91ce4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:12:04 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15e.1b12c8a.28e91ce4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] sowwy for multiple spam and stuff Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_15e.1b12c8a.28e91ce4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sowwy :-\ rre --part1_15e.1b12c8a.28e91ce4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sowwy

:-\

rre --part1_15e.1b12c8a.28e91ce4_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Sep 30 20:25:08 2001 Received: from loras.edu ([192.152.29.111]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA24803 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:25:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lcdomain-Message_Server by loras.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:22:19 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:22:15 -0500 From: "Rita Dudley" To: Subject: Re: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id UAA24804 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Biran: Interesting format--one quarter class, only two papers. What constitutes a "different focus" and what makes the course less clear cut? Rita >>> bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu 09/28/01 14:02 PM >>> Hi, Rita. Here at Whatcom (a two-year school which serves, among other things, as a kind of feeder school for the University in town) we have English 100, a course more than half of our students take before going on to 101. It's a pass/fail course, and student papers (an in-class and an out-of-class essay) are read at the end of the quarter by a panel of English instructors as well as instructors from other disciplines. In the past, when 100 was a more grammar-based course, and what constituted "passing" student writing was more clear-cut, as many as thirty percent of the students who submitted to the panel would have to repeat the course. Now, with a different focus in the class itself, we usually see a 90 percent pass rate. Fall quarter--our biggest quarter population-wise--we usually have more than 400 students submitting to the panel: 10 percent of them take the class over. I don't know if this is helpful or not. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Rita Dudley [mailto:RDUDLEY@loras.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:23 PM To: ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us; teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic writing course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take before they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that corse. I've taught such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. Any ideas what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to go on to the required one? What percent in your institutions need to retake the course? "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what we do not do." --Moliere >>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us 09/27/01 02:16PM >>> First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 1 09:43:30 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28785 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:43:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GKJ00A017KFOP@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:43:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (ts5-8.ppp.nau.edu [134.114.14.97]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GKJ00AWH7KET6@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:43:27 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:51:36 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Teaching_Basic_Writing:Response to BillEasson To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3BB882F8.3D4D39D7@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Ed and Roger: I wonder about this issue of how to assess "substance" as well. I direct our summer bridge program here at NAU. While this program attracts students from many differnt kinds of cultural, social, and linguistic backgrounds, we do have a significant group who the institution considers "basic writers," students in need of one-on-one tutoring, community college prep classes, and the like. Since I both teach in the program and direct it, I see all of this first- hand. My GAs and I have begun collecting portfolios for all of the students who come through the program (150 every summer). And, the issues you raise are critical ones for me: How do we assess these portfolios not just in terms of style or grammar issues but in terms of developments in complexity of thought? Many such students are juggling very complex ideas, but their grammar and style issues need lots of work. How do we account for such a situation when we are asked to "assess student work in the program" by larger administrative bodies? Fortunately, I have not been asked to do this lately, but I'm sure it's coming. Institutions seem to move in assessment cycles. And, part of our mission at NAU is the retention and support of Native American students-- many of whom end up in this summer program. All of your thoughts on this would be terrific! Thanks. Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University Ed White wrote: > Ed White here. I'm really taken with Bill Easson's distinction betwee > teaching "style" and focusing on fluency. Over the last few years, there > has been a series of studies on teacher response to student writing, > starting with an essay in CCC by Nancy Sommers in 1987, I think it was. > That essay and some of the scholarship is available in a new book by Rick > Straub, Responding to Student Writing. A fascinating study was published by > Straub and Ron Lunsford just a few years ago: Twelve Readers Reading, they > called it, based on the responses of 12 well-known compositionists to the > same set of student papers. These studies have called attention to the point > Bill makes: much teacher commentary on student papers is confusing or even > destructive. Sounds to me as if Bill is doing wonders with his students, in > part because he is clear about just what he is trying to accomplish. But I > do wonder about postponing the issues of thinking in depth about topics to > the regular courses; shouldn't fluency include writing as discovery and > development of ideas, particularly for the BW? I'm not talking here about > style but substance, and how do you assess that? --Ed White > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 1 10:22:11 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04632 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:22:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GKJ00C019CXIS@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:22:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (ts11-5.ppp.nau.edu [134.114.14.190]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GKJ00LU99CVLJ@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:22:09 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:30:16 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3BB88C08.7A06E23F@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Since many folks have been having some trouble with posting to the BWlist, I am going to re-send my Welcome Message. Thanks! Laura ------------------------------------------ Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find that their articles are published in many of the journals of our discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on issues of institutional context as well as student populations and needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish to address in the coming weeks. As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with some very useful avenues for discussion. Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment and their utility. I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let the dialogue begin… Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 1 11:23:05 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12193 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:23:04 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B5ZLPFY>; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:25:13 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B4900@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:25:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Rita: Students write a number of essays during the quarter and then choose two of those essays they feel constitute their best work to submit to the panel. (It's a little like a portfolio system, something we'd like to move towards in the future.) What isn't as clear-cut now is what indicates whether or not a student is ready to move on to 101. In the past, when the course was focused on grammar instruction, panel readers could (quite literally) count errors in student papers as a way to determine if the essay "passed." Now, when what we are working on with students is fluency and critical thinking, and what we are looking for is evidence of that, it isn't as easy to judge our success (or failure). "Intellectual moves" are harder to quantify. We've changed the panel process, actually, in part because of that: papers that are considered borderline are read by more readers now, and there is more discussion among those readers. English 100 is, as we say here, a course "in transition," and maybe it always will be. brian -----Original Message----- From: Rita Dudley [mailto:rdudley@loras.edu] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:22 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Biran: Interesting format--one quarter class, only two papers. What constitutes a "different focus" and what makes the course less clear cut? Rita >>> bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu 09/28/01 14:02 PM >>> Hi, Rita. Here at Whatcom (a two-year school which serves, among other things, as a kind of feeder school for the University in town) we have English 100, a course more than half of our students take before going on to 101. It's a pass/fail course, and student papers (an in-class and an out-of-class essay) are read at the end of the quarter by a panel of English instructors as well as instructors from other disciplines. In the past, when 100 was a more grammar-based course, and what constituted "passing" student writing was more clear-cut, as many as thirty percent of the students who submitted to the panel would have to repeat the course. Now, with a different focus in the class itself, we usually see a 90 percent pass rate. Fall quarter--our biggest quarter population-wise--we usually have more than 400 students submitting to the panel: 10 percent of them take the class over. I don't know if this is helpful or not. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Rita Dudley [mailto:RDUDLEY@loras.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:23 PM To: ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us; teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic writing course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take before they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that corse. I've taught such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. Any ideas what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to go on to the required one? What percent in your institutions need to retake the course? "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what we do not do." --Moliere >>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us 09/27/01 02:16PM >>> First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 1 14:02:52 2001 Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03397 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:02:52 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.14a.1d928e0 (25306) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:02:17 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] measuring what can be measured Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/1/01 9:44:31 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 Laura.Gray-Rosendale@NAU.EDU writes: >=20 > Ed and Roger: >=20 > I wonder about this issue of how to assess "substance" as well. > I direct our summer bridge program here at NAU. While this > program attracts students from many different kinds of cultural, > social, and linguistic backgrounds, we do have a significant > group who the institution considers "basic writers," students in need > of one-on-one tutoring, community college prep classes, and the like. > Since I both teach in the program and direct it, I see all of this first- > hand. >=20 > My GAs and I have begun collecting portfolios for all of the students who=20 > come > through the program (150 every summer). And, the issues you raise > are critical ones for me: How do we assess these portfolios not just > in terms of style or grammar issues but in terms of developments in >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Roger writes>>Hi Laura: > This is the way I think about writing: It helps me clarify many elements o= f=20 > basic writing teaching. >=20 > Writing is a dense storage technology by which thought is captured and=20 > transmitted. > Concepts are contained in vocabulary, hence vocabulary held in recall--Not= =20 > Recognition--memory is a useful index of a student's ability to capture=20 > greater complexity of thought. =A0The greater the recall memory the greate= r=20 > the students ability to contain and project more complex thoughts. >=20 > Secondly, syntactical issues are important. =A0Style is not separable from= =20 > substance, though the usual implications of style emerging from the fashio= n=20 > industry perhaps suggests that discussions of style are trivial. =A0Far fr= om=20 > it. =A0We regularly make complex decisions about what kinds of sentence to= =20 > write and what kinds of vocabulary to use according to constraints of=20 > subject, audience and occasion. >=20 > In academic writing we have a marked preference for complex sentence. =A0I= n=20 > general, we might observe that in academic style out of ten sentences 5=20 > tend towards complex sentence structure. with the other 5 spread across th= e=20 > remaining kinds. >=20 > That is not to say however, that complexity of thought cannot be contained= =20 > in simple sentences. Both Business writing and Technical Writing show a=20 > marked preference for simple sentences although they regularly deal with=20 > complex issues. >=20 > But I believe that issues of subordination and coordination would be one=20 > useful index of complexity of thought. >=20 > In addition, if we are searching for things to measure, we might also=20 > examine indexes of flow--the standard water metaphor for a river of=20 > text--or transition. And certainly the ability to move from idea to idea=20 > smoothly suggests the ability to handle complex thought. So measurements o= f=20 > cohesion might also begin to get at complexity of thought. >=20 > So if you want a count-them-up sort of measuring stick, these elements=20 > might be countable. >=20 >=20 > Laura writes>> >=20 > >> Many such students are juggling very complex ideas, >>=20 >>=20 >> >>> but their grammar and style issues need lots of work. How do we accou= nt >>> for such a situation when we are asked to "assess student work in >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Roger writes>> From my point of view, these measurables will often satisfy= =20 > though admittedly we all know complexity of thought is not something that=20 > can be held in such things. What I think we have to measure is not=20 > complexity of thought, but the ability of the student to produce academic=20 > texts, business texts or technical texts. =A0Certainly, they could manage=20 > awesome complexity in more poetic structures such as Haiku. =A0I taught=20 > recently a class where we mixed haiku and prose in the classic genre of=20 > Haibung. The complexity there was amazing, but I wouldn't call it academic= =20 > prose. >=20 > I remember once in my ill gotten past there was a colleague of Ross=20 > Winterowd's who was dealing with something called t-units. =A0That seemed=20 > amazingly complex at the time, and useful perhaps to recall here. =A0Tagme= mic=20 > units I think he was interested in. =A0Such language would be enough to=20 > frighten any good bureaucrat probably. ;) >=20 > I am all for clearly stating your goals and objectives and then measuring=20 > for the success of achieving those goals and objectives. =A0I think if you= do=20 > that, you will not have to defend something as nebulous as "substance" or=20 > "complexity." =A0I am all making things as discrete as possible and=20 > remembering that a student is a work in progress. =A0My goal in BW is simp= ly=20 > to strengthen the student sufficiently so he/she can flourish in the next=20 > sequence of courses. >=20 > Do any of these ramblings make sense? >=20 >=20 > Roger Easson > Professor > Director of the Writing Center > Christian Brothers University > Memphis TN > reasson@cbu.edu=20 > RReasson333@aol.com >=20 >=20 --part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/1/01 9:44:31 AM Central Daylight Time, Laura.Gray-= Rosendale@NAU.EDU writes:






Ed and Roger:

I wonder about this issue of how to assess "substance" as well.
I direct our summer bridge program here at NAU. While this
program attracts students from many different kinds of cultural,
social, and linguistic backgrounds, we do have a significant
group who the institution considers "basic writers," students in need
of one-on-one tutoring, community college prep classes, and the like.
Since I both teach in the program and direct it, I see all of this first= -
hand.

My GAs and I have begun collecting portfolios for all of the students wh= o come
through the program (150 every summer). And, the issues you raise
are critical ones for me: How do we assess these portfolios not just
in terms of style or grammar issues but in terms of developments in
complexity of thought?







Roger writes>>Hi Laura:
This is the way I think about writing: It helps me clarify many elements= of basic writing teaching.

Writing is a dense storage technology by which thought is captured and t= ransmitted.
Concepts are contained in vocabulary, hence vocabulary held in recall--N= ot Recognition--memory is a useful index of a student's ability to capture g= reater complexity of thought. =A0The greater the recall memory the greater t= he students ability to contain and project more complex thoughts.

Secondly, syntactical issues are important. =A0Style is not separable fr= om substance, though the usual implications of style emerging from the fashi= on industry perhaps suggests that discussions of style are trivial. =A0Far f= rom it. =A0We regularly make complex decisions about what kinds of sentence=20= to write and what kinds of vocabulary to use according to constraints of sub= ject, audience and occasion.

In academic writing we have a marked preference for complex sentence.=20= =A0In general, we might observe that in academic style out of ten sentences=20= 5 tend towards complex sentence structure. with the other 5 spread across th= e remaining kinds.

That is not to say however, that complexity of thought cannot be contain= ed in simple sentences. Both Business writing and Technical Writing show a m= arked preference for simple sentences although they regularly deal with comp= lex issues.

But I believe that issues of subordination and coordination would be one= useful index of complexity of thought.

In addition, if we are searching for things to measure, we might also ex= amine indexes of flow--the standard water metaphor for a river of text--or t= ransition. And certainly the ability to move from idea to idea smoothly sugg= ests the ability to handle complex thought. So measurements of cohesion migh= t also begin to get at complexity of thought.

So if you want a count-them-up sort of measuring stick, these elements m= ight be countable.


Laura writes>>

Many such students are jugg= ling very complex ideas,


but their grammar and style= issues need lots of work. How do we account
for such a situation when we are asked to "assess student work in
the program" by larger administrative bodies?







Roger writes>> From my point of view, these measurables will often= satisfy though admittedly we all know complexity of thought is not somethin= g that can be held in such things. What I think we have to measure is not co= mplexity of thought, but the ability of the student to produce academic text= s, business texts or technical texts. =A0Certainly, they could manage awesom= e complexity in more poetic structures such as Haiku. =A0I taught recently a= class where we mixed haiku and prose in the classic genre of Haibung. The c= omplexity there was amazing, but I wouldn't call it academic prose.

I remember once in my ill gotten past there was a colleague of Ross Wint= erowd's who was dealing with something called t-units. =A0That seemed amazin= gly complex at the time, and useful perhaps to recall here. =A0Tagmemic unit= s I think he was interested in. =A0Such language would be enough to frighten= any good bureaucrat probably. ;)

I am all for clearly stating your goals and objectives and then measurin= g for the success of achieving those goals and objectives. =A0I think if you= do that, you will not have to defend something as nebulous as "substance" o= r "complexity." =A0I am all making things as discrete as possible and rememb= ering that a student is a work in progress. =A0My goal in BW is simply to st= rengthen the student sufficiently so he/she can flourish in the next sequenc= e of courses.

Do any of these ramblings make sense?


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu=20
RReasson333@aol.com





--part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Tue Oct 2 15:18:10 2001 Received: from bsu.boisestate.edu (bsu.boisestate.edu [132.178.176.115]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA08365 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:18:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from bsu-Message_Server by bsu.boisestate.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:04:53 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:04:43 -0600 From: "Karen Uehling" To: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Placement into BW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id PAA08366 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: In response to Ed White's question about the use of portfolios at Boise State, we are using portfolios for end-of-course assessment. Test scores mandated by the State Board of Education are for placement into writing classes only. I want to add that I feel the best form of placement is directed self-placement. --Karen Uehling From teaching_basic_writing-admin Tue Oct 2 17:13:15 2001 Received: from deimos.email.Arizona.EDU (IDENT:root@deimos-adm.email.Arizona.EDU [128.196.133.166]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23465 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:13:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Ewhite (150.135.139.177) by deimos.email.Arizona.EDU (5.1.056) id 3BBA1C0C00004B43 for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:13:11 -0700 Message-ID: <006301c14b8f$0663e0e0$b18b8796@arizona.edu> From: "Ed White" To: References: <200110021701.MAA10759@grue.eppg.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:10:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Re: T units and WPA Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I'm about to fly off to Cincinatti for a Writing Program Administrators (WPA) conference and won't be back til next week. (A little nervous about flying but not too much.) I leave whatever authority we have in Bill's capable fingers and I'll do my best to catch up when I return. On T-units: Kellogg Hunt came up with that concept some 30 years ago in an attempt to measure childrens' growth in what he called "syntactic maturity." That is, he wanted to help them learn to subordinate rather than only coordinate. His goal was to increase the length of clauses and sentences through subordination. But he couldn't use sentence markers for measurement because the young kids put periods and capitols any old place. So he measured length of "terminable (t) units," meaning a clause with all its subordinated pieces. That works pretty well for young children but seems pretty useless for adults. --Ed White ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:01 AM Subject: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #14 - 1 msg > Send Teaching_Basic_Writing mailing list submissions to > teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Basic_Writing digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. measuring what can be measured (RREasson333@aol.com) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > From: RREasson333@aol.com > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:02:17 EDT > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] measuring what can be measured > Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > > > --part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > In a message dated 10/1/01 9:44:31 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 > Laura.Gray-Rosendale@NAU.EDU writes: > > > > > > >=20 > > Ed and Roger: > >=20 > > I wonder about this issue of how to assess "substance" as well. > > I direct our summer bridge program here at NAU. While this > > program attracts students from many different kinds of cultural, > > social, and linguistic backgrounds, we do have a significant > > group who the institution considers "basic writers," students in need > > of one-on-one tutoring, community college prep classes, and the like. > > Since I both teach in the program and direct it, I see all of this first- > > hand. > >=20 > > My GAs and I have begun collecting portfolios for all of the students who=20 > > come > > through the program (150 every summer). And, the issues you raise > > are critical ones for me: How do we assess these portfolios not just > > in terms of style or grammar issues but in terms of developments in > >=20 > > > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Roger writes>>Hi Laura: > > This is the way I think about writing: It helps me clarify many elements o= > f=20 > > basic writing teaching. > >=20 > > Writing is a dense storage technology by which thought is captured and=20 > > transmitted. > > Concepts are contained in vocabulary, hence vocabulary held in recall--Not= > =20 > > Recognition--memory is a useful index of a student's ability to capture=20 > > greater complexity of thought. =A0The greater the recall memory the greate= > r=20 > > the students ability to contain and project more complex thoughts. > >=20 > > Secondly, syntactical issues are important. =A0Style is not separable from= > =20 > > substance, though the usual implications of style emerging from the fashio= > n=20 > > industry perhaps suggests that discussions of style are trivial. =A0Far fr= > om=20 > > it. =A0We regularly make complex decisions about what kinds of sentence to= > =20 > > write and what kinds of vocabulary to use according to constraints of=20 > > subject, audience and occasion. > >=20 > > In academic writing we have a marked preference for complex sentence. =A0I= > n=20 > > general, we might observe that in academic style out of ten sentences 5=20 > > tend towards complex sentence structure. with the other 5 spread across th= > e=20 > > remaining kinds. > >=20 > > That is not to say however, that complexity of thought cannot be contained= > =20 > > in simple sentences. Both Business writing and Technical Writing show a=20 > > marked preference for simple sentences although they regularly deal with=20 > > complex issues. > >=20 > > But I believe that issues of subordination and coordination would be one=20 > > useful index of complexity of thought. > >=20 > > In addition, if we are searching for things to measure, we might also=20 > > examine indexes of flow--the standard water metaphor for a river of=20 > > text--or transition. And certainly the ability to move from idea to idea=20 > > smoothly suggests the ability to handle complex thought. So measurements o= > f=20 > > cohesion might also begin to get at complexity of thought. > >=20 > > So if you want a count-them-up sort of measuring stick, these elements=20 > > might be countable. > >=20 > >=20 > > Laura writes>> > >=20 > > >> Many such students are juggling very complex ideas, > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> >>> but their grammar and style issues need lots of work. How do we accou= > nt > >>> for such a situation when we are asked to "assess student work in > >>>=20 > >>=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Roger writes>> From my point of view, these measurables will often satisfy= > =20 > > though admittedly we all know complexity of thought is not something that=20 > > can be held in such things. What I think we have to measure is not=20 > > complexity of thought, but the ability of the student to produce academic=20 > > texts, business texts or technical texts. =A0Certainly, they could manage=20 > > awesome complexity in more poetic structures such as Haiku. =A0I taught=20 > > recently a class where we mixed haiku and prose in the classic genre of=20 > > Haibung. The complexity there was amazing, but I wouldn't call it academic= > =20 > > prose. > >=20 > > I remember once in my ill gotten past there was a colleague of Ross=20 > > Winterowd's who was dealing with something called t-units. =A0That seemed=20 > > amazingly complex at the time, and useful perhaps to recall here. =A0Tagme= > mic=20 > > units I think he was interested in. =A0Such language would be enough to=20 > > frighten any good bureaucrat probably. ;) > >=20 > > I am all for clearly stating your goals and objectives and then measuring=20 > > for the success of achieving those goals and objectives. =A0I think if you= > do=20 > > that, you will not have to defend something as nebulous as "substance" or=20 > > "complexity." =A0I am all making things as discrete as possible and=20 > > remembering that a student is a work in progress. =A0My goal in BW is simp= > ly=20 > > to strengthen the student sufficiently so he/she can flourish in the next=20 > > sequence of courses. > >=20 > > Do any of these ramblings make sense? > >=20 > >=20 > > Roger Easson > > Professor > > Director of the Writing Center > > Christian Brothers University > > Memphis TN > > reasson@cbu.edu=20 > > RReasson333@aol.com > >=20 > >=20 > > > > > > --part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary > Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > >
>
In a message dated 10/1/01 9:44:31 AM Central Daylight Time, Laura.Gray-= > Rosendale@NAU.EDU writes: >
>
>
>
>
>
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> >
Ed and Roger: >
>
I wonder about this issue of how to assess "substance" as well. >
I direct our summer bridge program here at NAU. While this >
program attracts students from many different kinds of cultural, >
social, and linguistic backgrounds, we do have a significant >
group who the institution considers "basic writers," students in need >
of one-on-one tutoring, community college prep classes, and the like. >
Since I both teach in the program and direct it, I see all of this first= > - >
hand. >
>
My GAs and I have begun collecting portfolios for all of the students wh= > o come >
through the program (150 every summer). And, the issues you raise >
are critical ones for me: How do we assess these portfolios not just >
in terms of style or grammar issues but in terms of developments in >
complexity of thought?
>
>
>
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> >
>
>
>
Roger writes>>Hi Laura: >
This is the way I think about writing: It helps me clarify many elements= > of basic writing teaching. >
>
Writing is a dense storage technology by which thought is captured and t= > ransmitted. >
Concepts are contained in vocabulary, hence vocabulary held in recall--N= > ot Recognition--memory is a useful index of a student's ability to capture g= > reater complexity of thought. =A0The greater the recall memory the greater t= > he students ability to contain and project more complex thoughts. >
>
Secondly, syntactical issues are important. =A0Style is not separable fr= > om substance, though the usual implications of style emerging from the fashi= > on industry perhaps suggests that discussions of style are trivial. =A0Far f= > rom it. =A0We regularly make complex decisions about what kinds of sentence=20= > to write and what kinds of vocabulary to use according to constraints of sub= > ject, audience and occasion. >
>
In academic writing we have a marked preference for complex sentence.=20= > =A0In general, we might observe that in academic style out of ten sentences=20= > 5 tend towards complex sentence structure. with the other 5 spread across th= > e remaining kinds. >
>
That is not to say however, that complexity of thought cannot be contain= > ed in simple sentences. Both Business writing and Technical Writing show a m= > arked preference for simple sentences although they regularly deal with comp= > lex issues. >
>
But I believe that issues of subordination and coordination would be one= > useful index of complexity of thought. >
>
In addition, if we are searching for things to measure, we might also ex= > amine indexes of flow--the standard water metaphor for a river of text--or t= > ransition. And certainly the ability to move from idea to idea smoothly sugg= > ests the ability to handle complex thought. So measurements of cohesion migh= > t also begin to get at complexity of thought. >
>
So if you want a count-them-up sort of measuring stick, these elements m= > ight be countable. >
>
>
Laura writes>> >
>
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Many such students are jugg= > ling very complex ideas, >
>
>
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">but their grammar and style= > issues need lots of work. How do we account >
for such a situation when we are asked to "assess student work in >
the program" by larger administrative bodies?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Roger writes>> From my point of view, these measurables will often= > satisfy though admittedly we all know complexity of thought is not somethin= > g that can be held in such things. What I think we have to measure is not co= > mplexity of thought, but the ability of the student to produce academic text= > s, business texts or technical texts. =A0Certainly, they could manage awesom= > e complexity in more poetic structures such as Haiku. =A0I taught recently a= > class where we mixed haiku and prose in the classic genre of Haibung. The c= > omplexity there was amazing, but I wouldn't call it academic prose. >
>
I remember once in my ill gotten past there was a colleague of Ross Wint= > erowd's who was dealing with something called t-units. =A0That seemed amazin= > gly complex at the time, and useful perhaps to recall here. =A0Tagmemic unit= > s I think he was interested in. =A0Such language would be enough to frighten= > any good bureaucrat probably. ;) >
>
I am all for clearly stating your goals and objectives and then measurin= > g for the success of achieving those goals and objectives. =A0I think if you= > do that, you will not have to defend something as nebulous as "substance" o= > r "complexity." =A0I am all making things as discrete as possible and rememb= > ering that a student is a work in progress. =A0My goal in BW is simply to st= > rengthen the student sufficiently so he/she can flourish in the next sequenc= > e of courses. >
>
Do any of these ramblings make sense? >
>
>
Roger Easson >
Professor >
Director of the Writing Center >
Christian Brothers University >
Memphis TN >
reasson@cbu.edu=20 >
RReasson333@aol.com >
>
>
>
>
>
> > --part1_14a.1d928e0.28ea17b9_boundary-- > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > > > End of Teaching_Basic_Writing Digest > From teaching_basic_writing-admin Tue Oct 2 10:02:06 2001 Received: from mail.brcc.cc.la.us (mail.brcc.cc.la.us [204.196.142.10]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24749 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:02:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from LEEE1 (leee1.brcc.cc.la.us [10.5.5.106]) by mail.brcc.cc.la.us (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA15185 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:00:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth Lee" To: Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:06:16 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BB88C08.7A06E23F@jan.ucc.nau.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Thanks for the re-post, Laura. I currently direct the services offered by the Academic Learning Center at Baton Rouge Community College. We are in our fourth year of operation. Much discussion occurs on campus about how best to teach writing. Only recently I heard, "Teach them grammar first, then paragraph writing." I flinched. Having taught writing to both community college and secondary students, I see benefits from this list for both center directors and faculty. I forwarded the subscription information to this list to faculty members teaching developmental writing. I am pleased to be able to "listen in" and to have the opportunity to participate in this conversation about basic writers and their needs. Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:30 AM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send Since many folks have been having some trouble with posting to the BWlist, I am going to re-send my Welcome Message. Thanks! Laura ------------------------------------------ Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find that their articles are published in many of the journals of our discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on issues of institutional context as well as student populations and needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish to address in the coming weeks. As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with some very useful avenues for discussion. Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment and their utility. I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let the dialogue begin… Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 09:21:01 2001 Received: from newmail.nmia.com (mail.nmia.com [64.42.128.53]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA12837 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:21:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 38034 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 14:20:52 -0000 Received: from dialup256.nmia.com (HELO nancy) (64.42.130.71) by mail.nmia.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 14:20:52 -0000 From: "Nancy King" To: Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] need clarification on the protocol for this list Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:26:25 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Is this list organized around the idea of discussing one topic at a time rather than having several threads going at once? I'm eager to discuss--with basic writing instructors--the topic of online learning for basic writers. Nancy King Developmental English instructor e d u c a t i o n i s n o t t h e f i l l i n g o f a p a i l Nancy King, Faculty Liaison, Professional Development Center Albuquerque TVI: A Community College (505) 224-4243 nseeking@tvi.cc.nm.us b u t t h e l i g h t i n g o f a f i r e . w . b . y e a t s -----Original Message----- From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of Elizabeth Lee Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:06 AM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send Thanks for the re-post, Laura. I currently direct the services offered by the Academic Learning Center at Baton Rouge Community College. We are in our fourth year of operation. Much discussion occurs on campus about how best to teach writing. Only recently I heard, "Teach them grammar first, then paragraph writing." I flinched. Having taught writing to both community college and secondary students, I see benefits from this list for both center directors and faculty. I forwarded the subscription information to this list to faculty members teaching developmental writing. I am pleased to be able to "listen in" and to have the opportunity to participate in this conversation about basic writers and their needs. Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:30 AM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send Since many folks have been having some trouble with posting to the BWlist, I am going to re-send my Welcome Message. Thanks! Laura ------------------------------------------ Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find that their articles are published in many of the journals of our discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on issues of institutional context as well as student populations and needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish to address in the coming weeks. As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with some very useful avenues for discussion. Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment and their utility. I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let the dialogue begin… Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 11:11:15 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27752 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:11:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GKN007010YPJ6@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:11:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (ts4-7.ppp.nau.edu [134.114.14.80]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GKN009UV0YMM5@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:11:13 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:18:42 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] need clarification on the protocol forthis list To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3BBB3A62.3E879C2@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Nancy: Glad to have you on board! Folks construct modules that act as the central focus for our discussions. Right now we are discussing Bill DeGenero and Ed White's module on assessment. But, of course, you should feel free to raise other issues along the way. Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University Nancy King wrote: > Is this list organized around the idea of discussing one topic at a time > rather than having several threads going at once? > > I'm eager to discuss--with basic writing instructors--the topic of online > learning for basic writers. > > Nancy King > Developmental English instructor > > e d u c a t i o n i s n o t t h e f i l l i n g o f a p a i l > > Nancy King, Faculty Liaison, Professional Development Center > Albuquerque TVI: A Community College > (505) 224-4243 nseeking@tvi.cc.nm.us > > b u t t h e l i g h t i n g o f a f i r e . w . b . y e a t s > > -----Original Message----- > From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com > [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of > Elizabeth Lee > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:06 AM > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send > > Thanks for the re-post, Laura. > > I currently direct the services offered by the Academic Learning Center at > Baton Rouge Community College. We are in our fourth year of operation. Much > discussion occurs on campus about how best to teach writing. Only recently > I heard, "Teach them grammar first, then paragraph writing." I flinched. > > Having taught writing to both community college and secondary students, I > see benefits from this list for both center directors and faculty. I > forwarded the subscription information to this list to faculty members > teaching developmental writing. > > I am pleased to be able to "listen in" and to have the opportunity to > participate in this conversation about basic writers and their needs. > > Elizabeth > > -----Original Message----- > From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com > [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of > Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:30 AM > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send > > Since many folks have been having some trouble with posting to the > BWlist, I am going to re-send my Welcome Message. > > Thanks! > Laura > > ------------------------------------------ > Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very > honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a > participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to > begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to > discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how > we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more > usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want > to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing > modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have > exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved > in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find > that their articles are published in many of the journals of our > discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition > and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well > established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are > extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these > folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. > > The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that > concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic > writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all > the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and > teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right > questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our > students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best > teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, > or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as > scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ > thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. > > In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible > answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on > issues of institutional context as well as student populations and > needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should > begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two > tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various > times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in > Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the > questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish > to address in the coming weeks. > > As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find > ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide > evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. > As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches > are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with > some very useful avenues for discussion. > > Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment > while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of > Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module > provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques > while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment > and their utility. > > I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic > writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let > the dialogue begin… > > Best wishes, > Laura > Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale > Northern Arizona University > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 11:38:33 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00813 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:38:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GKN00A01287H1@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:38:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (ts4-7.ppp.nau.edu [134.114.14.80]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GKN009N3283M5@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:38:31 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:45:59 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3BBB40C7.D3FAC5E7@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Elizabeth: Thanks for your interest in the list, and for involving your colleagues. I share your same concern about how "developmental" writing is being taught right now-- and many of the ideologies that impact that teaching. Despite the conversations that go on about BW issues in our scholarly journals, at conferences, and in the hallways between folks who do this work, our resources for textbooks and assignments seem really limited. And, those philosophies get passed down to our students on a regular basis and to teachers unfamiliar with teaching these classes and unfamiliar with the real capabilities of our students. Hearing what folks have to say about such issues seems an important "side-chat" that we could have now or later. Best wishes, Laura Elizabeth Lee wrote: > Thanks for the re-post, Laura. > > I currently direct the services offered by the Academic Learning Center at > Baton Rouge Community College. We are in our fourth year of operation. Much > discussion occurs on campus about how best to teach writing. Only recently > I heard, "Teach them grammar first, then paragraph writing." I flinched. > > Having taught writing to both community college and secondary students, I > see benefits from this list for both center directors and faculty. I > forwarded the subscription information to this list to faculty members > teaching developmental writing. > > I am pleased to be able to "listen in" and to have the opportunity to > participate in this conversation about basic writers and their needs. > > Elizabeth > > -----Original Message----- > From: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com > [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com]On Behalf Of > Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:30 AM > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Welcome Message Re-send > > Since many folks have been having some trouble with posting to the > BWlist, I am going to re-send my Welcome Message. > > Thanks! > Laura > > ------------------------------------------ > Welcome to McGraw Hill’s listserv on Teaching Basic Writing! I am very > honored to be the moderator of our listserv—and to function as a > participant in and a partial orchestrator of this project. I want to > begin by thanking McGraw Hill for giving all of us an opportunity to > discuss basic writing issues—how we may better reach our students, how > we may more effectively assess our students’ work, how we may more > usefully design assignments and curricula for our students. I also want > to thank all of the scholars and teachers who will be constructing > modules for us every month. We are very fortunate indeed to have > exciting, innovative contributions from very well known people involved > in Basic Writing Studies within Rhetoric and Composition. You will find > that their articles are published in many of the journals of our > discipline, their involvement in the College Conference on Composition > and Communication (especially in the area of Basic Writing) is well > established, and their commitments to Basic Writing students are > extremely strong. This is not merely an intellectual project for these > folks—this is a project of heartfelt dedication. > > The main aim of our group is to enthusiastically discuss issues that > concern teachers, administrators, and scholars who work with basic > writers. We start this work from the premise that none of us have all > the answers to the questions we’ll pose here. As many scholars and > teachers of Basic Writing have argued, sometimes knowing the right > questions to ask is more important than anything else. Inevitably, our > students and our work with them have more to say about how we might best > teach them than any static theory we might apply to them, their lives, > or their work ever could. So, while we discuss basic writing issues as > scholars and teachers, we do so with the knowledge that our students’ > thoughts should constantly help us to reform and reshape our approaches. > > In fact, we are using this forum as a way to tease out many possible > answers to our questions—answers that will need to alter depending on > issues of institutional context as well as student populations and > needs. Given this fact, it is only fitting that our discussion should > begin with a module prepared by William DeGenero and Edward White, two > tremendous thinkers whose work you have doubtlessly encountered various > times on the subject of basic writing as well as many other concerns in > Rhetoric and Composition. As we begin our discussion, take note of the > questions they have prepared for us. These are critical ones we may wish > to address in the coming weeks. > > As we know, those of us working on Basic Writing issues constantly find > ourselves struggling with administrators of various stripes to provide > evidence that what we do with Basic Writing students is really working. > As teachers, we want ways to understand if our pedagogical approaches > are helping our students or hindering them. Bill and Ed provide us with > some very useful avenues for discussion. > > Both of these scholars are deeply committed to the project of assessment > while at the same time deeply committed to honoring the abilities of > Basic Writing students—a rare and critical combination. Their module > provides useful information about assessment strategies and techniques > while also posing critical questions about potential modes of assessment > and their utility. > > I hope that their important efforts on behalf of assessment and basic > writing spark interesting conversations. With that having been said, let > the dialogue begin… > > Best wishes, > Laura > Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale > Northern Arizona University > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 11:58:53 2001 Received: from mail.salem.kent.edu (mail.salem.kent.edu [131.123.110.34]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02681 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:58:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:59:09 -0400 Message-Id: <200110031259.AA151519666@mail.salem.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Jay Wootten" X-Sender: To: X-Mailer: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Introduction and placement info Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Reply-To: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Jay Wootten from Kent State Salem Campus here. I've taught basic writing for over 20 years at a number of institutions, but I've been with the Kent system since 1982. Kent adopted COMPASS as its testing measure and used advanced courses as local norming devices. Every couple of years, the cut scores are adjusted by local norming. Students who place in the large, middle "gray area" write an impromptu essay, and the decision about whether they take our Intro to College Writing or College English I is made by two English instructors' readings. If there is a disagreement, a third reader is called in. Our holistic question is "Could this student succeed if s/he entered my English I class writing at the current level." I do not like COMPASS. I used answer "b" for the entire math exam and place out of Developmental Math. My additional knowledge about the reading passages hampered me in the reading comprehension section. The sentence/usage tests seemed to me weak predictors of writing success. We use a portfolio exam to exit from the course, although I understand not all of our campuses do. The portfolios are read by two other English instructors, and are marked Ready, Ready with the Writers' Workshop, and Not Ready. If there's a disagreement, a third reader is called in. Since we began the portfolio read nearly 10 years ago, we've had more accurate placements into College English I, and more of our Intro students who move on to College English I complete that course with a C or higher. I also have a request. When you respond to the list, please do not include the entire digest of previous replies. Please include only as much of the original post as you need to set the context. Thanks, jay in Salem, OH From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 15:31:03 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01787 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:31:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GKN00K01CZ9KW@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:30:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (pc60.eng.nau.edu [134.114.166.103]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GKN00MVZCZ7UE@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:30:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:30:12 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Website To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <3BBB7554.98B97ED1@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw)" X-Accept-Language: en References: Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Folks: For those who may have just joined us, I want to orient you to the webpage for our discussion: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/ Best wishes, Laura --Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw) Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name=lag.vcf Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=lag.vcf Content-description: Card for Laura Gray-Rosendale begin:vcard n:Gray-Rosendale;Dr. Laura tel;fax:520-523-7074 tel;work:520-523-0956 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu fn:Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale end:vcard --Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw)-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 15:44:46 2001 Received: from austin.hccs.cc.tx.us ([198.64.34.40]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02936 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:44:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from oracle@localhost) by austin.hccs.cc.tx.us (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA17560 for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:46:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200110032046.PAA17560@austin.hccs.cc.tx.us> Date: 03 Oct 2001 15:44:00 -0500 From: "Iris Rozencwajg" To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Oracle InterOffice (version 4.2.1.3.1) content-type: Multipart/mixed; boundary="=_ORCL_21210223_0r0" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=_ORCL_21210223_0r0 Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable Thanks for the input, Rita. We have five colleges here at HCC, and they each produce different pass numbers. Here at Central College, in the inner city, our 0310, or pre-College English, classes pass about half the students the first time. They're not supposed to go into College English without having passed developmental reading as well. To complicate things, our students must pass a Texas Academic Skills Program test, or TASP alternative, which is often wide open for abuse. One or another of the alternatives can sometimes provide only a single essay topic, which quickly makes the rounds. Or students, usually foreign students, proficient in grammar pass the multiple choice grammar part of the TASP with such a high score that it looks like they should be placed into College English. Then we read the essay--which is all we in the department think is necessary, but the requirements of the system must be adhered to. It always amazes me that, by the end of the first week, most students seem to be where they belong. But that's also partly because each instructor gives a diagnostic essay assignment, and we can scurry to put students in ESL or into a still lower section, 0300. For these and many other reasons I am always writing a sitcom about our department in my head. It is a wonderful department. The students are wonderful. Even the insanity of all the other stuff--see above--is wonderful in its way--I mean, it makes you wonder, right? Iris Rozencwajg English Houston Community College-Central --=_ORCL_21210223_0r0 content-type:message/rfc822 Date: 27 Sep 2001 14:23:10 From:"Rita Dudley" To:, Subject:Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Reply-to:teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Return-Path: Received:from grue.eppg.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailman.hccs.cc.tx.us (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f8RJTRX12483 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:29:27 -0500 (CDT) Received:from grue.eppg.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04528; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:28:02 -0500 (CDT) Received:from loras.edu ([192.152.29.111]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02827 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:26:59 -0500 (CDT) Received:from lcdomain-Message_Server by loras.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:23:18 -0500 Message-Id: Sender:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere:teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version:2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe:, List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:, List-Archive: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type:multipart/alternative; boundary="=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0" --=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0 Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic w= riting course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take befo= re they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it in wi= th the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assig= nments all freshmen have to complete in that course. I've taught such a cou= rse before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. Any ideas what to ex= pect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to go on = to the required one? What percent in your institutions need to retake the c= ourse? "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what w= e do not do." --Moliere >>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us 09/27/01 02:16PM >>> First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing =00 --=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0 Content-Type:text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable
Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a ba= sic writing course this semester.  The course is for low ACT scorers to tak= e before they take the required English Composition.  We're trying to tie= it in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course.  I've taught = such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not.  Any ideas = what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to g= o on to the required one?  What percent in your institutions need to retake = the course?
 
 
"It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also w= hat we do not do."  --Moliere

>>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.u= s 09/27/01 02:16PM >>>
First posting. Looking forward to reading w= hat other BW instructors are
doing these days.

Iris Rozencwajg
Hous= ton Community College
rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us
___________________________________= ____________
Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist  -  Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com
htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing
--=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0-- --=_ORCL_21210223_0r0-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 3 14:38:45 2001 Received: from ns1.lambuth.edu (ns1.lambuth.edu [12.37.252.3]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24391 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:38:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ecoff.lambuth.edu ([12.37.252.149]) by ns1.lambuth.edu (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA15948 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:39:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001401c149e7$bd763c00$95fc250c@ecoff.lambuth.edu> From: "Ann Ecoff" To: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:40:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable confirm 205750 ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
confirm = 205750
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 10:07:37 2001 Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10775 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:07:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Fanofmk17@aol.com Received: from Fanofmk17@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.8e.1c0587d4 (3858) for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8e.1c0587d4.28edd515@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:07:01 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 10:08:16 2001 Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10838 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:08:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Fanofmk17@aol.com Received: from Fanofmk17@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.24.1a42af54 (3858) for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <24.1a42af54.28edd53a@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:07:38 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: confirm 205750 From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 13:21:51 2001 Received: from mhub-w2.tc.umn.edu (mhub-w2.tc.umn.edu [160.94.160.45]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06085 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:21:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [128.101.194.11] by mhub-w2.tc.umn.edu for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:21:49 -0500 Message-Id: <008801c14d01$69ec89a0$0bc26580@umn.edu> From: "Terence Collins" To: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:21:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] bw teacher training Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: My colleague Tom Reynolds raises some good questions about training at(http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/ct/reynolds.html). How does the nature of a school's bw staff change this (e.g. a stable staff of full time instructors vs. large numbers of adjuncts)? What core texts might serve as background for training that doesn't replicate our own autobiographies, as Tom suggests? How does a staff initiate training in sites where the administration isn't interested in doing/funding it? Terry Collins Director of Academic Affairs and Curriculum General College 246 Appleby Hall University of Minnesota 128 Pleasant Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA 612.625.5366 tcollins@tc.umn.edu From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 13:55:39 2001 Received: from co-e2.ccac.org (co-072173.adm.ccac.edu [162.51.72.173]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08982 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:55:39 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:55:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #17 - 5 msgs Thread-Index: AcFM9zDhIeHnF+w/R2e8TRlUqdziFwADlDiA From: "George R. Mower" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by grue.eppg.com id NAA08984 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #17 - 5 msgs Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: George MOWER, Community College of Allegheny County, Allegheny Campus Pittsburgh, PA SUBJECT: Pass rates I would say that 50% sounds about right, but many of those who are "unsuccessful" are so because, for one reason or another, they've missed a lot of class or, while they may have come to class, have not done any school work. The demands of their jobs, their health or their families may interfere with their doing school work or coming to class. Two thirds of the way through the semester they realize they're so far behind they'll never catch up and then stop coming altogether. Some give up before mid-term time. Then again, there are those who have to learn what it means to be a student. -----Original Message----- From: teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 1:02 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #17 - 5 msgs Send Teaching_Basic_Writing mailing list submissions to teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com You can reach the person managing the list at teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Basic_Writing digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Website (Laura Gray-Rosendale) 2. Re: glad to be on (Iris Rozencwajg) 3. (no subject) (Ann Ecoff) 4. Re: (no subject) (Fanofmk17@aol.com) 5. Re: (no subject) (Fanofmk17@aol.com) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:30:12 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Website To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Folks: For those who may have just joined us, I want to orient you to the webpage for our discussion: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/ Best wishes, Laura --Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw) Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name=lag.vcf Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=lag.vcf Content-description: Card for Laura Gray-Rosendale begin:vcard n:Gray-Rosendale;Dr. Laura tel;fax:520-523-7074 tel;work:520-523-0956 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:Laura.Gray-Rosendale@nau.edu fn:Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale end:vcard --Boundary_(ID_KAAqIqvXnIP0IUi2lC6lqw)-- --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2001 15:44:00 -0500 From: "Iris Rozencwajg" To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com --=_ORCL_21210223_0r0 Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable Thanks for the input, Rita. We have five colleges here at HCC, and they each produce different pass numbers. Here at Central College, in the inner city, our 0310, or pre-College English, classes pass about half the students the first time. They're not supposed to go into College English without having passed developmental reading as well. To complicate things, our students must pass a Texas Academic Skills Program test, or TASP alternative, which is often wide open for abuse. One or another of the alternatives can sometimes provide only a single essay topic, which quickly makes the rounds. Or students, usually foreign students, proficient in grammar pass the multiple choice grammar part of the TASP with such a high score that it looks like they should be placed into College English. Then we read the essay--which is all we in the department think is necessary, but the requirements of the system must be adhered to. It always amazes me that, by the end of the first week, most students seem to be where they belong. But that's also partly because each instructor gives a diagnostic essay assignment, and we can scurry to put students in ESL or into a still lower section, 0300. For these and many other reasons I am always writing a sitcom about our department in my head. It is a wonderful department. The students are wonderful. Even the insanity of all the other stuff--see above--is wonderful in its way--I mean, it makes you wonder, right? Iris Rozencwajg English Houston Community College-Central --=_ORCL_21210223_0r0 content-type:message/rfc822 Date: 27 Sep 2001 14:23:10 From:"Rita Dudley" To:, Subject:Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] glad to be on Reply-to:teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Return-Path: Received:from grue.eppg.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailman.hccs.cc.tx.us (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f8RJTRX12483 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:29:27 -0500 (CDT) Received:from grue.eppg.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04528; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:28:02 -0500 (CDT) Received:from loras.edu ([192.152.29.111]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02827 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:26:59 -0500 (CDT) Received:from lcdomain-Message_Server by loras.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:23:18 -0500 Message-Id: Sender:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To:teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere:teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version:2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe:, List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:, List-Archive: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type:multipart/alternative; boundary="=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0" --=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0 Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a basic w= riting course this semester. The course is for low ACT scorers to take befo= re they take the required English Composition. We're trying to tie it in wi= th the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assig= nments all freshmen have to complete in that course. I've taught such a cou= rse before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not. Any ideas what to ex= pect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to go on = to the required one? What percent in your institutions need to retake the c= ourse? "It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also what w= e do not do." --Moliere >>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.us 09/27/01 02:16PM >>> First posting. Looking forward to reading what other BW instructors are doing these days. Iris Rozencwajg Houston Community College rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing =00 --=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0 Content-Type:text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable
Here at Loras College (Dubuque, IA) we've just started sections of a ba= sic writing course this semester.  The course is for low ACT scorers to tak= e before they take the required English Composition.  We're trying to tie= it in with the First Year Experience course, teaching some of the same writing assignments all freshmen have to complete in that course.  I've taught = such a course before elsewhere, but other faculty here have not.  Any ideas = what to expect in terms of numbers that will not make it through this course to g= o on to the required one?  What percent in your institutions need to retake = the course?
 
 
"It is not only what we do that we are held responsible for, but also w= hat we do not do."  --Moliere

>>> ROZENCWAJG_I@hccs.cc.tx.u= s 09/27/01 02:16PM >>>
First posting. Looking forward to reading w= hat other BW instructors are
doing these days.

Iris Rozencwajg
Hous= ton Community College
rozencwajg_i@hccs.cc.tx.us
_______________________________ ____= ____________
Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist  -  Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com
htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing
--=_ORCL_21015281_0r2.0-- --=_ORCL_21210223_0r0-- --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "Ann Ecoff" To: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:40:19 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable confirm 205750 ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
confirm = 205750
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C149BD.D42AB5E0-- --__--__-- Message: 4 From: Fanofmk17@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:07:01 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com --__--__-- Message: 5 From: Fanofmk17@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:07:38 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com confirm 205750 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing End of Teaching_Basic_Writing Digest From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 20:14:50 2001 Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24800 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 20:14:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Meyersalan@aol.com Received: from Meyersalan@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.d7.d01bfa5 (3964) for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:14:17 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] bw teacher training To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 7 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I think Terry and Tom have raised some significant issues, but (perhaps because I'm not in the most dispassionate of moods after 9/11), I thought I'd offer a bit of a reality check from the perspective of a department chair at an urban community college--because, that, frankly, is where the real action is in basic writing. It's nice to hear from the university folk about special courses for graduate students who teach the 2-3 bw courses at their institutions. But that's not exactly happens at a community college. Let me elaborate. In the English Department of Truman College in Chicago, whose dedication and professionalism I will be happy to compare to that of any other department of a similar institution, we have watched our full-time faculty diminish from a high of close to fifty members to the current twenty, without a hire since 1981. Our "youngest" member is forty-nine years old. And the community college district, comprising seven sister institutions, has been operating at a deficit for the past several years. We had to cut almost a million dollars from our budget this fiscal year. Thus, our adjunct population is currently "only" twenty-six faculty, who teach as many as three courses for a handsome sum of about $1500 per course. Our president and dean are eager to recognize the accomplishments of the adjuncts and want to integrate them into the college community; these administrators mean well, but, frankly, they have neither the understanding nor the time/commitment to establish a formal context in which to train them. Our department, on its own, has therefore been mentoring adjuncts informally for the past decade. We ask that members volunteer to meet with adjuncts and share syllabi, teaching tips, clues on where the faculty washrooms are, and how to deal with the over one hundred nationalities who speak over seventy languages and inhabit our basic and ESL courses. We observe adjuncts twice a term, and this semester are instituting informal sessions in which three or four adjuncts meet with a full-time faculty member to discuss their reactions to papers that students have produced in their classes. We also plan to have an all-department rangefinder session prior to the systemwide mandated exit test. I might add that I try to meet with as many adjuncts as I can to discuss how portfolio assessment works, why constant revision is essential to the courses, and why they should not correct every grammatical error in a paper but should provide opportunities for students to learn to identify and correct those errors in the editing stage of the writing process. Are the adjuncts presented with theory and research on these matters? Not much. They are too busy trying to fashion a living by teaching five to seven courses at two or three institutions in the Chicago area. Will the adjuncts attend the "training" sessions on paper grading and rangefinder work? Some will, but some won't be able to fit it into their schedules. Will I be able to talk with all the adjuncts? Absolutely not. Most teach at night,while I, along w ith the overwhelming majority of the full-time faculty, teach during the day. Would I claim that we're doing the best that we can? Of course not, and we're still looking at other ways that we can do more. I'm proud of most of our faculty (like every institution, we have a few who do less than their share). But I guess what I noticed lately, both on CBW and on Laura Gray-Rosendale's website, is that a lot of folks from research institutions seem to dominate the conversations on basic writing. I try to follow the research myself (although I think many community college teachers do not), but I think the real issue is how a superannuated and somewhat overwhelmed full-time faculty can provide useful guidance to an overwhelmed and overworked cadre of part-time faculty. I know this response sounds pessimistic, but offer it as a catalyst for a realistic discussion of the issues confronting all of us in the community colleges. Collegially, Alan Meyers Chair, Communications Department Harry S Truman College Chicago From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 20:52:16 2001 Received: from mail.btc-bci.com (mail.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.2]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26824 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 20:52:16 -0500 (CDT) From: jordanc@btc-bci.com Received: from Debug (www.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.8]) by mail.btc-bci.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f951kTW18578; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:46:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110050146.f951kTW18578@mail.btc-bci.com> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] bw teacher training Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:49:21 US/Michigan X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.22 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Thanks Alan, Is your college open enrollment? Chuck Jordan Lake Michigan College (a community college) --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using B-dale mail program. http://www.btc-bci.com/ From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 21:35:17 2001 Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01031 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:35:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Oneluv65@aol.com Received: from Oneluv65@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.51.12317bf1 (18252) for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51.12317bf1.28ee7642@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:34:42 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello, I am a new instructor at community college in California. I am happy to be a part of this list. This is my first time teaching since graduate school in the 1980s. I was wondering if anyone could answer a three-part question for me. What should the goals of a remedial English class be? By "remedial" I don't mean ESL, but the next level. And what about the intermediate level or English 101. Advanced English? I am currently wrestling with how to clarify my objectives for the three different levels of ability that will be present in these classes. Thanks in advance for your time. ML From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 23:05:52 2001 Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08567 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:05:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Meyersalan@aol.com Received: from Meyersalan@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.87.110c5847 (25306) for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <87.110c5847.28ee8b7e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:05:18 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] bw teacher training To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 7 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Yes, indeed it is open enrollment. Alan From teaching_basic_writing-admin Thu Oct 4 23:18:54 2001 Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10104 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:18:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Meyersalan@aol.com Received: from Meyersalan@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.26.1c4cabc8 (25306) for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:18:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <26.1c4cabc8.28ee8e8b@aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:18:19 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 7 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Here's a brief reply as it relates to basic writing (which you call remedial English). The goals should be to accustom students to thinking like writers: planning, drafting, revising multiple times, and then editing, and proofreading--each student according to his/her own ways of thinking and working. Within this framework, students should develop a sense of structure--how to construct an argument that achieves its goal for the intended audience, and how a paragraph fits into the larger structure (and is developed in a unified way). Once students become acclimated to these practices, they should see how to address surface errors that hinder the effectiveness of the message--and these should be addressed in small groupings (for example, sentence boundaries), not all at once. The students should revise their papers throughout the semester without fear of failure and then, at the end, choose several to revise within a portfolio as a demonstration of all the skills they have learned throughout the term. That may sound like a lot, but thirty-four years of teaching basic writing (and studying the research in the field) has demonstrated to me that grammar instruction and mere focus on the paragraph don't work. Treating basic students like serious writers who have something to say but lack experience in saying it effectively yields far better results. As for 101, work on argument, encouraging students to act like lawyers proving their points. I like to have them engage in simulation games, in which they assume a role, debate within the role, and then write to a specific audience as a follow up. And I like to use portfolios again. The main difference between basic writing (grammar aside), is the degree and type of support for claims that I emphasize; in 101, I want students to learn to interview, investigate, quote, cite--in short, be authoritative. Alan Meyers Chair Communications Department Harry S Truman College Chicago From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 5 12:52:25 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18492 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 12:52:25 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B5ZL412>; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:54:38 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B492B@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] bw teacher training Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:54:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Alan writes: I think the real issue is how a superannuated and somewhat overwhelmed full-time faculty can provide useful guidance to an overwhelmed and overworked cadre of part-time faculty. One thing I like about this list is learning that other people are dealing with the same issues we are here at my school, and then reading about some of their solutions: it's helpful. My school is much smaller than Alan's--7 full-time faculty, about 20 part-time--and I'm not sure I'd call us full-timers superannuated, but we face the same problem with adjuncts. How do we involve them in the department? How do we let them know that their work is appreciated, that we value their input? How do we make sure they are succeeding in the classroom, and keeping up with theory as it evolves? In addition to the problems Alan has described, simply because not all of us have been teaching for a long time, we have to be careful not to come across as know-it-alls fresh out of graduate school (as I made the mistake of doing during a redesign of our basic writing course): a number of our adjuncts are far more experienced. We have a mentoring program, a department "retreat" before each quarter begins, "grounding" (what we're now calling norming) sessions; we try to have regular lunchtime discussions of current articles, and we make an effort to organize outside social events (at least to encourage them). It's a lot of work, and, as Alan points out, since so many adjuncts are dealing with complicated schedules and can't always attend meetings, discussions or events, it's not always as effective as we would like it to be. This isn't assessment, I realize, but I would hope we could continue this kind of discussion at some point. Brian Patterson Whatcom Community College -----Original Message----- From: Meyersalan@aol.com [mailto:Meyersalan@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:14 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] bw teacher training I think Terry and Tom have raised some significant issues, but (perhaps because I'm not in the most dispassionate of moods after 9/11), I thought I'd offer a bit of a reality check from the perspective of a department chair at an urban community college--because, that, frankly, is where the real action is in basic writing. It's nice to hear from the university folk about special courses for graduate students who teach the 2-3 bw courses at their institutions. But that's not exactly happens at a community college. Let me elaborate. In the English Department of Truman College in Chicago, whose dedication and professionalism I will be happy to compare to that of any other department of a similar institution, we have watched our full-time faculty diminish from a high of close to fifty members to the current twenty, without a hire since 1981. Our "youngest" member is forty-nine years old. And the community college district, comprising seven sister institutions, has been operating at a deficit for the past several years. We had to cut almost a million dollars from our budget this fiscal year. Thus, our adjunct population is currently "only" twenty-six faculty, who teach as many as three courses for a handsome sum of about $1500 per course. Our president and dean are eager to recognize the accomplishments of the adjuncts and want to integrate them into the college community; these administrators mean well, but, frankly, they have neither the understanding nor the time/commitment to establish a formal context in which to train them. Our department, on its own, has therefore been mentoring adjuncts informally for the past decade. We ask that members volunteer to meet with adjuncts and share syllabi, teaching tips, clues on where the faculty washrooms are, and how to deal with the over one hundred nationalities who speak over seventy languages and inhabit our basic and ESL courses. We observe adjuncts twice a term, and this semester are instituting informal sessions in which three or four adjuncts meet with a full-time faculty member to discuss their reactions to papers that students have produced in their classes. We also plan to have an all-department rangefinder session prior to the systemwide mandated exit test. I might add that I try to meet with as many adjuncts as I can to discuss how portfolio assessment works, why constant revision is essential to the courses, and why they should not correct every grammatical error in a paper but should provide opportunities for students to learn to identify and correct those errors in the editing stage of the writing process. Are the adjuncts presented with theory and research on these matters? Not much. They are too busy trying to fashion a living by teaching five to seven courses at two or three institutions in the Chicago area. Will the adjuncts attend the "training" sessions on paper grading and rangefinder work? Some will, but some won't be able to fit it into their schedules. Will I be able to talk with all the adjuncts? Absolutely not. Most teach at night,while I, along w ith the overwhelming majority of the full-time faculty, teach during the day. Would I claim that we're doing the best that we can? Of course not, and we're still looking at other ways that we can do more. I'm proud of most of our faculty (like every institution, we have a few who do less than their share). But I guess what I noticed lately, both on CBW and on Laura Gray-Rosendale's website, is that a lot of folks from research institutions seem to dominate the conversations on basic writing. I try to follow the research myself (although I think many community college teachers do not), but I think the real issue is how a superannuated and somewhat overwhelmed full-time faculty can provide useful guidance to an overwhelmed and overworked cadre of part-time faculty. I know this response sounds pessimistic, but offer it as a catalyst for a realistic discussion of the issues confronting all of us in the community colleges. Collegially, Alan Meyers Chair, Communications Department Harry S Truman College Chicago _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 5 13:46:49 2001 Received: from mhub-w2.tc.umn.edu (mhub-w2.tc.umn.edu [160.94.160.45]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25229 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:46:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [128.101.172.109] by mhub-w2.tc.umn.edu for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:46:47 -0500 Message-Id: <006701c14dce$1309dde0$6dac6580@umn.edu> From: "Tom Reynolds" To: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:46:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0064_01C14DA4.2A124420" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] re:bw teacher training Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C14DA4.2A124420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable First, I'd like to say thanks to Laura for moderating this discussion. = It's great to talk about basic writing and make new friends in the = process. =20 I think that Alan raises an important point that I wouldn't try to deny. = Teacher training is constrained by local working conditions. The ideas = I put forward were conceived within a frame of thinking about how = adjunct work could be made more humane, how it might lead to better = working conditions through involvement in the program. Admittedly, = those conditions differ among colleges and perhaps one value of talking = over this list is to hear from folks about those conditions. My own = experience has been to work in a situation with relatively good = conditions (for faculty and adjuncts alike). I do what I can within = that situation. I appreciate Alan's point and look forward to hearing = what other folks have to say. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C14DA4.2A124420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First, I'd like to say thanks to Laura for = moderating this=20 discussion.  It's great to talk about basic writing and make = new=20 friends in the process. 
 
I think that Alan raises an important point that I = wouldn't=20 try to deny.  Teacher training is constrained by local working=20 conditions.  The ideas I put forward were conceived within a frame = of=20 thinking about how adjunct work could be made more humane, how it might = lead to=20 better working conditions through involvement in the program.  = Admittedly,=20 those conditions differ among colleges and perhaps one value of talking = over=20 this list is to hear from folks about those conditions.  My = own=20 experience has been to work in a situation with relatively good = conditions (for=20 faculty and adjuncts alike).  I do what I can within that = situation. =20 I appreciate Alan's point and look forward to hearing what other folks = have to=20 say.     
------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C14DA4.2A124420-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 5 14:25:14 2001 Received: from wye.coppin.edu (wye.coppin.edu [131.118.128.15]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00274 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:25:03 -0500 (CDT) From: MClawsey@coppin.edu Received: by wye.coppin.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4GGR05Q6>; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:31:29 -0400 Message-ID: <399890E9E4A8D511A91A0090273A8B44293A21@wye.coppin.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:31:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Before we had to do away with developmental writing on this campus, the major criterion for placement was whether a student could write a short essay (often just a paragraph) that two members of the Freshman English faculty considered worth a 4 or higher on a 6-point scale--organization, development, and mechanics all at least under control. To pass E101, a student should be able to write an essay of four or five paragraphs with a clear central idea, adequate body development, and a minimum of mechanical errors. What's "adequate"? What's "a minimum"? This veteran teacher recommends that these questions be declided by consensus of the entire writing faculty. -----Original Message----- From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:35 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals Hello, I am a new instructor at community college in California. I am happy to be a part of this list. This is my first time teaching since graduate school in the 1980s. I was wondering if anyone could answer a three-part question for me. What should the goals of a remedial English class be? By "remedial" I don't mean ESL, but the next level. And what about the intermediate level or English 101. Advanced English? I am currently wrestling with how to clarify my objectives for the three different levels of ability that will be present in these classes. Thanks in advance for your time. ML _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Oct 6 15:56:48 2001 Received: from nevis.u.arizona.edu (IDENT:degenaro@nevis.u.Arizona.EDU [128.196.137.19]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25553 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:56:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (degenaro@localhost) by nevis.u.arizona.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12494 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:56:45 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:56:45 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com In-Reply-To: <399890E9E4A8D511A91A0090273A8B44293A21@wye.coppin.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] siezing control Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: One thing that's come up several times on this list is the need for BW professionals to figure out ways to sieze more political power. One list member mentioned that a State Board of Ed. made a decision that doubled the number of BW students at her school. It's not hard to imagine the issues an external decision like that raised: How are we going to staff extra sections? Will we have to raise the enrollment cap per section? How will the working conditions of our teachers change? How will the quality of instruction change? Stories like this aren't unusual. Legislative bodies are making decisions impacting BW instruction (most recently the Cal State and CUNY systems, among two of the largest systems in the country)....what might we do (as teachers, program directors/administrators, members of college or university communities, citizens) to involve ourselves in these decision-making processes. BW seems to be one of the most "political" endeavors in the field of composition (if not on campus), so why aren't we as professionals more political? One thing that stikes me is the difference between Journal of Basic Writing and jac (formerly "journal of advanced composition"). Fifteen years ago, both journals were mainly "teaching" journals with mostly practitioner research. Now both journals have evolved (and JBW publishes a lot of important theoretical and empirical work--it's the journal most useful to my own work) but jac has become a journal about politics, education, and writing. I wonder if the BW community (that's not to say there's a singular or homogenous community out there) ought to consider ways to become a more overtly activist organization. Again, I say this in response to several posts referencing decisions thrust upon their institutions and programs. One instance where I think BW as a scholarly community has begun to respond to the political climate is in regards to mainstreaming BW. JBW published some excellent research and polemics about mainstreaming, and there's a new book tackling the topic. Just some thoughts to keep the wheels turning... Bill From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Oct 6 16:32:39 2001 Received: from nevis.u.arizona.edu (IDENT:degenaro@nevis.u.Arizona.EDU [128.196.137.19]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28986 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 16:32:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (degenaro@localhost) by nevis.u.arizona.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15642 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:32:37 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:32:37 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Rita Dudley asked an important question: "at what point in a writer's "career" do we begin to label her a basic writer?" Of course this question was at the heart of the piece Ed and I wrote to begin this discussion (http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/pt/degenaro.html), where we suggested that assessment -- good or bad, large- or small-scale -- is what constructs the very idea of a basic writer. But the thing I think is so useful about Rita's question is the open-ended nature of the phrase "at what point..." which implies, for me, possibilities. Instead of just asking how to respond after the process of assessment has begun (i.e., after we've given the placement tests in September), maybe we should turn more attention to a quicker response. How might we intervene earlier?, becomes the question, and several have also referenced outreach projects of various sorts. That seems to be the most proactive work going on--trying to respond earlier to particular needs. Laura Gray-Rosendale mentioned assessing portfolios of students coming through her school's summer bridge program (I hope I'm representing the program accurately). First, this is an example of the kind of intervention I'm talking about. Second, Laura's question illustrates how "good" assessment can work to improve an institution's ability to respond to student needs. Specially, I would suggest that if the resources exist (looking at portfolios takes more time and money than one-page essays, of course), take advantage of all the writing you've got before you. Use the student voices in the portfolios (if permission has been given) to speak for themselves. If administration, or the legislature, or whomever, asks for proof of the program's success, you might utilize what students said in the reflective portion of the portfolio. Coupled with a review of the research that suggests that reflecting on what we've learned leads to learning in the future, student reflections could be a powerful form of data. Also, I think ethnographic techniques like "thick description" of the portfolio content can be equally powerful. It sounds like you're quite sensibly avoiding quantitative measures (Roger and Ed have already discussed t units and other examples of silly assessment), so I'd move toward the most qualitative of qualitative methodologies. Thick descriptions of a focussed set of writing features (like, say, ability to move between abstract and concrete discourse, or sustained development of a single thesis) could construct students in a way that's true to their development and also pushes forward your own agenda to garner institutional support for the program. Bill From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Oct 7 00:13:47 2001 Received: from mail.btc-bci.com (mail.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.2]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04807 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 00:13:47 -0500 (CDT) From: jordanc@btc-bci.com Received: from Debug (www.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.8]) by mail.btc-bci.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f9757mW05856; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 01:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110070507.f9757mW05856@mail.btc-bci.com> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] siezing control Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 01:10:42 US/Michigan X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.22 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Have any of you read _Eloquent Dissent_ by James Sledd? I met him quite by accident at the Chicago 4c's a few years back. He just kind of shows the history and extent of where we and "higher education" are in the political spectrum. How can we empower our students when we can't empower oursselves? How much of the real work of higher education is done by serfs? How much longer will lower to middle class students be able to afford a college education if tuition continues to rise? Chuck Jordan --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using B-dale mail program. http://www.btc-bci.com/ From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Oct 7 19:09:26 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29389 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 19:09:26 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B5ZLVBA>; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 17:11:40 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B4933@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 17:11:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Reading what Bill has written here--as well as the comments of others--gets me all fired up to try and change our placement process again. There's no question in my mind that our students get constructed by the placement process, and, for that matter, that our writing program gets constructed for the students by their experience of that process: it's a bubble test, and primarily focused on grammar questions, and it's our students' first glimpse of our writing program--no wonder they come into class already depressed. But I would get no support from my colleagues, I know that. Not because they don't agree with me--they do--but just because they know that to make a change like that, to work for a portfolio system of assessment is downright quixotic--that's really the best word for it, I think. We're open enrollment, so we don't just place students in September; assessment goes on all year long--including in the summer when very few people are around--so logistically it would be difficult. Then there's the question of money. Reading just one short essay as a way of assessing students is out of the question according to our administration, so the chances of switching to an entire portfolio seem slim. I don't mean to be just negative. I'm serious when I say that reading the comments on this list have given me the motivation to maybe at least broach the subject of changing our assessment process again, and we do have a kind of portfolio reading system set up for assessing whether students in our basic writing course, English 100, are ready to go on to English 101 or not: we can continue to develop that program. And I guess an important point Bill is making is that we need to recast assessment procedures for the powers that be and try to get them to see that it's even in their best interests--that is, that the kind of assessment we are advocating will actually make placement more efficient and effective even if it does cost more in the short term. That's definitely something to take back to the drawing board. But it won't be easy. Brian Patterson Whatcom Community College -----Original Message----- From: William Degenaro [mailto:degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:33 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention Rita Dudley asked an important question: "at what point in a writer's "career" do we begin to label her a basic writer?" Of course this question was at the heart of the piece Ed and I wrote to begin this discussion (http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/pt/degenaro.html), where we suggested that assessment -- good or bad, large- or small-scale -- is what constructs the very idea of a basic writer. But the thing I think is so useful about Rita's question is the open-ended nature of the phrase "at what point..." which implies, for me, possibilities. Instead of just asking how to respond after the process of assessment has begun (i.e., after we've given the placement tests in September), maybe we should turn more attention to a quicker response. How might we intervene earlier?, becomes the question, and several have also referenced outreach projects of various sorts. That seems to be the most proactive work going on--trying to respond earlier to particular needs. Laura Gray-Rosendale mentioned assessing portfolios of students coming through her school's summer bridge program (I hope I'm representing the program accurately). First, this is an example of the kind of intervention I'm talking about. Second, Laura's question illustrates how "good" assessment can work to improve an institution's ability to respond to student needs. Specially, I would suggest that if the resources exist (looking at portfolios takes more time and money than one-page essays, of course), take advantage of all the writing you've got before you. Use the student voices in the portfolios (if permission has been given) to speak for themselves. If administration, or the legislature, or whomever, asks for proof of the program's success, you might utilize what students said in the reflective portion of the portfolio. Coupled with a review of the research that suggests that reflecting on what we've learned leads to learning in the future, student reflections could be a powerful form of data. Also, I think ethnographic techniques like "thick description" of the portfolio content can be equally powerful. It sounds like you're quite sensibly avoiding quantitative measures (Roger and Ed have already discussed t units and other examples of silly assessment), so I'd move toward the most qualitative of qualitative methodologies. Thick descriptions of a focussed set of writing features (like, say, ability to move between abstract and concrete discourse, or sustained development of a single thesis) could construct students in a way that's true to their development and also pushes forward your own agenda to garner institutional support for the program. Bill _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sun Oct 7 22:21:17 2001 Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16651 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:21:16 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.133.2baaa93 (4402) for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 23:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <133.2baaa93.28f27588@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 23:20:40 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_133.2baaa93.28f27588_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_133.2baaa93.28f27588_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/01 4:33:23 PM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes: > Bill Writes>> Thick > descriptions of a focussed set of writing features (like, say, ability to > move between abstract and concrete discourse, or sustained development of > a single thesis) could construct students in a way that's true to their > development and also pushes forward your own agenda to garner > institutional support for the program. > > Roger writes>>One of the greatest difficulties of teaching Basic writing > is making a distinction between writing skill and thinking skill. Many > Basic Writers are very weak in fundamentals, that is to say in the craft of > writing. I think that it is problematic now to inject thinking skills into > that equation. > > Writing is not the same thing as thinking, it is allied, it is directly > related, it is however something discrete and distinctly different. > Writing is the transcription of thinking. That's why fluency is so > critical, why recall vocabulary is so cricital. > > Now if you want to include in your definition of basic writing basic > thinking skills, then you should be clear about that. If you believe that > "ability to > move between abstract and concrete discourse" is the proper province of > basic writing, then we need to have a definitive focus on revision skills, > on re thinking a progress a argument. > > I wish there were a clear skill set described for compentence at each level > of the curriculum, Basic Writing, First semester of Freshman Composition, > Second Semester of Freshman Composition. > > Thinking is such a developmental issue that I find it problematic to > include thinking skills as part of the curricular focus of basic writing. > > does this make sense? > > just me > --part1_133.2baaa93.28f27588_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/01 4:33:23 PM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes:


Bill Writes>>  Thick
descriptions of a focussed set of writing features (like, say, ability to
move between abstract and concrete discourse, or sustained development of
a single thesis) could construct students in a way that's true to their
development and also pushes forward your own agenda to garner
institutional support for the program.

Roger writes>>One of the greatest difficulties of teaching  Basic writing is making a distinction between writing skill and thinking skill.    Many Basic Writers are very weak in fundamentals, that is to say in the craft of writing.  I think that it is problematic now to inject thinking skills into that equation.

Writing is not the same thing as thinking, it is allied, it is directly related, it is however something discrete and distinctly different.  Writing is the transcription of thinking.  That's why fluency is so critical, why recall vocabulary is so cricital.

Now if you want to include in your definition of basic writing basic thinking skills, then you should be clear about that.  If you believe that "ability to
move between abstract and concrete discourse" is the proper province of basic writing, then we need to have a definitive focus on revision skills, on re thinking a progress a argument.

I wish there were a clear skill set described for compentence at each level of the curriculum, Basic Writing, First semester of Freshman Composition, Second Semester of Freshman Composition.  

Thinking is such a developmental issue that I find it problematic to include thinking skills as part of the curricular focus of basic writing.

does this make sense?

just me
roger


 --part1_133.2baaa93.28f27588_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 5 08:33:03 2001 Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18387 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:33:03 -0500 (CDT) From: DAKID52@aol.com Received: from DAKID52@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.51.123579e3 (4218) for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51.123579e3.28ef1082@aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:32:50 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_51.123579e3.28ef1082_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10539 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_51.123579e3.28ef1082_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bravo Alan. I certainly agree with you on your course outcomes and am employing those myself in the the developmental and comp. classes I teach. Sandy Baker College Auburn Hills, MI --part1_51.123579e3.28ef1082_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bravo Alan.

I certainly agree with you on your course outcomes and am employing those myself in the the developmental and comp. classes I teach.

Sandy
Baker College
Auburn Hills, MI --part1_51.123579e3.28ef1082_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 8 10:14:27 2001 Received: from mail.salem.kent.edu (mail.salem.kent.edu [131.123.110.34]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18607 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:14:27 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:14:52 -0400 Message-Id: <200110081114.AA180355306@mail.salem.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Jay Wootten" X-Sender: To: X-Mailer: Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Politicizing Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Reply-To: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Some years ago, when I was active in NADE and the Ohio Assn. of D.E., we had a political liaison for all D.E. Because I'm no longer active, I'm not sure that either group currently has the liaison position. The liaison was a legislative "watcher," and informed us of upcoming trouble. For instance, the great state of Ohio toyed with the idea of abolishing all D.E. in colleges and universities since students "should have learned all that in high school." Thanks to lots of letters, the legislature didn't do such a foolish thing, but it did suggest that 2-year colleges only have D.E. programs. Some schools tried this for a while, but it just didn't work. Why send 20-50 percent of your freshman class to a two-year school? At least the legislature began speaking in terms of D.E. rather than "remedial." Whether it still does is another question. jay at Kent Salem, OH From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 8 13:04:54 2001 Received: from localhost.localdomain (titus.npgco.com [207.192.213.20]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10460 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:04:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ed ([24.246.122.147]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f98I51J01534 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:05:06 -0500 From: "Ed White" To: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:03:25 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200110061702.MAA05421@grue.eppg.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Adequacy and Outcomes Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: There have been some very interesting posts here that don't have much or anything to do with the assessment issues we are focusing on, so I'll leave them for others; I'm sure those issues will come up in various forms later on. But the two posts below raise questions I'd like to address, though briefly. The first, from MClawsey (no other name there) reaffirms what Bill and I say in our initial statement: the local faculty is not only the appropriate but the ONLY real authority to decide what's "adequate" or "a minimum"--in terms of your own students and your own curriculum. The second post, from ML, asks about objectives for the BW course. Again, it seems to me that the objectives can only make sense in relation to whatever it is that is needed at the beginning of the next course up in the writing curriculum. But another source might be the Writing Program Administrators "OUTCOMES STATEMENT," a very carefully constructed list of what we generally expect students passing a regular fyc course to be able to do. Do note that the OS does not state at what LEVEL the student should perform--that's up to the campus--but does list appropriate outcomes. You can find the OS most easily in the January 2001 issue of College English, but it has also been published in WPA:Writing Program Administration and can be found through links on the WPA web page. BTW, if you don't belong to WPA, check out how much it has to offer you. --Ed White From: MClawsey@coppin.edu To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:31:18 -0400 Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Before we had to do away with developmental writing on this campus, the major criterion for placement was whether a student could write a short essay (often just a paragraph) that two members of the Freshman English faculty considered worth a 4 or higher on a 6-point scale--organization, development, and mechanics all at least under control. To pass E101, a student should be able to write an essay of four or five paragraphs with a clear central idea, adequate body development, and a minimum of mechanical errors. What's "adequate"? What's "a minimum"? This veteran teacher recommends that these questions be declided by consensus of the entire writing faculty. -----Original Message----- From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:35 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Teaching Goals Hello, I am a new instructor at community college in California. I am happy to be a part of this list. This is my first time teaching since graduate school in the 1980s. I was wondering if anyone could answer a three-part question for me. What should the goals of a remedial English class be? By "remedial" I don't mean ESL, but the next level. And what about the intermediate level or English 101. Advanced English? I am currently wrestling with how to clarify my objectives for the three different levels of ability that will be present in these classes. Thanks in advance for your time. ML _ From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 8 13:26:07 2001 Received: from localhost.localdomain (titus.npgco.com [207.192.213.20]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14879 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:26:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ed ([24.246.122.147]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f98IQLJ10042 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:26:21 -0500 From: "Ed White" To: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:24:46 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200110071702.MAA21655@grue.eppg.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Response to Chuck Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Sledd is always fun to read; he comes from the far left of the spectrum, with a slash-and- burn style and a cynical point of view. I do suggest balancing what he says with some more moderate perspectives. For instance, you might balance what he says about "boss compositionists" by reading back issues of WPA: Writing Program Administration. Do you really think of yourselves as "serfs"? --Ed White From: jordanc@btc-bci.com To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] siezing control Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 01:10:42 US/Michigan Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Have any of you read _Eloquent Dissent_ by James Sledd? I met him quite by accident at the Chicago 4c's a few years back. He just kind of shows the history and extent of where we and "higher education" are in the political spectrum. How can we empower our students when we can't empower oursselves? How much of the real work of higher education is done by serfs? How much longer will lower to middle class students be able to afford a college education if tuition continues to rise? Chuck Jordan --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing End of Teaching_Basic_Writing Digest From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 8 22:17:10 2001 Received: from mail.btc-bci.com (mail.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.2]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22890 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:17:10 -0500 (CDT) From: jordanc@btc-bci.com Received: from Debug (www.btc-bci.com [208.25.96.8]) by mail.btc-bci.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f993BVp14767; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110090311.f993BVp14767@mail.btc-bci.com> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Response to Chuck Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:14:26 US/Michigan X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.22 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > I think of myself as lucky to be teaching Writing. I was thinking of the larger group, TA's and adjuncts. Maybe indentured servitude would be more accurate. But I'm also concerned about our committment to students in the future who will not be able to afford a college education as well as those who may have become successful students who didn't because Basic Writing classes were cut. Chuck --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using B-dale mail program. http://www.btc-bci.com/ From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 8 22:17:52 2001 Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22925 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:17:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Oneluv65@aol.com Received: from Oneluv65@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.14c.233299a (4421) for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14c.233299a.28f3c639@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:17:13 EDT To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Can anyone recommend a good collection of essays that can be assigned to students of basic or remedial English. I'm already using the Langan book (Sentence Skills with Readings), but I seem to remember using a different book when I was teaching 101 in graduate school. It contained essays by E.B. White and Alice Walker, among others. Thanks, Melaney L.A. Mission College From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 8 22:21:54 2001 Received: from m2.hawaii.edu (pmdf@m2.hawaii.edu [128.171.94.30]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23225 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:21:53 -0500 (CDT) From: kgodwin@hawaii.edu Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.m2.hawaii.edu by m2.hawaii.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #38439) id <0GKX00M015CBBM@m2.hawaii.edu>; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:21:48 -1000 (HST) Received: from m2.hawaii.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m2.hawaii.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #38439) with SMTP id <0GKX00IKI5CBGI@m2.hawaii.edu>; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:21:47 -1000 (HST) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:21:47 -1000 (HST) Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Politicizing To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Message-id: <495352198.1002597707400.JavaMail.root@m2.hawaii.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun(TM) Web Access 1.2 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: A few loosely organized thoughts on skills courses: I wish that more people could understand the difference between what should be happening in adolescents' lives and what is happening. Often students do not feel that high school studies are important to their futures. Sometimes, they don't decide it is important until they are into their thirties and forties. Skills course allow students to make up for defficiencies in their (educational)backgrounds so that high school records needn't become that dreaded "permanent record" we were all threatened with. I have taught at both the university and the community college. I have the same requirements for all of my students--with some flexibility in presentation based on level and need. I am not concerned whether students end up in the CC or the university --as long as they can transfer into appropriate courses if they have the aptitude and drive. My goal is to help them to present their ideas in clear, logical, and (fairly) grammatical fashion. I do not try and change who they are or what they believe--as long as they show balance in arguement and research. To that end, I present the counterarguments to their arguements--even when I believe in my heart that they are right. I am not trying to make a million clones of myself; heaven knows, one of me is sufficient. I only want my students to develop the skills they need to become the experts in their chosen fields. We are not the enemy. Nor are the high schools--they cannot be expected to do everything. Kathryn From teaching_basic_writing-admin Tue Oct 9 12:58:25 2001 Received: from wye.coppin.edu (wye.coppin.edu [131.118.128.15]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26371 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:58:22 -0500 (CDT) From: MClawsey@coppin.edu Received: by wye.coppin.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4GGSAAH0>; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:05:06 -0400 Message-ID: <399890E9E4A8D511A91A0090273A8B44293A30@wye.coppin.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:05:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, Melaney! I can't think of one specific book at the moment, but (I take it you're fairly new to this game) there are dozens out there. Just let it be known that you're looking, and you'll probably be inundated with samples from publishers and their representatives. Good luck! Mary -----Original Message----- From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:17 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Can anyone recommend a good collection of essays that can be assigned to students of basic or remedial English. I'm already using the Langan book (Sentence Skills with Readings), but I seem to remember using a different book when I was teaching 101 in graduate school. It contained essays by E.B. White and Alice Walker, among others. Thanks, Melaney L.A. Mission College _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Tue Oct 9 14:41:24 2001 Received: from batch3.csd.uwm.edu (batch3.csd.uwm.edu [129.89.7.226]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12786 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:41:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alpha3.csd.uwm.edu (alpha3.csd.uwm.edu [129.89.7.203]) by batch3.csd.uwm.edu (8.8.4/8.6.8) with ESMTP id OAA13137 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:41:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (mmika@localhost) by alpha3.csd.uwm.edu (8.8.4/8.6.8) with SMTP id OAA24551 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:41:23 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:41:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Margaret A Mika To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays In-Reply-To: <399890E9E4A8D511A91A0090273A8B44293A30@wye.coppin.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Melaney, I've used _The Writer's Response: A Reading-Based Approach to College Writing_ in our basic writing classes for a couple of years. (Stephen McDonald and Wm. Salomone, 2nd Ed., Wadsworth Pub.) I especially like the strong (obvious) focus on reading. Also, it focuses on writing complete essays and offers a fairly good variety of interesting essays along with a useful rhetoric and a section on "Editing Skills." I like the sentence combining exercises here & there, too. I look at a lot of basic writing texts; at this point, this one fits in with our program's goals the best. On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 MClawsey@coppin.edu wrote: > Hi, Melaney! > > I can't think of one specific book at the moment, but (I take it > you're fairly new to this game) there are dozens out there. Just let it be > known that you're looking, and you'll probably be inundated with samples > from publishers and their representatives. Good luck! > > Mary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:17 PM > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays > > > Can anyone recommend a good collection of essays that can be assigned to > students of basic or remedial English. I'm already using the Langan book > (Sentence Skills with Readings), but I seem to remember using a different > book when I was teaching 101 in graduate school. It contained essays by E.B. > > White and Alice Walker, among others. > > Thanks, > Melaney > L.A. Mission College > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > Margaret Mika, Coordinator Writing Center University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee P.O.Box 413 Milwaukee WI 53201 (414) 229-5451 From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 10 12:32:20 2001 Received: from mcnte1.mc.cc.md.us ([160.253.138.10]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10069 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:32:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MCNTE1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <43ALSLB8>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:30:17 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Howard, Joanna" To: "'teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com'" Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:30:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #23 - 2 msgs Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Melaney, The book that you are describing sounds like Evergreen, published by Houghton Mifflin. Joanna Howard -----Original Message----- From: teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 1:02 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, Vol 1 #23 - 2 msgs Send Teaching_Basic_Writing mailing list submissions to teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to teaching_basic_writing-request@mailman.eppg.com You can reach the person managing the list at teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Basic_Writing digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: Recommended Essays (MClawsey@coppin.edu) 2. RE: Recommended Essays (Margaret A Mika) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: MClawsey@coppin.edu To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:05:01 -0400 Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Hi, Melaney! I can't think of one specific book at the moment, but (I take it you're fairly new to this game) there are dozens out there. Just let it be known that you're looking, and you'll probably be inundated with samples from publishers and their representatives. Good luck! Mary -----Original Message----- From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:17 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Can anyone recommend a good collection of essays that can be assigned to students of basic or remedial English. I'm already using the Langan book (Sentence Skills with Readings), but I seem to remember using a different book when I was teaching 101 in graduate school. It contained essays by E.B. White and Alice Walker, among others. Thanks, Melaney L.A. Mission College _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:41:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Margaret A Mika To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Melaney, I've used _The Writer's Response: A Reading-Based Approach to College Writing_ in our basic writing classes for a couple of years. (Stephen McDonald and Wm. Salomone, 2nd Ed., Wadsworth Pub.) I especially like the strong (obvious) focus on reading. Also, it focuses on writing complete essays and offers a fairly good variety of interesting essays along with a useful rhetoric and a section on "Editing Skills." I like the sentence combining exercises here & there, too. I look at a lot of basic writing texts; at this point, this one fits in with our program's goals the best. On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 MClawsey@coppin.edu wrote: > Hi, Melaney! > > I can't think of one specific book at the moment, but (I take it > you're fairly new to this game) there are dozens out there. Just let it be > known that you're looking, and you'll probably be inundated with samples > from publishers and their representatives. Good luck! > > Mary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:17 PM > To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays > > > Can anyone recommend a good collection of essays that can be assigned to > students of basic or remedial English. I'm already using the Langan book > (Sentence Skills with Readings), but I seem to remember using a different > book when I was teaching 101 in graduate school. It contained essays by E.B. > > White and Alice Walker, among others. > > Thanks, > Melaney > L.A. Mission College > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > Margaret Mika, Coordinator Writing Center University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee P.O.Box 413 Milwaukee WI 53201 (414) 229-5451 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing End of Teaching_Basic_Writing Digest From teaching_basic_writing-admin Wed Oct 10 12:55:03 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12460 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:55:03 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B5ZLXXZ>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:57:17 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B4947@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] RE: Teaching_Basic_Writing digest, V ol 1 #23 - 2 msgs Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:57:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Melaney, The book that you are describing sounds like Evergreen, published by Houghton Mifflin. Joanna Howard Or Transitions, published by McGraw-Hill (with "Once More to the Lake" by White, and "Beauty..." by Walker). Brian From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 12:26:17 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15515 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:26:16 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B5ZLZZL>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:28:31 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B4955@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:28:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Roger writes: Writing is not the same thing as thinking, it is allied, it is directly related, it is however something discrete and distinctly different. Writing is the transcription of thinking. That's why fluency is so critical, why recall vocabulary is so cricital. I'm not sure that writing is the transcription of thinking. I mean, I would have thought that before, but now, rereading Roger's statement, it occurred to me that I may not think that way anymore. Maybe this is just a semantic quibble, but I'm seeing writing more as thinking made manifest now, thinking made tangible--thus not something "discrete and distinctly different." Especially when our writing is an interaction with the writing of others, it could be, rather than transcription, the act of thinking made concrete. This for instance, what we're doing right here. I wonder. And I wonder if that kind of definition would change the way we approach writing instruction. It would change the way we "construct" students, I think; we'd be assessing something different. anyway, just a thought, and perhaps out of place brian From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 12:42:08 2001 Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17078 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:42:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Meyersalan@aol.com Received: from Meyersalan@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id z.de.1bdac2cd (4330) for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:41:35 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 9 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Another thought on writing as a transcription of thinking. I don't think so. It seems to me that two processes are important here: the first is that writing is a way to discover what we think as we attempt to put thoughts into words; the second is that writing is a way of examining, organizing, and refining what we think. After all, we do not think linearly, and in revision we usually change the order in which ideas occur to us (and we sometimes do that in first drafts). It seems to me that one of the biggest problems basic writers encounter is their notion that writing occurs without revision, that first drafts can be cleaned up a bit by changing a few words, checking punctuation, and copying over so the paper is neat. But they need to learn to rethink what they've written, to challenge it, to clarify, amplify, exemplify. Well, that's what I think. And I feel better for writing it. Alan Meyers Chair Communcations Department Harry S Truman College Chicago From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 13:25:43 2001 Received: from martin.u.arizona.edu (IDENT:degenaro@martin.U.Arizona.EDU [128.196.137.11]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24099 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:25:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (degenaro@localhost) by martin.u.arizona.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA39774 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:39 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:39 -0700 (MST) From: William Degenaro To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention In-Reply-To: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B4955@vendovi.ctc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I have also been thinking about Roger's post the past few days. I guess I can't seperate thinking and writing in such an ordered fashion. The two processes seem to have a much more dialectical relationship. One of my goals when teaching BW is to get students to think about that relationship and explore the possibilities of writing as discovery. I agree with what Brian says below about the recursive nature of writing. There's an excellent book called _Writing Analytically_ that I've used in BW several times. The authors critique the "I know what I want to say but I can't get it down on paper" cliche as non-reflective of how most writers write. It's a great section and very useful to reference when working with students who are revising papers. So is what Lu and Horner say about writing being more "constitutive" than "communicative"--the notion that language creates and constructs realities instead of merely communicating a know-able reality. This stuff seems like old hat now, but is a pretty big departure from the cognitive schools of though in the late 70s and early 80s. Recall Andrea Lunsford's "Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer" (do you know this essay, Roger?), where Lunsford uses Piaget to talk about the imperative to help basic writers conceptualize and analyze. If I'm recalling her argument correctly, Lunsford frames her analysis by talking about the *cognitive* difficulties that BWs have, not the difficulties with tasks of composition. I'm curious what others think of the notion that writing is the transcription of thinking. Bill > Roger writes: > > Writing is not the same thing as thinking, it is allied, it is directly > related, it is however something discrete and distinctly different. Writing > is the transcription of thinking. That's why fluency is so critical, why > recall vocabulary is so cricital. > > I'm not sure that writing is the transcription of thinking. I mean, I would > have thought that before, but now, rereading Roger's statement, it occurred > to me that I may not think that way anymore. Maybe this is just a semantic > quibble, but I'm seeing writing more as thinking made manifest now, thinking > made tangible--thus not something "discrete and distinctly different." > Especially when our writing is an interaction with the writing of others, it > could be, rather than transcription, the act of thinking made concrete. > This for instance, what we're doing right here. I wonder. And I wonder if > that kind of definition would change the way we approach writing > instruction. It would change the way we "construct" students, I think; we'd > be assessing something different. > > anyway, just a thought, and perhaps out of place > > brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bill DeGenaro degenaro@u.arizona.edu http://www.u.arizona.edu/~degenaro From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 23:10:13 2001 Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22278 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:10:12 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id z.a9.1cb6a85e (4012) for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:09:36 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a9.1cb6a85e.28f91880_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_a9.1cb6a85e.28f91880_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/01 12:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time, bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu writes: > > I'm not sure that writing is the transcription of thinking. I mean, I would > have thought that before, but now, rereading Roger's statement, it occurred > to me that I may not think that way anymore. Maybe this is just a semantic > quibble, but I'm seeing writing more as thinking made manifest now, thinking > made tangible--thus not something "discrete and distinctly different." Roger writes>>Thanks Brian for picking this up. I think it is central to our effort as teachers of basic writing. Our problem is that this technology we call writing is so ancient that it has become so integrated into the very fabric of what we call thinking. Indeed, civilized thought is characterized by the interaction between transcription and reflection. As many have observed it is only now as print literacy begins to leave us that we are able to observe the relationship between the transcription technology and the kinds of thinking it has nourished and facilitated. I think that this inability to distinguish between the transcription technology and the thinkit it has nourished and facilitated is at the root of much of our difficulty with these basic writers. Brian continues>>> Especially when our writing is an interaction with the > writing of others, it could be, rather than transcription, the act of > thinking made concrete. > This for instance, what we're doing right here. I wonder. And I wonder if > that kind of definition would change the way we approach writing > instruction. It would change the way we "construct" students, I think; we'd > be assessing something different. > Roger writes>> This is an important point Brian. Brian>>> anyway, just a thought, and perhaps out of place > > Roger writes scratching his head>>nope, you are right on the money. > > thanks > Roger Easson Professor Director fo the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis --part1_a9.1cb6a85e.28f91880_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/01 12:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time, bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu writes:



I'm not sure that writing is the transcription of thinking.  I mean, I would
have thought that before, but now, rereading Roger's statement, it occurred
to me that I may not think that way anymore.  Maybe this is just a semantic
quibble, but I'm seeing writing more as thinking made manifest now, thinking
made tangible--thus not something "discrete and distinctly different."
Roger writes>>Thanks Brian for picking this up. I think it is central to our effort as teachers of basic writing.  

Our problem is that this technology we call writing is so ancient that it has become so integrated into the very fabric of what we call thinking.  Indeed, civilized thought is characterized by the interaction between transcription and reflection.  As many have observed it is only now as print literacy begins to leave us that we are able to observe the relationship between the transcription technology and the kinds of thinking it has nourished and facilitated.

I think that this inability to distinguish between the transcription technology and the thinkit it has nourished and facilitated is at the root of much of our difficulty with these basic writers.

Brian continues>>
Especially when our writing is an interaction with the writing of others, it could be, rather than transcription, the act of thinking made concrete.
This for instance, what we're doing right here.  I wonder.  And I wonder if
that kind of definition would change the way we approach writing
instruction.  It would change the way we "construct" students, I think; we'd
be assessing something different.


Roger writes>> This is an important point Brian.

Brian>>
anyway, just a thought, and perhaps out of place

Roger writes scratching his head>>nope, you are right on the money.

thanks
rre




Roger Easson
Professor
Director fo the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis --part1_a9.1cb6a85e.28f91880_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 23:20:02 2001 Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22589 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:20:01 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id z.d4.d49c627 (4012) for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:19:56 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d4.d49c627.28f91aec_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_d4.d49c627.28f91aec_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/01 12:43:17 PM Central Daylight Time, Meyersalan@aol.com writes: > > Alan writes>>Another thought on writing as a transcription of thinking. I > don't think so. > It seems to me that two processes are important here: the first is that > writing is a way to discover what we think as we attempt to put thoughts > into > words; the second is that writing is a way of examining, organizing, and > refining what we think. After all, we do not think linearly, and in > revision > we usually change the order in which ideas occur to us (and we sometimes do > that in first drafts). > Roger Writes>>Do you not think that these are special modes of thinking enabled by the transcription technology we call writing? I agree entirely, that discovery and the suprise of the encounter with our thinking is fostered incredibly by this transcription technology. Alan>>> It seems to me that one of the biggest problems basic writers > encounter is > their notion that writing occurs without revision, that first drafts can be > cleaned up a bit by changing a few words, checking punctuation, and copying > over so the paper is neat. But they need to learn to rethink what they've > written, to challenge it, to clarify, amplify, exemplify. > Roger>>Alan this phenomenon that writing occurs without revision is, I think, a function of reading interference. Most of our students have far more experience as readers than they do as writers. Their reading skills are far more robust than their writing skills. The consequence of this is that students have a profound inability to distinguish read texts from texts in process of creation. Reading interference is a much neglected event the composing process. just me roger Roger Easson Professor Director fo the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis --part1_d4.d49c627.28f91aec_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/01 12:43:17 PM Central Daylight Time, Meyersalan@aol.com writes:



Alan writes>>Another thought on writing as a transcription of thinking. I don't think so.



It seems to me that two processes are important here: the first is that
writing is a way to discover what we think as we attempt to put thoughts into
words; the second is that writing is a way of examining, organizing, and
refining what we think. After all, we do not think linearly, and in revision
we usually change the order in which ideas occur to us (and we sometimes do
that in first drafts).  


Roger Writes>>Do you not think that these are special modes of thinking enabled by the transcription technology we call writing?  I agree entirely, that discovery and the suprise of the encounter with our thinking is fostered incredibly by this transcription technology.

Alan>>
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems basic writers encounter is
their notion that writing occurs without revision, that first drafts can be
cleaned up a bit by changing a few words, checking punctuation, and copying
over so the paper is neat. But they need to learn to rethink what they've
written, to challenge it, to clarify, amplify, exemplify.


Roger>>Alan this phenomenon that writing occurs without revision is, I think, a function of reading interference.  Most of our students have far more experience as readers than they do as writers.  Their reading skills are far more robust than their writing skills.  The consequence of this is that students have a profound inability to distinguish read texts from texts in process of creation.

Reading interference is a much neglected event the composing process.

just me

roger

Roger Easson
Professor
Director fo the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis --part1_d4.d49c627.28f91aec_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 23:29:06 2001 Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22950 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:29:06 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id z.135.2fcc4d7 (4012) for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <135.2fcc4d7.28f91cee@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:28:30 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_135.2fcc4d7.28f91cee_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_135.2fcc4d7.28f91cee_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/01 1:26:29 PM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes: > > Bill writes>>I have also been thinking about Roger's post the past few > days. I guess I can't seperate thinking and writing in such an ordered > fashion. The two > processes seem to have a much more dialectical relationship. Roger writes>>after 7,000 years of written tradition, it is no wonder this technology has become utterly invisible to most of us. Nevertheless it is crucial for us to begin to examine how thinking is different from transcription, and how transcription of thinking profoundly influences the kinds of thinking we are capable of. Bill>>> goals when teaching BW is to get students to think about > that relationship and explore the possibilities of writing as discovery. I > agree with what > Brian says below about the recursive nature of writing. Roger>>It is in this recursion that the incredible complexity of our reading and writing skills begin to interact. Not only do we have to struggle to disentangle this fusion of transcription technology and thinking, but we also have to disentangle the ways in which reading skills interfere with our writing skills. Bill>>> excellent book called _Writing Analytically_ that I've > used in BW several times. The authors critique the "I know what I want to > say but I can't > get it down on paper" cliche as non-reflective of how most writers > write. It's a great section and very useful to reference when working > with students who are revising papers. So is what Lu and Horner say about > writing being more "constitutive" than "communicative"--the notion that > language creates and constructs realities instead of merely communicating > a know-able reality. > > This stuff seems like old hat now, but is a pretty big departure from the > cognitive schools of though in the late 70s and early 80s. Recall Andrea > Lunsford's "Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer" (do you know this > essay, Roger?), where Lunsford uses Piaget to talk about the imperative to > help basic writers conceptualize and analyze. . > argument correctly, Lunsford frames her analysis by > talking about the *cognitive* difficulties that BWs have, not the > difficulties with tasks of composition. > I'm curious what others think of the notion that writing is the > transcription of thinking. > Roger>>I read this a long time ago. I will dig it up and review it. Thanks for remind ing me of it --part1_135.2fcc4d7.28f91cee_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/01 1:26:29 PM Central Daylight Time, degenaro@U.Arizona.EDU writes:



Bill writes>>I have also been thinking about Roger's post the past few days.  I guess I can't seperate thinking and writing in such an ordered fashion.  The two
processes seem to have a much more dialectical relationship.  


Roger writes>>after 7,000 years of written tradition, it is no wonder this technology has become utterly invisible to most of us.  Nevertheless it is crucial for us to begin to examine how thinking is different from transcription, and how transcription of thinking profoundly influences the kinds of thinking we are capable of.

Bill>>One of my
goals when teaching BW is to get students to think about that relationship and explore the possibilities of writing as discovery.  I agree with what
Brian says below about the recursive nature of writing.


Roger>>It is in this recursion that the incredible complexity of our reading and writing skills begin to interact.  Not only do we have to struggle to disentangle this fusion of transcription technology and thinking, but we also have to disentangle the ways in which reading skills interfere with our writing skills.

Bill>> There's an
excellent book called _Writing Analytically_ that I've used in BW several times.  The authors critique the "I know what I want to say but I can't
get it down on paper" cliche as non-reflective of how most writers
write.  It's a great section and very useful to reference when working
with students who are revising papers.  So is what Lu and Horner say about
writing being more "constitutive" than "communicative"--the notion that
language creates and constructs realities instead of merely communicating
a know-able reality.

This stuff seems like old hat now, but is a pretty big departure from the
cognitive schools of though in the late 70s and early 80s.  Recall Andrea
Lunsford's "Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer" (do you know this
essay, Roger?), where Lunsford uses Piaget to talk about the imperative to
help basic writers conceptualize and analyze.


.  If I'm recalling her
argument correctly, Lunsford frames her analysis by talking about the *cognitive* difficulties that BWs have, not the difficulties with tasks of composition.
I'm curious what others think of the notion that writing is the
transcription of thinking.


Roger>>I read this a long time ago. I will dig it up and review it. Thanks for remind ing me of it




--part1_135.2fcc4d7.28f91cee_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Oct 13 10:28:58 2001 Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02760 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:28:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Meyersalan@aol.com Received: from Meyersalan@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id z.8b.d9ed688 (4239) for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b.d9ed688.28f9b7b3@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:28:51 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 9 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: In a message dated 10/12/01 11:21:43 PM, RREasson333@aol.com writes: << Roger Writes>>Do you not think that these are special modes of thinking enabled by the transcription technology we call writing? I agree entirely, that discovery and the suprise of the encounter with our thinking is fostered incredibly by this transcription technology. >> Your comments remind me, Roger, of those in a book I read last spring, Jay David Bolter's Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing (Erbaum, 1991), in which Bolter argues that our thinking is shaped by the form in which we encounter text--the scroll and the codex, in much earlier times, and hypertext as it is emerging now. But in any case, I am sure that the process of verbalizing what seems rather inchoate in our minds is as much about discovery as it is revelation of thought. Alan From teaching_basic_writing-admin Sat Oct 13 16:52:57 2001 Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26551 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:52:57 -0500 (CDT) From: RREasson333@aol.com Received: from RREasson333@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id z.c5.179e1272 (4365) for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:52:20 EDT Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c5.179e1272.28fa1194_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --part1_c5.179e1272.28fa1194_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/13/01 10:29:36 AM Central Daylight Time, Meyersalan@aol.com writes: > Alan writes>>Your comments remind me, Roger, of those in a book I read last > spring, Jay > David Bolter's Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of > Writing (Erbaum, 1991), in which Bolter argues that our thinking is shaped > by > the form in which we encounter text--the scroll and the codex, in much > earlier times, and hypertext as it is emerging now. But in any case, I am > sure that the process of verbalizing what seems rather inchoate in our > minds > Roger answers>>Yes of course, Alan, thanks. Bolter's book is a necessary reminder of where we have come from as we think about how to make distinctions about writing and thinking. But more to the point, I am thinking about an extraordinary little book called Pause and Effect by M.B. Parks on the history of Punctuation in the West. What Parks does is to remind us what the landscape of writing was like in the heady days of the Roman Empire, when scribes did the transcription in Lingua Cursa as their masters spoke. Lingua cursa is simply a stream of letters sans spaces or punctuation. The transcribed speaker then had to go through the manuscript the scribe created and mark the text according to whether it was going to be read for archival purposes or whether it was going to be delivered to a public audience. That is to say, according to Parkes no one ever read a manuscript the first time he looked at it, as it had to be marked and analysed for its intended purpose. My point here is that Parks reminds us that the great missing element of our thinking is this increasingly lost skill of public speaking which preceded writing. That is to say, most of the tradition out of which those patterns of thinking we regularly associate with writing were originally formed in oral discourse not written discourse. After the arrival of silent reading in the fifth century things started to change enormously, and we interiorized much of what had earlier been external and vocal. Thinking now happens increasingly in private as we transcribe our own thinking, now that scribes are no longer appropriate or avilable. [Truth to tell, when I accept a Ghost Writing job, often what I am doing is transcribing my client's speech as we talk and brainstorm his thinking. So as I do Ghost Writing, I am really a kind of exhalted scribe. Or it seems like it anyway.] But I wonder what will happen to all these things we think of as writing when the voice recognition technology makes transcription less of a hand eye coordination event and more of a spoken event again. Will that not make this kind of distinction between writing and thinking much more apparent and visible, I wonder? Yes Bolter is on the money, but so is Ong and all that lovely community of scholars thinking about this peculiar liminal state writing seems to be in at the moment. My point is simply that we must rethink what we have always held so closely. And I would argue that much of what we assume is writing is nothing of the sort, but rather thinking skills shaped by writing and silent reading. just me roger Roger Easson Professor Director of the Writing Center Christian Brothers University Memphis TN reasson@cbu.edu RReasson333@aol.com --part1_c5.179e1272.28fa1194_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/13/01 10:29:36 AM Central Daylight Time, Meyersalan@aol.com writes:


Alan writes>>Your comments remind me, Roger, of those in a book I read last spring, Jay
David Bolter's Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of
Writing (Erbaum, 1991), in which Bolter argues that our thinking is shaped by
the form in which we encounter text--the scroll and the codex, in much
earlier times, and hypertext as it is emerging now. But in any case, I am
sure that the process of verbalizing what seems rather inchoate in our minds
is as much about discovery as it is revelation of thought


Roger answers>>Yes of course, Alan, thanks.
      Bolter's book is a necessary reminder of where we have come from as we think about how to make distinctions about writing and thinking.  But more to the point, I am thinking about an extraordinary little book called Pause and Effect by M.B. Parks on the history of Punctuation in the West.  What Parks does is to remind us what the landscape of writing was like in the heady days of the Roman Empire, when scribes did the transcription in Lingua Cursa as their masters spoke.

     Lingua cursa is simply a stream of letters sans spaces or punctuation.  The transcribed speaker then had to go through the manuscript the scribe created and mark the text according to whether it was going to be read for archival purposes or whether it was going to be delivered to a public audience.  That is to say, according to Parkes no one ever read a manuscript the first time he looked at it, as it had to be marked and analysed for its intended purpose.

My point here is that Parks reminds us that the great missing element of our thinking is this increasingly lost skill of public speaking which preceded writing. That is to say, most of the tradition out of which those patterns of thinking we regularly associate with writing were originally formed in oral discourse not written discourse.  

After the arrival of silent reading in the fifth century things started to change enormously, and we interiorized much of what had earlier been external and vocal.
Thinking now happens increasingly in private as we transcribe our own thinking, now that scribes are no longer appropriate or avilable.

[Truth to tell, when I accept a Ghost Writing job, often what I am doing is transcribing my client's speech as we talk and brainstorm his thinking.  So as I do Ghost Writing, I am really a kind of exhalted scribe. Or it seems like it anyway.]

But I wonder what will happen to all these things we think of as writing when the voice recognition technology makes transcription less of a hand eye coordination event and more of a spoken event again.  Will that not make this kind of distinction between writing and thinking much more apparent and visible, I wonder?

Yes Bolter is on the money, but so is Ong and all that lovely community of scholars thinking about this peculiar liminal state writing seems to be in at the moment.  My point is simply that we must rethink what we have always held so closely. And I would argue that much of what we assume is writing is nothing of the sort, but rather thinking skills shaped by writing and silent reading.

just me
roger


Roger Easson
Professor
Director of the Writing Center
Christian Brothers University
Memphis TN
reasson@cbu.edu
RReasson333@aol.com --part1_c5.179e1272.28fa1194_boundary-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Fri Oct 12 11:12:22 2001 Received: from ACCDVM.ACCD.EDU (accdvm.accd.edu [209.184.119.1]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA06731 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:12:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gh131biluna [10.11.14.204] by ACCDVM.ACCD.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:12:18 CDT Message-ID: <001201c15338$257d7ee0$cc0e0b0a@ACCD.EDU> From: "Irma Luna" To: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:08:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1530E.319991C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] (no subject) Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1530E.319991C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My information is: Irma Luna, Professor San Antonio College, English Dept. 1300 San Pedro Ave. San Antonio, TX 78212 iluna@accd.edu=20 =20 Thank You! =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1530E.319991C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My information is:  Irma = Luna,=20 Professor
       =20        =20              = San=20 Antonio College, English Dept.
       =20             =    =20       1300 San Pedro Ave.
       =20             =    =20        San Antonio, TX  = 78212
       =20             =    =20         iluna@accd.edu 
 
Thank You!        &= nbsp;      =20
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1530E.319991C0-- From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 15 12:33:22 2001 Received: from agems2.state.ky.us (agems2.state.ky.us [162.114.80.122]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27858 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:33:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Elaine.Poston@kctcs.net Received: by agems2.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id <4YDTNVAV>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:16:06 -0400 Message-ID: <45499713C1F9D311B43200508B6493DA033FE859@agency3.state.ky.us> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:19:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Melaney, You've probably already received thousands of answers, but I will add mine anyway. _The MacMillan Reader_ may be the book you used. We use the Langan text with readings, but I used MacMillan in graduate school. Elaine Henderson Community College -----Original Message----- From: Oneluv65@aol.com [mailto:Oneluv65@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:17 PM To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays Can anyone recommend a good collection of essays that can be assigned to students of basic or remedial English. I'm already using the Langan book (Sentence Skills with Readings), but I seem to remember using a different book when I was teaching 101 in graduate school. It contained essays by E.B. White and Alice Walker, among others. Thanks, Melaney L.A. Mission College _______________________________________________ Teaching_Basic_Writing maillist - Teaching_Basic_Writing@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_basic_writing From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 15 14:46:52 2001 Received: from mailgate1.nau.edu (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18193 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:46:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) id <0GL900D01IXX74@mailgate1.nau.edu> for teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:46:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from jan.ucc.nau.edu (ts8-3.ppp.nau.edu [134.114.14.140]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.0-24 #39126) with ESMTP id <0GL900834IXVCF@mailgate1.nau.edu>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:46:45 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:56:04 -0700 From: Laura Gray-Rosendale Subject: Re: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] Recommended Essays To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com, Suzanna Ellison Message-id: <3BCB3F54.98EBEB8C@jan.ucc.nau.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: <45499713C1F9D311B43200508B6493DA033FE859@agency3.state.ky.us> Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Folks: I want to thank Bill and Ed for their excellent module and for starting off our discussion in Teaching Basic Writing. You have raised many critical issues regarding assessment, politics, and what roles we can take in rethinking our own basic writing programs at home. We all want to thank you so much for your involvement! Doubtlessly we will return to many of the issues you have raised again and again as we move to new modules. I now want to introduce our new module created by Thomas Reynolds at University of Minnesota. Tom has worked with Basic Writers for many years in various faculty positions. Like the rest of the folks who are designing modules, Tom has a deep commitment to these students and asks critical questions about the best ways to approach issues of pedagogy. His research on Basic Writing is well known to those of you who read BWe and the Journal of Basic Writing or who are involved with the Conference on Basic Writing through the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Tom is also one of the contributors to a dialogue on basic writing issues that is forthcoming in Composition Studies this fall. Tom raises a whole host of new critical questions for us in his module “Teacher Training and Basic Writing.” The module is up at http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tbw/. Go take a look! Tom describes in very poignant ways the perplexing history of teacher training in our scholarship and in our lives. I am particularly taken with his idea that we must both look to our own experiences with our teachers as a guide as well as disengage from them. What our great mentors may have done as teachers may have clicked with us, but will it click with basic writing students? Sometimes the answer is “yes.” Sometimes the answer is “no.” You’ll find Tom’s description of his own experiences as a student quite humorous. I too remember my own favorite, brilliant and eccentric teacher who balanced on the back of his chair during writing class, raved ceaselessly about James Moffett, and then, one day, succumbed to physics and came crashing to the floor in a heap. But, amidst our memories of these tremendous teachers who shaped us and our learning, and our ability to set aside their pedagogies when faced with our students’ own real needs-- the import of Tom’s message is also sobering: We don’t have the best training opportunities available for basic writing teachers, and we need to. Importantly, Tom calls for linking our training of new teachers to larger administrative structures where possible. He suggests that training should not be a crash course over a one week period, but rather continuous and reflexive. He also calls for greater professionalization opportunities for the teachers of basic writing as well as more democratic modes of teacher training. Writing this from my home institution, Northern Arizona University, I think about how important all of this advice is. I think that too often teachers of basic writers aren’t given the kind of support necessary—either it appears all-controlling or so hands-off that there is little room for building community. Tom’s suggestions are critical ones, I think, and they have relevance for all of us—whether we are relatively new teachers undergoing training, whether we are those designated as “trainers,” or a combination of the two. I very much look forward to beginning this new discussion and to having Tom lead us through this— Best wishes, Laura Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale Northern Arizona University From teaching_basic_writing-admin Mon Oct 15 15:45:42 2001 Received: from VENDOVI.ctc.edu ([134.39.214.4]) by grue.eppg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00389 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:45:41 -0500 (CDT) From: bpatters@whatcom.ctc.edu Received: by vendovi.ctc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B5ZL6TY>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:47:55 -0700 Message-ID: <95808AA5E046D311A79B00A0C9E97F729B4964@vendovi.ctc.edu> To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Basic_Writing] basic writing and intervention Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:47:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com Errors-To: teaching_basic_writing-admin@mailman.eppg.com X-BeenThere: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: teaching_basic_writing@mailman.eppg.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is very interesting stuff, Roger. It appears we're moving on now, to another discussion topic, but reading what