Jessica Sumpter
English 484
March 28, 2008
TSW 318-374
There is a lot of good information in this chapter. One of the most useful things I learned from it are the note-taking techniques. I never thought of taking notes this way, but the benefits are obvious to me now, and I really think that I am going to start using note cards in my own research. I really think it would be a great time-saver and organizer. I hadn’t heard about taking notes in this way before, and that seems like a shame to me now. I have to say it seems odd that I wouldn’t have even heard about this before, and it makes me wonder what other helpful techniques are out there that I haven’t heard about yet.
I also thought the section on teaching quoting and paraphrasing was helpful, too. In the past, my teachers have let it be known whether or not they like to see quoting in their papers, and how much quoting. So I’ve never really had to develop a sense of when to quote or paraphrase because I’ve always gone by the teacher’s preference. Too, I’ve never thought of a literary essay as a research paper, so it was interesting to me to see it that way.
The most compelling part of the chapter is actually the beginning where Neman presents arguments first against, and then for, teaching the research paper. In my own experience I get a lot of assignments that read, “write a 1-2 page paper using at least one outside source” which has to be properly cited then. So while I don’t write a lot of what I would call research papers, I still get a lot of practice with in-text citing and works cited lists. So if I were to be assigned a research paper I’m familiar with the documentation methods.
Too, there is something about the arguments presented in favor of teaching the research paper that doesn’t ring true. She says something like that college freshman teachers dislike having to “re-teach” the research paper to their students, because they were taught the wrong way in high school. I disagree with this. I have never heard a professor say that they have had to re-educate their students because of something learned in high school; and I’ve asked.
Overall, I’m not entirely convinced that teaching a research paper is necessary, especially if students get practice with a documentation system, like MLA, in other ways. Becoming familiar with a documentation system is the key to being comfortable with writing a research paper. Of course, when a student learns how to make a works cited list and in-text citations, they’re also learning how to incorporate quotes and paraphrasing into their writing, so what is it about the “research paper” as defined in Neman, that make it important to teach it?
March 29, 2008
March 7, 2008
Response Question to TSW 278-316
Jessica Sumpter
English 484
March 6, 2008
TSW 278-316
In Chapter 8, Stylistic Problems from Nonstandard Dialects, of Beth Neman’s Teaching Students to Write, she reviews some of the problems that student’s who speak a nonstandard dialect of English, or those for whom English is a second language, have composing a paper. Neman discusses the idea that nonstandard speaking students thrive in the classroom when highly structured assignments are combined with highly individualized teaching. She discusses it only briefly. What exactly is meant, and how do we accomplish, highly individualized teaching with a highly structured program?
March 6, 2008
Response to TSW 194-229
Jessica Sumpter
English 484
March 6, 2008
TSW 194-229
Within the beginning paragraph of the chapter is the most comprehensible definition of style that I have ever come across. “Besides an understanding of structure – the ways of organizing their ideas – our students need to learn something about style, the ways of expressing their ideas” (194). Combined with another piece of definition on the next page, “content provides a passage with it explicit or denotative meaning; style, the way the content is expressed, provides the implicit or connotative meaning” (195). Together, the two excerpts create a workable definition of style, which I have never really understood before. I really feel like I understand what style is much better now.
The discussion on audience is pretty good, but not complete. For example, if I were to write two letters about the same subject, say the condition of the roads; one to the mayor of Port Clinton, and one to a friend of mine. The two audiences of the letters are very different, and the content and language of the two letters would differ just as much. In other words, there will be real and quantifiable differences in my letters based on who my audience is. There is no discussion in the book about such differences, and how using these differences can help students see why thinking about a target audience is important.
One exercise I think would be particularly useful in the classroom would involve picking a topic about school, like how long the breaks between classes are. Then, as a class, we would write all the different reasons they have for changing the length of breaks between classes. Then , we would be able to separate them into two different papers; one to convince other students that longer breaks between classes are better, one to convince the school board that longer breaks between classes would work better. Students and administrators would need very different reasons to convince them that longer breaks are better. Students wouldn’t care about how much it costs, and administrators wouldn’t care about socializing time. A discussion about why one reason works for one audience but not another would make sense to students who want to know why audience matters.
Of course, I’m all for providing a real audience for student papers whenever possible. Take the exercise in the preceding paragraph. If I were to use that exercise as the basis for a paper I would see if I could find a school board member, or members, that would take some time to read the papers and make a few comments. If they wrote to convince other students then I would see if there was another English class that could look at them.
Denotative meaning and connotative meaning are, I believe, very important in student writing. It’s important for students to be aware of connotative meanings that don’t agree with the denotative meanings. For example, the word “shrewd” has a negative connotative meaning to some Jewish people. The image of a white dove has a powerful connotative meaning as a symbol of peace. And it just goes on. An exercise examining the slang that students use would be a good one for teaching students about connotative meaning.
One of the things I don’t like about this book is the word rhetoric. I was never taught rhetoric in school. I was taught how to write persuasively, to write an essay, to write an argument of fact, and so forth. I am really big on using words accurately, and when I think of rhetoric I think of Greek sophists, most of whom couldn’t be trusted. Again, this is something I’ve come across a lot this semester. If I am teaching my students how to write a persuasive essay, then I should be taught how to teach a persuasive essay, not a rhetoric. It causes a disconnect between what I think it means when I look at it, and what it actually means. I just want some consistency, I suppose. Just like, to me, a genre has to do with content, not form. We need to be using the same language in all our classrooms. This way, not only do I have to learn how to teach effectively, I have to learn an entirely new vocabulary, one that doesn’t agree with my current vocabulary at that.
