Monthly Archive for November, 2007

“Email is a medium of bad writing”

I came across Janet Malcolm’s interesting review of David Shipley and Will Schwalbe’s book Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home.  The title for this post comes from that review: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20571.  I haven’t seen the book itself, but, according to Malcolm, the two authors raise a few questions that relate very much not only to our shared (I hope) paranoia of misaddressing an email, but also to the nature of email as a communication practice.  To name just a few points the authors make:

1. “On email, people aren’t quite themselves.  They are angrier, less sympathetic, less aware, more easily wounded, even more gossipy and duplicitous.  Email has a tendency to encourage the lesser angels of our nature” (qtd. in Malcolm).

2.  When you accidentally send an email containing negative comments about a person to that very person, do not use email to express your apology. “Just because we have email we shouldn’t use it for everything,” authors suggest.

3.  “If you don’t consciously insert tone into an email, a kind of universal default tone won’t automatically be conveyed.  Instead, the message written without regard to tone becomes a blank screen onto which the reader projects his own fears, prejudices and anxieties” (qtd. in Malcolm).  Malcolm then summarizes the authors’ suggestion to deal with this impersonal aspect of email —  ”a program of unrelenting niceness.  Keep letting your correspondent know how much you like and respect him, praise and flatter him, constantly demonstrate your puppyish friendliness, and stick in exclamation points (and sometimes even smiling face icons) wherever possible.’”

But exclamation points are really just shortcuts, which we must take because we simply can’t afford to do otherwise with the heavy volume of emails every day, the authors and Malcolm suggest.  Does email then propel weak writing?  At the end of her review, Malcolm poses a related question about young users of email: “Will their childish babbling evolve into decent writing?  Does writing a lot lead to writing well?”  My sense is if we write badly and do so often, we may lose or have a hard time acquiring the skills for writing well. 

With the tremendous number of electronic mediums for communication, perhaps we take shortcuts much too often, and so do our students.  Is there a way to discourage shortcuts or simply bad writing using the very medium that promotes it? Next time I teach composition, I will probably create prompts that would encourage students to correspond via email. Afterwards, in class the sender and the recipient can share their perceptions of the e-mail’s tone.  I think this use of a familiar and favorite medium might be a good way to help beginning writers develop a sense of audience, grow more sensitive to their choice of tone, and perhaps become stronger writers, and not just on email.

PowerPointin’ Ain’t Easy…

I’ve been thinking about David’s post a while back discussing strategies for effective PowerPointing. In writing instruction, one of the best ways to get students to begin writing with confidence is to have them “write what they know.” What they know is less important than that they develop the ability to explore and express it. Such an assignment implicitly takes some of the focus off of the content, and moves it onto the form. Though those two elements of writing are never completely separable, it’s often helpful to have assignments that focus on one more than the other.

I’m not sure that students are ever given much of an opportunity to learn to present or to PowerPoint in this way, to “PowerPoint what they know.” Would this be helpful as a freshman year assignment in some type of intro course? (I’m of the mind, by the way, that all freshmen should be taking a required media literacy course in their freshmen years… this would fit perfectly in that class).

I once worked with a freshmen class that used PowerPoint to create documentaries about their families, with embedded movies, audio interviews, and images. The goal of the assignment was to get students to break out of the PowerPoint box, and to get them to construct a narrative through the medium. The only rules were no clip art and no gratuitous animation. I gave them a workshop on PowerPoint, helped them storyboard their presentations, and then assisted them with the programming. Finally, they showed their work to the class. This assignment was a successful way for them to master the software and develop their voices at the same time, with the added bonus of creating community in the classroom through the sharing of personal information.

All of what I’ve written above is just prelude to the PowerPoint slides included below, which are examples of the more serious work that some Baruch students might produce if we give them the chance to PowerPoint what they know. Click on the image to read it.

Money and Problems Half Stepping 93 Until

Can’t Touch This 99 Problems Ever Ever

 

(Slides taken from here, with a warning that readers not of the hip-hop nation may be offended).

Tricky Linguistics, Indeed.

I was delighted to find this lovely clip ‘Tricky Linguistics’ from a British show ‘A Bit of Fry and Laurie’ by Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie (now recognized by most in the US as playing Dr. Gregory House on the TV show ‘House M.D.’. A point made in this funny clip, that our knowledge of language is capable of generating an infinite number of grammatical sentences, is a fascinating property of language that always comes up in an intro to language course. Our knowledge of language can generate a lot of sentences. Even the ones that our stickler spirits don’t like.

People with reasonable education, especially academics, have keener sense of prescriptive ‘correctness’ of language and often lament on ‘sloppy’ ‘broken’ ‘bad’ usage of language often found on the Internet or student writings. I notice a lot of those, not only because I can be a bit of a stickler myself, but also because it is interesting what people do.

The other day I heard a friend of mine, a sociologist, say ‘I should have went…’ and immediately corrected himself and said ‘I should have *gone*…’ It wasn’t the first time I heard ‘went’ used instead of ‘gone’ after ‘have’. As an ESL student I learned “to form a perfective, you use the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the past participle form of the verb”. So it is, for me, a super-fast thought process of “ok…say ‘have’…and then say *gone* after ‘have’”. I tell my students “You don’t say *went* here because it is in the past tense and it is wrong”. But native speakers don’t do it this way. They shouldn’t even think. Their knowledge of language is supposed to only create right things! But he didn’t, and he actually had to go on the process of consciously evaluating what he said and revised his sentence.

I thought this example was interesting, because it almost looks like people are starting to change their rules and use past tense after ‘have’. Is this the beginning of our language change? If we did change our rules and started using past tense, shouldn’t we also allow ‘I should have *ate*’, ‘I should have *wrote*, ‘I should have *gave* up’, and ‘I should have *did* it’? My sense is that it is not that simple, yet.

True, ignorance of the distinction between ‘what you end up saying’ and ‘what you should be saying’ might suggest certain things about your education, etc. (Yes, we still have to take ‘correctness’ seriously.) But it is fascinating, for many linguists, how there seem to be distinctions among ‘what you should be saying’, ‘what you shouldn’t be saying but end up saying sometimes’ and ‘what you never end up saying, ever.’

Sometimes plagiarism can make us laugh

In an attempt to declutter my life, I went through a box of old teaching materials–mainly old student papers that I didn’t know what to do with, hand-outs, and articles that I thought might prove useful again in the future.

I came across two things, however, that I couldn’t throw away because without such tactile evidence, I’m not sure anyone would believe me.

(I also just want to preface this with a statement on my views on plagiarism. I am not a witch-hunter or blood-hound when it comes to plagiarism. I do not fail my students. I do not give them F’s. I do not take plagiarism personally. Many of my students were students who needed a second chance in life, and I was happy to help them and not hold them back. I always gave them opportunities to correct their wrongs. In the second example below, however, the student adamantly denied having done anything wrong and chose not to redo his paper. I did fail that paper, but I didn’t fail him for the semester.)

The first item that I was unable to toss out was an essay on how to make Kool-Aid. That’s right. I was teaching a very basic composition class, and it was my first semester teaching. I hadn’t quite learned yet that there are ways to curb plagiarism in assignment design. My assignment was really bad–I simply asked my students to write an essay that explained how to do something, anything. One student, who was probably the worst student I had–he never came to class and didn’t seem to know how to write a complete sentence–turned in this marvelous gem. I, of course, handed it back to him with a print-out from the website stapled to his paper.

After class, he came up to me to say sorry, that he had written a paper, but he asked his cousin to type it up for him. She somehow ended up typing this Kool-Aid essay word for word.

My absolute favorite was from a student who wrote this letter to me when I stapled a copy of his source to his paper:

This letter is in regards to a paper I wrote on energy. Professor, I was very stunned and taken aback after being notified by you, that two lines in my paper should have been quoted from an already printed article. If I was aware that it was already in another article, I assure you, that I would have sited it. I am genuinely in shock and am having the most difficult time believing that lines that I sat and wrote on my own could have already been written up by some else. Ironically, I had not even seen the article, prior to your printing it out for me, and did not even visit the site the article is to be found on. To add to my dismay, my original sentences were, ‘As Congress ponders how the country can steer clear of a power disaster like the one that has affected California, many people consider that only science-fiction can offer a long-term solution–a resolution in which discoveries in hypothetical physics would lead to an innovative energy-producing expertise. The fuel for this technology, as they envision it, would be copiously accessible, secure, economical and uncontaminated.’ After I had revised it, I had changed a few words around and unbeknownst to me, it became the same words as Mr. Travis Norsen’s.[sic]

What gems do you have hiding in your filing cabinet?

Revision Workshop

 On November 30th, Cheryl Smith and I will be giving a revision workshop at the CUNY’s WAC meeting.  The description of the workshop is pasted below.  We were thinking about distributing a bibliography of current research on the subject.  We’re just beginning to put it together and would welcome any suggestions.  

Working with the Draft: Techniques for Helping Students Revise

WAC practitioners traditionally argue that the best way to use writing effectively in our teaching is to scaffold assignments, moving from low stakes (or informal) free-writing and pre-writing to more high stakes drafting and revising of essays.  But once students have completed their first drafts of an essay assignment, how can we use those drafts as a teaching tool?  A teacher’s careful comments can certainly guide students in their revision process, but relying on this single technique may not always help students develop as self-sufficient, powerful, and active writers.  How can we help them understand the most fundamental element of writing-revision-and grow as confident and careful readers of their own and their peers’ work?  The session will take participants through a variety of student-centered draft revision activities that can be used in courses across disciplines. 

Profiles in Silence

Students upon whom we try to impress the importance of clear communication would not have been able to look for an example to the roster of current presidential candidates last night.

The Democrats spend time talking about Bush’s expansive notions of presidential power, the mistakes of the war and the dangers and illegalities of Guantanamo and waterboarding. Republicans tend to stress the importance of stability in Iraq and the necessity of adjusting the legal posture of the US in the face of the threat of terrorism. Most on both sides agree that the Justice Department needs some serious rehaabilitation after Attorney General Gonzales’s politicization of that department and his eager, crass participation in efforts to legalize torture.

All these issues were central to the debate over the confirmation of new A.G. Michael Mukasey. He was confirmed last night by a slim but comfortable margin. But the following Senators/candidates decided not to weigh in officially, and simply did not cast a vote either way: Clinton, McCain, Biden, Obama, Dodd. To me that silence speaks volumes.

Improve Your Writing with these Editing Tips

Some good advice here.