I. GROWING UP. Elizabeth Wong, The Struggle to Be an All American Girl. Gary Soto, The Jacket. Maya Angelou, Graduation. Harry Mark Petrakis, Barba Nikos. Maxine Hong Kingston, Girlhood Among Ghosts. Maria Laurino, Scents. Grace Paley, The Loudest Voice. Lindsy Van Gelder, The Importance of Being Eleven: Carol Gilligan Takes on Adolescence. Vendela Vida, Bikinis and Tiaras: Quinceaneras. Countee Cullen, Incident. II. EDUCATION. Sun Park, Don't Expect Me to Be Perfect. Daniel Meier, One Man's Kids. Sherman Alexie, Indian Education. Mike Rose, I Just Wanna Be Average. Marcus Marby, Living in Two Worlds. Martin Espada, Who Burns for the Perfection of Paper. III. FAMILIES. Dan Savage, Role Reversal. Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels, The Mommy Wars. Jane Howard, Families. Stephanie Coontz, Where Are the Good Old Days? Ruth Breen, Choosing a Mate. Alfred Kazin, The Kitchen. Theodore Roethke, My Papa's Waltz. IV. DEFINING OURSELVESS. Gish Jen, An Ethnic Trump. Robin D.G. Kelly, The People in Me. Roxane Famanfarmaian, The Double Helix. Tony Morrison, A Slow Walk of Trees. Nicolette Toussaint, Hearing the Sweetest Songs. Judith Ortiz Cofer, The Myth of the Latin Woman: I Just Met a Girl Named Maria. Malcolm X, Hair. Nell Bernstein, Goin' Gansta, Choosin' Cholita: Teens Today Claim a Racial Identity. Wendy Rose, Three Thousand Dollar Death Song. V. AMERICAN ENCOUNTERS. Bette Bao Lord, Walking in Lucky Shoes. Michel Guillaume St. Jean de Crevecoeur, What Is an American? Recapture the Flag: 34 Reasons to Love America. Brent Staples, Night Walker. Piri Thomas, Alien Turf. Walter White, I Learn What I Am. Malcolm Gladwell, Black Like Them. Jeannne Wakatsuki Houston and James D. Houston, Arrival at Manzanar. Dwight Okita, In Response to Executive Order 9066: All Americans of Japanese Descent Must Report to Relocation Centers. VI. CHANGING PLACES. Bharati Mukherjee, Two Ways of Belonging in America. Anton Shammas, Amerka, Amerka: A Palestinian Abroad in the Land of the Free. Mark Salzman, Teacher Mark. John David Morley, Living in a Japanese Home. Laura Bohannan, Shakespeare in the Bush. George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant. Jamaica Kincaid, On Seeing England for the First Time. Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal. Gloria Anzaldua, To Live in the Borderlands Means You. VII. HOW WE LIVE. Geraldine Brooks, Unplugged. Pico Iyer, Home Is Every Place. Robert Levine, Tempo, The Speed of Life. Lars Eighner, On Dumpster Diving. Barbara Brandt, Less Is More: A Call for Shorter Work Hours. Michael Pollan, Town-Building Is No Mickey Mouse Operation. Aurora Levins Morales, Class Poem. VIII. COMMUNICATING. Gloria Naylor, The Meaning of a Word. Amy Tan, Mother Tongue. Eva Hoffman, Lost in Translation. Ian Buruma, The Road to Babel. Jack G. Sheehan, The Media's Image of Arabs. Alexis Bloom, Switched on Bhutan. Jasua Gameson, Do Ask, Do Tell. Lisel Mueller, Why We Tell Stories. Credits. Author/Title Index.

Teaching students writing, reading, and thinking across the curriculum requires the acceptance of a premise, relatively simple on its face, but imbued with substantial promise for reinventing the formidable tradition of making writing the central cog of the intellectual machinery that facilitates learning. The premise is that all teachers in all disciplines should be actively involved in students' writing, reading, and thinking and should not function as mere judges and graders of purportedly finished writings. I expect to be encouraged by the administration of my college to require more writing, revision, and rewriting in courses that I teach in the future, and to expand the audiences for written work to include the class, the writing laboratory, professors in collaborative teaching arrangements, and others. The college will be participating in one of the national writing programs, and we must also assist our students in completing the writing requirements of the testing program that is mandated for all institutions in the state system of higher education. Recognizing that writing is a process and a mode for also helps students to read with more understanding of the structure of language. Writing and reading are connected, interactive processes requiring students to cooperate in the act of learning. Our students need instruction and practice for reading in their subjects. Reading assignments need to go beyond the text to include materials that offer balance, put the subject into perspective, and place it in the context of real-world points of reference for our students. Discipline-based reading helps students to acquire the learning and expected characteristic of the field. Reading also adds to the value of the writing within the subject or discipline by defining and illuminating basic practices, procedures, and values of the field. Reading and related writing in chemistry and other scientific areas are also forms of social behavior that we must teach if students are to be successful thinkers and scholars in the discipline. That is not revolutionary, it is merely practical. I invite my colleagues in the hard sciences to join the enterprise and re-

Halpern and Liggett provide a close look at several of the new communication systems, present a model of field research through which one of the new technologies is closely examined, and draw conclusions that lead to specific changes in emphasis in the teaching of They describe instructional units that introduce the new technologies in college writing classes and the results of classroom experiments in which these units were tested. Finally they define additional research questions about the new technologies and timely approaches for answering them. They highlight the role of long-term and short-term memory, show how the choice of a composing medium influences the writing process, and discuss critical differences between speaking and writing.

Preview this article: A Freshman Writing Course in Parallel with a Science Course, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/36/2/collegecompositioncommunication11765-1.gif

Preview this article: Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/36/1/collegecompositioncommunication11779-1.gif

Up until the publication of Alexander Bain's English Composition and Rhetoric in 1866, most American college textbook rhetorics were organized around belletristic discourse classifications; that is, they divided up the subject of writing into established literary forms such as orations, history, romance, treatises, sermons, and the like. Bain's textbook brought about what we now, thanks to Thomas Kuhn, refer to as a paradigm shift, sweeping away these belletristic schemes and substituting five forms-Description, Narration, Exposition, Persuasion, and Poetry-that, with the exception of Poetry, have survived up to the present in Freshman Composition and are known in the trade as the Modes of Discourse. 1 In recent years, however, another paradigm shift has been taking place, and Bain is now often held responsible for the impoverishment of rhetoric in the late nineteenth century.2 Regrettably, in the campaign to undo the damage he did, little attention has been paid to his intellectual milieu or to the question of why he did what he did, with the result that the true historical importance of the modes has been obscured. The most noteworthy feature of Bain's English Composition and Rhetoric-and the reason perhaps for its popularity among his contemporaries-may be its reliance upon the scientific thought of the day. During the previous century in Bain's native Scotland, Adam Smith, George Campbell, Hugh Blair and Joseph Priestley had sought to redefine the basic aims of rhetoric, largely in an effort to accommodate the increasingly prestigious natural sciences. As Wilbur Samuel Howell has argued, the classical rhetorical systems offered little guidance to the scientist in presenting his discoveries to the learned community and to the public at large: they conceived of persuasion as an appeal to commonplaces rather than facts, they depended for methods of proof on the logic of deduction rather than induction, they encouraged the use of ornamental figurative devices rather than plain statements, and in general they were designed for popular exhortation rather than for disseminating fresh knowledge.3 In his Essay concerning Human Understanding (1690), Locke points the way to-

In 1980-1981, a new requirement of a junior course in went into force at the College Park campus of the University of Maryland. The course was created by the University to ensure that future UM graduates would be more literate and more articulate than recent graduates. The staff of the new course chose to meet the University's goal by giving the course a strong technical writing or professional writing emphasis. The course is taught (with English Department supervision) by professors from every division of the University, and by professionals in many fields (from law to veterinary medicine) from the Washington, D.C. area. Students write papers using subject matter from their intended professions, and they are graded on their ability to make that subject matter clear to students (semi-professionals) in other disciplines. This new junior course has led those of us who teach the freshman course to seriously reconsider what we are teaching. Since our course has shifted from independent to sequential status, we naturally feel some anxiety about possible new restrictions, but we also see the change as an opportunity to think through, more systematically, some crucial issues-what to teach, where to begin and end, and what theories should be guiding our discussion and analysis. We have decided that setting limits on content in the freshman course on the grounds that what we teach might be repeated in the later course would be counter-productive. Students, especially at the college level, should be tested, prodded, and stretched to their limits. Moreover, we-and the students-ought to be able to see a second course not as repetition, but as welcome practice. William Irmscher has reminded us (in Teaching Expository Writing) that better is largely a matter of better-educated intuition, and that better-educated intuition comes from repeated practice in reading and writing. We all know studies like the Dartmouth study reported by Albert Kitzhaber in Themes, Theories, and Therapy (p. 109), which show that

Preview this article: Freshman Composition-Junior Composition: Does Co-ordination Mean Sub-ordination?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/35/2/collegecompositionandcommunication14884-1.gif

Preview this article: Learn & Shop: Teaching Composition in Shopping Centers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/33/3/collegecompositionandcommunication15841-1.gif

Preview this article: Freshman English Ten Years After: Writing in the World, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/33/3/collegecompositionandcommunication15843-1.gif

Preview this article: Applications of the Wilkinson Model of Writing Maturity to College Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/33/2/collegecompositionandcommunication15856-1.gif

Preface 1. THE CONTEXTS OF TEACHING PERSPECTIVES Richard Fulkerson: Four Philosophies of Composition James Berlin: Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class Edward P.J. Corbett: Rhetoric, the Enabling Discipline Min-Zhan Lu and Bruce Horner: The Problematic of Experience: Redefining Critical Work in Ethnography and Pedagogy TEACHERS Peter Elbow: Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process Donald M. Murray: The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference Lad Tobin: Reading Students, Reading Ourselves: Revising the Teacher's Role in the Writing Class Dan Morgan: Ethical Issues Raised by Students' Personal Writing STUDENTS Mina P. Shaughnessy: Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing Vivian Zamel: Strangers in Academia: The Experiences of Faculty and ESL Students Across the Curriculum Todd Taylor: The Persistence of Difference in Networked Classrooms: Non-Negotiable Difference and the African American Student Body LOCATIONS Hephzibah Roskelly: The Risky Business of Group Work Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe: The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class Muriel Harris: Talking in the Middle: Why Writers Need Writing Tutors APPROACHES Min-Zhan Lu: Redefining the Legacy of Mina Shaughnessy: A Critique of the Politics of Linguistic Innocence Mariolina Salvatori: Conversations with Texts: Reading in the Teaching of Composition Gary Tate: A Place for Literature in Freshman Composition Carolyn Matalene: Experience as Evidence: Teaching Students to Write Honestly and Knowledgeably about Public Issues 2. THE TEACHING OF WRITING ASSIGNING Mike Rose: Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal David Peck, Elizabeth Hoffman, and Mike Rose: A Comment and Response on Remedial Writing Courses Richard L. Larson: The Research Paper in the Writing Course: A Non-Form of Writing Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor: Teaching Argument: A Theory of Types Catherine E. Lamb: Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition RESPONDING AND ASSESSING Brooke K. Horvath: The Components of Written Response: A Practical Synthesis of Current Views David Bartholomae: The Study of Error Jerry Farber: Learning How to Teach: A Progress Report COMPOSING AND REVISING Nancy Sommers: Between the Drafts James A. Reither: Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Process David Bleich: Collaboration and the Pedagogy of Disclosure AUDIENCES Douglas B. Park: The Meanings of Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford: Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy Peter Elbow: Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience STYLES Robert J. Connors: Static Abstractions and Composition Winston Weathers: Teaching Style: A Possible Anatomy Elizabeth D. Rankin: Revitalizing Style: Toward a New Theory and Pedagogy Richard Ohmann: Use Definite, Specific, Concrete Language

Sidney Greenbaum, John Taylor, The Recognition of Usage Errors by Instructors of Freshman Composition, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 32, No. 2, Language Studies and Composing (May, 1981), pp. 169-174

In a now-famous critique, Richard Ohmann took composition textbook authors to task for envisioning student writing ahistorically and for administering rather than liberating the composing process (Freshman Composition and Administered Thought, in English in America [New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1976], pp. 133-171). A few years earlier, Richard Lanham had gleefully ripped into the condescension and vague precepts in the writing texts that lined his shelf (Style: An Anti-Textbook [New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1974]).1 Their criticism implied that better textbooks could be written. But I have come to believe that even if ahistoricity, coddling, and fingerwagging disappeared from composition texts, they would still be an ineffective way to teach writing. They are, by nature, static and insular approaches to a dynamic and highly context-oriented process, and thus are doomed to the realm of the Moderately Useful. Let me explain further by tracing the steps that led me to my conclusion.

That the English language is male-oriented can scarcely be denied. For centuries the human race has been called man, the individual he, everyone himself-with the constant reassurance that of course man, he, his, him, and himself are generic terms which include women as well as men. But do they? Although the sentence Every student should bring his book to class does not necessarily evoke mental picture of thirty uniformed boys, I believe that such sentences subtly reinforce the sex role stereotype that most students (writers, readers, professors, doctors, executives, individuals-persons worthy of note) are male. Such linguistic bias should be of particular concern to teachers of composition, whose job it is to emphasize the subtle rhetorical powers of language, the connotative complexities of the words we use. main concern in this paper is the way sexist language manifests itself in the college classroom, particularly in freshman composition courses. In 1976 H. Lee Gershuny conducted detailed investigation of dictionaries and textbooks to determine the extent to which they reinforce sexual stereotypes. Gershuny concluded that although sexist language was common in dictionaries and public school textbooks, it was not as prevalent in recent college composition manuals: My own informal examination of representative sample of college English handbooks and rhetoric texts published after 1972 indicated that English language texts are far ahead of other disciplines in 'de-sexing' illustrative sentences and prose passages.' Yet while praising number of these texts for specific achievements in reducing or eliminating sexist offenses, Gershuny also asserts that have way to go. Many texts fail to depict women in traditionally male roles and professions, and when they do, Gershuny suggests, a woman's work is often trivialized or described as dependent on that of others (p. 157). Also, Gershuny mentions only one work, Suzanne E. and Roderick A. Jacobs' The College Writer's Handbook, as alternating she and he each time in generic use; presumably most of the rely upon the more conventional generic he. In similar study, Candace Helgeson refuses to give authors of freshman composition texts as

Preview this article: Speech-Act and Text-Act Theory: "Theme-Ing" in Freshman Composition, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/30/2/collegecompositionandcommunication16242-1.gif

Preview this article: The English Grapholect and the Introductory Composition Class, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/30/2/collegecompositionandcommunication16233-1.gif

Preview this article: Departmental Standards in Freshman Composition, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/3/collegecompositionandcommunication16309-1.gif

Preview this article: Sentence-Combining and Syntactic Maturity in Freshman English, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/1/collegecompositionandcommunication16336-1.gif

LOGICAL THINKING in freshman composition continues to be an essential need, but the increasing emphasis in many composition programs on reading skills and expository writing has led to the sacrifice of essentials in logic. Admittedly, composition teachers, untrained or little acquainted with formal logic or even the informal fallacies, feel ill-equipped to present these effectively; many feel better equipped to teach exposition than the argumentative essay. But few if any will argue about the need for logical thinking. The question is not whether to teach logical thinking and the argumentative essay but rather how these can be taught successfully to students of varying backgrounds and reading ability. My concern in this essay is with some essentials in logic. My experience at an open-enrollment urban university has been that some but not all matters of logic can be taught, and certainly not as fully as the student will be taught them in the Philosophy Department. The complex forms of deductive reasoning are best reserved for the course in formal logic. However, the elements of deductive and inductive logic can be presented simply and effectively to all students, in the context of rhetorical ideas-specifically audience, purpose, modes of persuasion. More than this, certain matters of rhetoric can be introduced effectively through logical thinking, which offers a better way to distinguish main from subordinate ideas than the usual breakdown from main to subordinate topics and headings associated with the familiar sentence outline.

Preview this article: A Campus View of College Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/28/4/collegecompositionandcommunication16357-1.gif

Preview this article: Placement Procedures for Freshman Composition: A Survey, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/28/2/collegecompositioncommunication16386-1.gif

signed to teach composition, but few are trained to do it. Composition involves things like grammar, rhetoric, and logic, but often composition teachers have not formally studied those things. People applying for positions in composition programs sometimes submit transcripts listing English courses only in literature and literary criticism. If they are hired, they probably are very much at home, since often the people already teaching in those programs have similar backgrounds. Someone who has earned a degree in one of the programs created recently to train college English teachers, rather than to give traditional advanced degrees, is probably somewhat different. Those programs give some attention to composition teaching but often less than you might guess. Recently, there has been some resistance to the apparent excess of literature courses in the preparation of people who become composition teachers. Consequently, a real conflict between Lit and Comp has developed within the discipline of English. Because advocates of traditional literary training for all English teachers have long had command of the English profession, those in the relatively new resistance movement have had trouble

Preview this article: Freshman Composition: The Right Texts but the Wrong Students Walk in the Door, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/27/4/collegecompositionandcommunication16547-1.gif

Preview this article: The Sense of Nonsense: An Approach to Freshman Composition, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/27/3/collegecompositionandcommunication16572-1.gif

Preview this article: Clichés, Trite Sayings, Dead Metaphors, and Stale Figures of Speech in Composition Instruction*, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/27/3/collegecompositionandcommunication16573-1.gif

Preview this article: Doin' Time in Freshman English, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/26/4/collegecompositionandcommunication17089-1.gif