ERWIN R. STEINBERG

23 articles
  1. Planning graduate programs in rhetoric in departments of English
    Abstract

    (2000). Planning graduate programs in rhetoric in departments of English. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 390-402.

    doi:10.1080/07350190009359270
  2. Are Our Courses Working?
    Abstract

    This article describes an assessment carried out in collaboration with the administrators of a large freshman English course. The assessment team worked with instructors to identify course goals and to design tasks that the instructors felt would fairly assess the extent to which the students achieved the goals. Students who did and did not take the course were both pre- and posttested on five central goals: critical reading, argument identification, differentiation of summary and paraphrase, understanding of key terms used in the course, and practical strategies for writing academic papers. Results of the assessment failed to indicate any substantial improvement on any of the five course goals for students who took the course. These results contrasted with positive outcomes obtained by the same assessment team with introductory history and statistics courses. The article concludes with reflections on why instructors may fail to recognize that their courses are not working.

    doi:10.1177/0741088399016001002
  3. Imaginative Literature in Composition Classrooms?
    doi:10.2307/378677
  4. A Comment on "Control in Writing: Flower, Derrida, and Images of the Writer"
    doi:10.2307/377416
  5. Economies of Expression: Some Hypotheses
    doi:10.2307/357699
  6. Erwin R. Steinberg Responds
    doi:10.2307/378126
  7. Protocols, Retrospective Reports, and the Stream of Consciousness
    Abstract

    Preview this article: Protocols, Retrospective Reports, and the Stream of Consciousness, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/48/7/collegeenglish11580-1.gif

    doi:10.58680/ce198611580
  8. A Pox on Pithy Prescriptions
    doi:10.2307/357388
  9. The Unattended Anaphoric “This”
    Abstract

    Experts on style agree that writers frequently have trouble using the unattended anaphoric this clearly. Few, however, have proposed explicit guidelines for sorting appropriate from inappropriate uses. This article examines the limitations of a recent classification proposed by Moskovit (1983), and then suggests an alternate classification relying on concepts from functional grammar. In particular, Moskovit's distinction between demarcational, syntactic, and semantic reference is found not to predict actual readers' judgments. In its place, the authors suggest a classification based on the functional notions of topic and focus. The unattended this is shown to be English's economical routine for moving the focus of a discourse from nominal topics to clausal predications relating those topics. Before deciding to employ this routine, however, writers are warned to evaluate its consequences on clarity and rhetoric.

    doi:10.1177/0741088385002002002
  10. Response to Leonard Moskovit, "When Is Broad Reference Clear?"
    doi:10.2307/357801
  11. Cognitive Processes in Writing
    doi:10.2307/358120
  12. Applied Humanities?
    doi:10.2307/375571
  13. K. of The Castle: Ostensible Land-Surveyor
    doi:10.58680/ce196523646
  14. Tactics and Logistics in Research in the Teaching of English
    doi:10.58680/ce196524059
  15. A Kafka Primer
    doi:10.2307/373295
  16. Departmental Memo: Needed Research in the Teaching of College English
    doi:10.58680/ce196228151
  17. Personal Integrity
    doi:10.2307/354219
  18. Communication in Business and Industry
    doi:10.2307/355182
  19. Articulation: A Sermon
    doi:10.2307/372658
  20. Information and Techniques from Other Disciplines: Introductory Remarks1
    doi:10.58680/ccc195622620
  21. Introductory Remarks
    doi:10.2307/354247
  22. Communication as Problem-Solving
    doi:10.58680/ccc195522646
  23. Some Basic Assumptions for Courses in English Composition
    doi:10.58680/ccc195123235