HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:46:23 CST
From:         Eric Crump <C509379@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: apology for conferencing

On Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:12:12 -0700 David E. Schwalm said:
>Not really a trick question, Eric. I have some concerns about the transfer
>from speaking to writing. The speaker/listener dynamic is much different from
>the writer/reader dynamic. That is, speaker and listerner share a context, and
>this sharing takes a great communicative burden off of the speaker. Often when
>we claim that a student has successfully *said* something that he/she had not
>successfully *written*, what has actually happned is that the listener has
>supplied more of the meaning than a reader can. The speaker has not really
>achieved more linguistic accuracy or completeness.

Ah yes. A common exclamation heard in writing centers is: "That
sounds great! WRITE THAT DOWN!"
^^^^^^
Talk is ephemeral. As Ong notes, sound "exists only when it is
going out of existence." Encouraging students to sprinkle
writing throughout the conversation helps capture some of
those expressions in some approximate form so we can *look*
at the words in the context the reader will see them in.

It's primitive, though. I agree:

>Thus, I really like
>the idea of computer conferencing where we can write about writing.

and the key here is that we'll be writing about writing *in
conversation.* The idea JohnS & Karen have mentioned looks to
me like a way to give more people access to the kind of
conversations we have here.

I sort of think online writing environments will make freshman
comp and writing centers (the kind nestled within four white-washed
cinderblock walls) obsolescent.

--Eric Crump
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:27:00 EST
From:         Joel Nydahl <NYDAHL@BABSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: WIOLE

Eric -- I'm willing to make the mistake of appearing interested.  Please
send a copy of "Online Writing Center"!

Joel Nydahl
Arts and Humanities Division
Babson College
Wellesley, MA 01257
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:42:56 -0700
From:         "David E. Schwalm" <IACDES@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Standardizing sections of composition

"We do not enlarge people by confining them." Now there's a proposition that
deserves serious discussion. Whether or not we agree with that statement
underlies quite a few of the disagreements in recent discussions. I think we
do enlarge people by confining them. But this discussion can wait while everyon
e has a great holiday of choice and a happy new year.  Peace!
Dave S.

-- David E. Schwalm, Assoc. Provost for Academic Programs
___Arizona State University West
___4701 West Thunderbird Rd.
___Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100___(602) 543-4500
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3_uno PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:11:58 CST
From:         Irvin Peckham <peckham@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Standard English

>
> Irv, I have a bit of a problem with the multiple genre syllabus. I'm not sure
> how much a student learns about a prose genre by having one go at it. The
> conventions of all the different types of papers you mentioned are
> complicated, not often spelled out very clearly. One of the things we have to
> do in our syllabi, in my view, is make choices. We can't do all kinds of
> writing.
>
> -- David E. Schwalm, Assoc. Provost for Academic Programs
I am concerned about this, too, David.  We pick three per semester
(some do four in the second) out of possible dozens, maybe hundreds.
This is a compromise.  We could do one genre for the semester.  I
would then worry that students would conclude all writing is in
that genre.  One or my goals is to teach students that there are
different genres (or I should say conceptions of genres) and that
these genres demand different rhetorical strategies.  This seems
a reasonable objective of writing instruction.  I try to arrange
the genres on a sensible continuum so that students can see how
one genre fades into another.
Irv
--
Irvin Peckham
University of Nebraska at Omaha
peckham@unomaha.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: ENGMYLES
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:39:11 -0500
From:         ENGMYLES@UBVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Standard English

David:  I would guess there is no such thing as an _un_structured context;
the question is how we structure it, if we can structure it at all.
Myles
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:50:00 CST
From:         SLATIN@UTXVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: High school/college comp cou

Myles, as far as I know there's never been any kind of official or even
unofficial meeting between UT's ENglish Dept and thos e of the Austin high
schools. Last semester I installed Daedalus software at one local high school
and did some teacher training sessions there, something I'll continue doing
this coming semester, but so far that's been a solo act though I've roped a
grad student into coming along in the hope that he'll get some dissertation
material out of it while the school gets some steady if informal support.

This may be something the new Rhetoric Division can pursue.

John Slatin
UT Austin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: ENGMYLES
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:34:53 -0500
From:         ENGMYLES@UBVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Standard English

I haven't taught comp for about 15 years; I am awed by all the theoretical
information I don't have, and by the fact that the courses sound pretty much
the same as they used to before we knew there was theory.

A word to Marcy Bauman:  maybe you could try having the kids teach writing to
each other, i.e., let them write about writing, their own, each other's, and
what they need it for, on campus and off.  Set what they write up on overheads
and let them revise it for each other in public.  Let th;em define the contexts
in which they write and judge and write about what happens.

Give them Barthes as a writing model and turn the;m loose.  Let them play.

I'm glad I don't have to take my own advice.
Myles
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:18:00 EST
From:         MLB14@PSUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: WIOLE

Eric,

    I'd like a copy, too.

Marcy Bauman
Penn State-Erie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:11:00 EST
From:         BURT@BRANDEIS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Standardizing sections of composition

David: Exactly. If I had a large program, I would run it as you do,
and I don't see any way other around the problem you describe. (I hope
you don't think that I intended my post as in any way a criticism of
your program--I certainly didn't mean it that way.) Even I never gave
my staff a totally free hand, and I had a small enough staff that I
could pay some attention to them (not enough, however).
John B

Merry Christmas to all on MBU!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: SCHWALM
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:29:20 -0700
From:         Karen Schwalm <SCHWALM@GC.BITNET>
Subject:      Access and Fees (one more time)

Ah, John, you approach once again the sinkhole known as computer use fees!
A true MUDdy spot!  At Glendale, we charge $2 per student per semester for
general access to the Electronic Forum.  If a student is in several classes
that require Electronic Journals, he or she pays that fee for each class.
If a student is enrolled in no other class at our campus, he or she also has
to pay the $5 matriculation fee.  Not bad, considering that this semester
that fee will include the ability to send Internet mail.

A few departments have worked "special" deals.  The Biology department, which
uses a variety of software, charges a $7 computer use fee, and then any faculty
member wanting to use EF can, and the students pay no additional fee.  The Math
department negotiated a universal fee levied on all students in Math courses
($2) for which they get access to a host of Math software AND the Electronic
Forum.  We loaded all those students into the Electronic Forum, but few of
those students know they have access.  In the English Department, those of
us who teach "computerized" sections also have a fee added to our classes
for wordprocessing ($7 for Textra; $15 for Macs/Word per semester.)

In my discussions about fees with policy-makers here, I have identified
three methods for determing fees.  First, you figure your costs and divide
by the number of users.  Second, you figure how much money you want to
generate and divide by the number of users.  Third, you figure how many
users you can support and set the fees to produce that number.  I can't
think of any other way to set fees, but no one likes these choices.  GCC
does a combination of the second and the third, I think.  No one has really
been able to tell me how they came up with the $2 fee, although an
elaborate spreadsheet made it appear to be rational.

I fought against ANY fee when it was instituted several years ago, but
ironically it has done the opposite of what I feared.  It has given
ownership to the students, producing very demanding users!  And it has
turned out to be a stumbling block for faculty, especially part-time
faculty, who want to use conferencing in their classes.  Even though it's
a small fee, it is a big decision.  Strange!

I imagine because we have so many devoted users that the EF fee will become
a target soon.  We're already generating between $12,000-14,000 a semester.
I haven't the slightest idea where that money goes...they keep telling me
"for toner."  Strange, as students don't print much from EF!


--Karen T. Schwalm              Department of English
--Glendale Community College    Maricopa Community College District
--6000 West Olive Avenue        Voice: (602) 435-3651  Bitnet: schwalm@gc
--Glendale, Arizona  85302      Internet: schwalm@gc.maricopa.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3_uno PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:32:22 CST
From:         Irvin Peckham <peckham@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: our teachers, our students
              92 3:01 pm

Liz:
The WPA situation you described did not sound attractive.
I can see how the situation can get to be quite messy,
and I will file away your post as a warning.
Irv
--
Irvin Peckham
University of Nebraska at Omaha
peckham@unomaha.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:23:52 CST
From:         Eric Crump <C509379@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Standardizing Composition Classes

On Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:24:41 -0700 David E. Schwalm said:
>relates to the discussion of "standardizing" comp courses--most new
>instructorsleft to do what comes "naturally" would proceed to lecture about
>writing. They are as socialized to the classroom as their students are.)
>
Good point, David. And your arguments for some rigidity in the structure
of the standard syllabus take me back to my first teaching experience. I
was not cut out to be a lecturer, but didn't have a clear idea of how
to teach any other way (I *had* an idea, thanks to a particularly good
writing teacher I met along the way, it just wasn't very clear), so I
was mighty relieved to see that our comp program came complete, batteries
and syllabus included.
Yes, for the first few weeks of the first semester, I clung to
that syllabus like it was a new lover. But the sparkle rather
quickly went out of our relationship. We started bickering. At
the end of the first year, we broke up (and I haven't been back
in a comp classroom except as a guest since).

The problem, I think, is that the training program here was *too
good* in some ways to be compatible with a strong standard syllabus--
supportive and collaborative, often giving even inexperienced
teachers enough confidence and knowledge to *want* to begin the
endless process of revising their approaches to and methods of
teaching. Experienced graduate teachers serve as mentors, new GTAs
are assigned to groups for the first year, and all are required to
take a theory & practice course the first semester. It's like giving
someone the keys to the Lamborghini and telling them not to take it
out of the driveway.

Actually, since I was a new GTA, the more and more flexibility has
been built into the syllabus, giving teachers a common structure
in which to work, but offering them a number of choices along the
way. There's enough guidance for the inexperienced and insecure and
enough slack to let the adventurous roam (a little).

This seems like a good trend to me. The peer mentors, groups, and
theory course are better ways to help new folks become good teachers
than a cinderblock syllabus, and in fact they can help reduce the
need for as much rigidity. I'm convinced by your arguments for a
standard syllabus, David. Like I said, I'd have been one lost puppy
without something of that sort. But like Myles said, the question
is not really whether a program ought to have structure but what
*kind* of structure. Couldn't administrative interests in consistency
be met without requiring uniformity? I don't think flexibility
necessarily results in more chaos than you want.

--Eric Crump
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:41:00 EST
From:         MLB14@PSUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Standardizing Composition Classes

But Sharon, if I saw evidence in my classes evry day that students didn't
know enough Chemistry to be able to do English competently, then I'd
certainly complain long and loud.  And the folks in Chemistry have to be
very aware of what the folks in Math are doing--the folks in Chemistry, in
fact, have to plan their curriculum and course offerings (and scheduling,
too, on smaller campuses) around or with the folks in Math (and Physics and
Biology).

My point here is that what we do is central to the college curriculum;
students are expected to learn by reading and writing.  Yet, we have no
communication and collaboration with other departments that comes close to
rivalling what exists in the sciences.  And I never hear Math department
chairs complaining that they are nothing more than a service course to the
University.  Why can't we--and everyone else--acknowledge that what we do IS
a vital service, and start figuring out how we can all coordinate our
efforts?  A physics prof would never assign problems requiring Calculus if
the students couldn't have taken Calculus prior to that class; why don't
Poli.  Sci.  profs refrain from assigning research papers until their
students are beyond the English course that purports to teach them how to do
research?

Maybe we should listen to the squeaky wheels.  At least they have enough
interest and energy to gripe.

Marcy Bauman Penn State-Erie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:00:34 EST
From:         "David Tillyer, CCNY" <DATCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: WIOLE

The idea of a big grant that could have several test sites is very
attractive.  It would need provisions for training for teachers (paid
training for adjuncts), technicians (work study is fine), and if hardware
is included, so would maintenance.      nt i    nance

We'd have to define our audience, our goals, all that hot stuff.  Yeah,
I'm game to talk about it.  David Tillyer, CCNY.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: ENGMYLES
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 10:15:23 -0500
From:         ENGMYLES@UBVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Standardizing sections of composition

"I don't see any way other around the problem you describe" --  reaction
to David Schwalm.
Precisely the problem: we can only envision/formulate the problem of
teaching writing to large numbers of students (sometimes called people)
by adopting the factory method of production and standardization of product.
Now we are back to Henry Taylor and the new software I saw enthusiastically
praised by this morning's Wall STreet Journal (why do they like to be called
Wall Street, do you suppose?), ManagePro.
The trick is to release energies, to enlarge the individuality of our studeents
(sometimes called people) and that of the people who teach them; we do not
enlarge people by confining them.
Some TAs, poor souls, would rather teach literature; I suppose that is outside
the boundaries of our genres?  Literature is not about writing?  Writing even
a memo is not committing the sin of literature?
How do you set up the boundaries of our boxes (tacky little boxes we sang in
the 60s, those of us that could sing) to free people whose skills have been
confined in boxes since kindergarten, in the interests of comparability,
standardization, so we can all do the same kinds of equations in our heads
as we stuff plastic peanuts into cartons when we graduate.

There is something we must do that is important than teaching "correctness"
or writing technical reports.  I do not hear enough about that.

Goodwill toward men and women, I wish, and freedom of spirit.  And a happy
new year from my box to yours.
Myles
From: msyverson@UCSD.EDU ((Peg Syverson))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Subject: Sorry for the delay, Roni
Date: 3 Jan 93 17:47:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Sender: msyverso@ucsd.edu

My son finally transferred his Inca project onto a disk (he's been sick
with the flu) and we're sending it out tomorrow.  If for any reason you
find you can't run it, he'll be happy to advise.  He's included a "read me"
document that explains what's needed, so you should have no problems.  I
could see that color had become mandatory for him, so I upgraded him to a
Mac Si for Christmas, and he's pretty much glued to the machine permanently
now.  He's working in SuperCard with QuickTime, but I don't know what his
current project is.  He said to tell you you can also run his program in
WordPerfect (the most recent version) but I don't know how the pages will
look, or if it supports sound, so MS Word is still probably preferred.
Can't wait to see your dissertation!
Best regards,
Peg Syverson, msyverso@ucsd.edu
Dimensions of Culture, 0525, UCSD, La Jolla, CA 92093
(619) 558-1514
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:55:12 CST
From:         Eric Crump <C509379@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Standardizing Composition Cl

On Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:32:50 EST David Tillyer, CCNY said:
>John Slatin talks about getting Deans to make the jump from their personal
>use of Email to use of Email with writing students.  Would that we could
>do that.  I don't think we have more than two department heads on Email,
>outside of the sciences, let alone Deans!

David: In her discussion of shifting distribution of work functions,
Zuboff mentions the tendancy of executives to prefer oral communication
over written forms, which were rationalizable and thus were carved
out and relegated to middle-management or clerical staff. I probably
can't do justice to her explanation (somebody bail me out, here) but
it has to do with the "bodily presence" of oral and non-verbal
communication and the fact that for execs, that presence was
helpful in motivating and winning the trust of others, was thought
to be part of being a good leader, I guess.

Inasmuch as deans are academic execs, the same sort of thing applies.

There was a discussion about this on IPCT-L a couple of months ago,
and as I recall, several people observed that most deans don't do
e-mail because they see it as mere correspondence, which is clerical
(read: women's) work and is therefore an activity unbecoming an
important personage. Probably something to that.

--Eric Crump
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3_uno PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:33:42 CST
From:         Irvin Peckham <peckham@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tootering: just say no

> Well, Irv, that depends on the writer and the writing assistant, don't
> it? I'm afraid your assumptions about "the tutorial" may be as over-
> generalized as the sometimes overgeneralized assumptions made about
> students. Tutorials >can< foster dependancy, of course, but in an
> ideal world (I WAS talking fantasy, so you have to grant me a bit of
> utopianism) they only foster dependency on colleagues, which is a
> dependency not many of us are likely to outgrow. I like small group
> work pretty well, too, but one-to-one situations need not include the
> same differences in authority and power that seem to permeate
> traditional teacher-student relationships.
The above was from Eric.

Well, Eric, I think a wrote a later brief posting to Marcy refining
and contradicting myself a bit later.  Maybe my later statement
was more tolerable.
Irv

--
Irvin Peckham
University of Nebraska at Omaha
peckham@unomaha.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:46:25 -0700
From:         CROWLEY@NAUVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Standardizing Composition Classes

Dear John: (I like writing that phrase!)  I don't see that you've made an
argument FOR the universal requirement.  So the folks in Chemistry and
Bidness think that FE entails instruction in mechanics.  You can educate them,
if you want, at terrific time and expense to you and your self-esteem.  You
can't ignore them, obviously.  But why let their mistaken notions about
writing drive the huge industry that is FE?  The cost comes out of the hides
of WPAs, TAs, and part-timers in English, not to mention the thousands of
students who have to sit through those drills every semester.  If English
departments were to say:  we know how to teach writing, and we'll do it on
the same basis that all the rest of you guys do, by offering the best damn
writing courses around that students will enjoy and profit from and will
rush to take.  If you want Chemistry students drilled in usage and spelling,
you do it.  What would happen?  You folks there in Texas know how proprietary
everybody feels toward the FE course.  Certainly the English department doesn't
own it, in everyone else's eyes.  Why is that?   I bet you don't feel you
have any bidness dictating to Chemistry what their first-year course is.
How come they get to tell you what to do in your first-year course?  Grinch
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU