[Englecturers] Post on Literacy

[englecturers at lists.ucr.edu]

    Thanks to Ben's response, I now know that the New York Times article I 
circulated went out anonymously -- as was not my intention.  I strongly 
agree with Ben that all posts should bear markers from their senders.  From 
now on I will simply preface all forwarded articles with my name.

     I also agree with the gist and most of the details of Ben's post.  The 
main point I think we should consider is that "on demand" writing is 
arguably one of the most important kinds of writing we should be teaching, 
and that not enough of that type of writing is being done.  I think many 
people in the university and beyond would be willing to testify that a good 
deal of their writing -- probably most -- is "on demand," including 
high-pressure reports, grant proposals, letters, most memos, and so on.  By 
their nature, such assignments tend to have inconveniently early deadlines, 
if anyone has the leisure to set a deadline.  Engineers spend half their 
time writing.  I doubt that the process is typically paced to the 
convenience of the writers, or that they routinely have the time to let 
drafts sit for revision after the weekend.  If such assignments require 
collaboration and rewriting as a result of consultation, most students, let 
alone folks in the wider world, know that the deadline has a way of 
routinely becoming more urgent than is convenient.  In such circumstances, 
revision is often extensive and, given the chronic shortage of time, 
amounts to writing on demand.

      If I am wrong in my assumption about the  amount of on-demand writing 
being assigned for significant part of the grade in humanities courses (in 
composition and beyond) -- an assumption that partly derives from the 
survey I sent out a few weeks ago -- I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

     Again, I don't think that the lack of instruction and practice in 
on-demand writing is unique to the composition program.  One need only give 
a final exam each quarter to notice that most of the other classrooms in 
the building are often empty.  If I am not mistaken, we seem to be in an 
interesting phase of higher education in which we are increasingly 
reluctant, as instructors in the humanities, to give exams and other kinds 
of timed writings that carry significant weight.  But are we doing our 
students justice if we are not, like good track coaches, sending them out 
to a meet on a regular basis?
To change the metaphor slightly, shouldn't we requiring our students to 
swim on their own across the pool in "real time"?

      I am distrustful of a principle (i.e., that writing tests are unfair 
and so at best should be accidental contributors to the final course grade) 
that dovetails too nicely with my convenience.  Why so we not all routinely 
hold a final exam when the faculty handbook continues to specify we do such 
things -- in the eleventh week?  What is a take-home but another 
paper?  (Again, I'm hoping to be proven wrong -- to be convinced, for 
example, that take-homes can better than a conventional final because they 
are better examples of writing on demand.)  Let us not adopt a principle 
that assures high-mindedness while encouraging  laziness.  Without claiming 
that anyone else is lazy, I am merely observing that my own love of freedom 
and ease, which emerges with powerful claims on my imagination in the 
eleventh week, can hardly withstand such a principle unless at the 
beginning of the quarter -- every quarter -- I resolve to assign such kinds 
of writing.  If enough of us assign significant on-demand writing, 
including final exams in the eleventh week, perhaps we can have a good 
effect on an unfortunate trend.

John Briggs

       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/englecturers/attachments/20050523/4c7f540a/attachment.html