Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!dykimber From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Writing and eng'ing ed Message-ID: <5837@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 26 Jan 89 22:55:20 GMT References: <412@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> <5823@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <416@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) Distribution: na Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 93 In article <416@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> hunt@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Francie Hunt) writes: >But, if you have good communication skills, why should you feel >insulted by this? I'm not taking issue with the statement. I agree, there's no reason to feel insulted by the statement that communications skills are important. But there IS reason to feel insulted by someone's telling you that communications skills are important. The implication is that you don't already know that, and that you don't have good communications skills. This implication may not be intended, may not be explicit, and may even be very feeble. But it's present, and it's going to be taken as insulting, especially when the statement is delivered militantly (again, as the original poster (Drongowski) has verified, his style isn't really well described as militant). How would you feel if a colleague walked up to you and "informed" you that, in case you didn't realize it already, you can't take as literal truth everything you read in the newspaper? >> The other thing that irks me about heavy-handedness in teachers is >>that very often they are wrong. Not necessarily any more often than >>more personable teachers, but compare "you should probably do it this way, >>since it's more convenient for me to read" with "IN COLLEGE, YOU WOULD >>INSTANTLY BE FAILED FOR THIS, SO I'M FAILING YOU FOR YOUR OWN GOOD." In >>the former case, no harm done. In the latter, someone's academic record >>is scarred, they're week is ruined, and they've been educationally > -^^^^^- > their (they're = they are) Oh, hey, a little typo. See, this is exactly it. Everyone's going to be insulted by being told something they already know. Like me, for instance. I know that's a typo. I know how the sentence originally read. And I know that if I read it somewhere, I'd be more willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, rather than risk responding with something that's technically correct, perfectly defensible, but ultimately both insulting and non-productive. >The problem with a lot of students is that if you don't say it MUST be done >a certain way, they complain if any points are taken off for style >since you didn't specify the exact format. So? You'll get the complaints either way. Would you feel better failing students for not having their staple alignment correct, or failing them for turning in their paper in magic marker? I hope the latter. Both cases are exaggerated to make it obvious, but I'd think it would feel better from a teacher's point of view to take off for something the student did wrong, than to take off for something the teacher did wrong. >> I don't mean this to be insulting, and obviously this isn't the same >>thing - telling student they should learn how to write well is a fairly >>harmless recommendation, and a good idea in any case. But WWIII strategies >>may do more harm than good. > >A harmless recommendation? How about a necessary requirement to success! Telling students that they should learn how to write is a necessary requirement for success? Maybe writing ability is a necessary requirement for success (in an idealistic sense), but you're seemingly presuming that no one can learn to write well without being told that it's important. I'm sure there are plenty of counterexamples to this - writers, teachers, engineers, and whoever else - who have never been given the "writing is important" speech but who nevertheless write well. >>The upshot of all this being that I think the World War III style >>is in general a lousy way to teach... >>p.p.s. i didn't intend this as a flame against the orginal poster, since >> for all i know he has a good relationship with his students. >Prof Drongowski is widely regarded by our students as one of the best >d*mn teachers in our school. The problem with net.communication is >that you only see the words, you don't get a glimpse of the personality >behind them. I'm sure. I only meant to use his message as a starting point. I didn't mean to draw any conclusions about his teaching style. He seems not to have taken offense. >By the way, I teach the design methodology course he mentioned. I >have a different style, but I also give my students a "This is your >life" speech early in the semester to impress on them the importance of >commitment to working on their projects in the class. If this is their >chosen field, by golly, they should put their all into it, and not try >to slide by with the minimum amount of work. Okay, since this is a recurring theme, let me hit on it one more time. I do not dispute the value of writing ability, pride in one's work, etc. And I'm not saying a "this is your life" speech is necessarily counterproductive. But I don't think that there's any good reason to believe that the way to impress upon students that writing is important is a heavy-handed speech. Again, I don't mean this as a comment either on your or on Professor Drongowski's teaching style. But I think that heavy-handedness and in general the assume-the-worst approach is going to alienate a lot of people, in teaching and in posting to the net. -Dan