turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)
----- Cross-posted to sci.edu and misc.edu. ----- In article <cRFNT2w161w@nstar.UUCP> freewill@nstar.UUCP (Bill Williston) writes: > aren't writing skills and word processing synonymous in 1990? No. No. No. Not the slightest bit. One of the world's most preeminent computer scientists, who holds an endowed chair in the Computer Sciences department here at the University of Texas, does all of his writing with pen and paper. In this, he is not alone in the department. I mention him in particular because of his iconoclastic views on word processors. He thinks they are evil. He thinks they cause writers to focus on form rather than substance. He thinks people write better with pen and paper. I think he is wrong. If one were to look at the published writings of the various professors in this department, I doubt one could tell which authors write with pen and paper, which dictate and then revise with pen, and which write with word processors. But you can tell who writes well and who writes only competently. This is my point: writing skills and media skills are quite different. Given a college freshman who writes as well as Edsger Disjkstra, but who has never seen a typewriter or computer, we can send that student to an informal or vocational class, and within a semester that student will be able to type, word process, and manipulate MS-DOS better than ninety percent of the professors at the university. In the meantime, that student's handwritten papers will be a joy to read, and a welcome break from the perfectly printed dreck that is more common to college freshmen. But given a college freshman who does not know how to write, who cannot put a verb in each sentence nor an idea in each paragraph, and who does not know why this is important, then that student's further education is stymied, regardless of how well that student's fingers fly over the keyboard. Remedial writing classes cannot teach in one semester, or even eight, what was absent in that student's first decade of learning. I do not object to high schools offering or mandating classes in typing, word processing, driving a car, cooking, or any other useful skill. But I vehemently protest the idea that any of these can substitute in even slight degree for the core academic subjects. An entering college student needs the writing skills, mathematics, and basic literary, geographic, and historical knowledge that primary and secondary schools are supposed to teach. If the student does not know how to word process (or how to drive), that student may be inconvenienced. Such small skills are quickly made up. But it is almost impossible to make up the academic skills and knowledge that one is expected to acquire in twelve years of learning! No, writing skills and word processing are NOT synonymous in 1990. They will not be synonymous in 2000, nor in 2010. In 2090, word processing may well be an obsolete practice. But writing skills will still be vital to a person's education, just as they were in 1090, and 90. > As a high school teacher I can tell you that schools begin > 'failing' before high school. Of that, I have no doubt. But it is frightening that a high school teacher would confound word processing with writing. Please, I beg of you, for the sake of our children, think long and hard about how our primary and secondary schools are failing, and where the corrective measures lie. Typing and word processing classes are irrelevant. One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad. WordPerfect is a passing fad. The keyboard will last somewhat longer. But even after these are obsolete, it will still be important to know how to put together a sentence. Teach this first. Russell
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (12/05/90)
I found being taught to type in High School was one the most valuable skills I was taught, and (because it is faster than writing) saved me time later. I dont think writing should be taught FIRST and typing/Word Processing after, but they should be taught together (like Physical Ed and History). One reason I have for saying this is that Writing will not be taught. The reason for this is that it involves Thinking, and teaching these things are time-consuming, difficult, and involve skills that many (most?) teachers do not have. I have taught at university level for 20 years and been an external examiner at more universities (Oxbridge for example). Students at that level do not know how to express themselves (write). My guess at the reasons for this is outlined above. Perhaps I am incorrect as to the reasons. Maybe others have their own ideas. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)
----- In article <1990Dec5.005509.11049@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > I found being taught to type in High School was one the most valuable > skills I was taught, and (because it is faster than writing) saved me > time later. Undoubtedly true. I found that learning how to drive a car in high school was of great convenience, since this is a skill that has saved me much time ever since. > I dont think writing should be taught FIRST and typing/Word Processing > after, but they should be taught together (like Physical Ed and History). When I said of writing, "teach this first", I was urging a priority of importance, not chronology. I have nothing against high schools teaching students how to drive before, during, or after they teach the students world history, for example. But world history comes first. If a high school must choose between teaching world history well and not teaching students how to drive, or teaching world history poorly and also teaching them how to drive, then the former is the better course. > One reason I have for saying this is that Writing will not be taught. > The reason for this is that it involves Thinking, and teaching these > things are time-consuming, difficult, and involve skills that many > (most?) teachers do not have. If twenty years from now, high schools no longer teach plane geometry, because "it involves thinking, and teaching these things is time-consuming, difficult, and involves skills that many teachers do not have", should we then accept that geometry will never again be taught in high schools, and that the best we can do is add further convenient but inessential coursework to the high school curriculum? To the extent that your analysis is true, it points out a major problem. The solution involves teaching the necessary skills to teachers, firing those who cannot or will not learn these, hiring those who will, and making the teaching of writing a top priority in high schools. Typing, word processing, how to drive a car, how to cook, etc, are all nice things that schools can teach. But they come second. Russell
thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (12/05/90)
I felt that Arnold Chamove's posting was very reasonable and as he stated, his point of view. I can't understand why Russell came back and seemed to attempt to prove that his argument, and only his argument is the correct argument. Previously Russell stated: > One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and > secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is > important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad. For me, the more 'pernicious influence' is a teacher who 'knows' what is important and attempt to enforce it. Lighten up Russ, the worlds has lots of room for opinion. --Thom Gillespie
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)
------ I wrote: >> One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and >> secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is >> important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad. In article <39897@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: > For me, the more 'pernicious influence' is a teacher who 'knows' > what is important and attempt to enforce it. The only way I have attempted to "enforce" my views is through the force of my words. Traditionally, this is considered a much more civilized way to express difference of opinion than most of the alternatives. I would ask Mr Gillespie to consider what our world would be like if all primary and secondary schools tomorrow decided that reading and writing are unimportant, and they were no longer going to teach these subjects. Would he complain? Would he stand up and say "some subjects are crucial, and schools should teach these"? Or would he consider it a pernicious influence to take such a stand? Some cynics might suggest we already live in such a world. I don't believe this. Instead, we live in one where many people do not understand the importance of certain things, and so many schools no longer give highest priority to the teaching of writing when determining curriculum, selecting teachers, allocating resources, and counseling students. The result is not that no one learns to write, but that the process is haphazard and partial. Many high school students learn to write quite well. Many others, including many of those who enter college, do not know even the basics. This lacuna from their primary and secondary education becomes a barrier to their pursuits in college and beyond. Some things are important. Teaching students how to write is much more important than teaching them how to use word processors. When someone suggests otherwise, they are wrong. I will not apologize for saying this. Russell
marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) (12/06/90)
Russell maintains that teaching students to type/use a word processor will not necessarily improve writing skills. Although I agree with him in principle, there is at least one interesting exceptional case: Some individuals (of whom I was one) may have problems in writing (that is, pen-and-ink, or even typewriter), not because of mental disorganization or confusion, but because of perceptual difficulties which make it hard to FORM THE LETTERS, or emotional difficulties which make it hard to commit anything to paper. These individuals can be helped enormously by the availablity of mechanical devices, and can make the difference between quality assignments and no assignments at all. tom marlowe
dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) (12/11/90)
My unsolicited $.02: One of the reasons that students are becoming less and less capable of putting together coherent sentences is the loose structure of the English language -- it makes teaching grammar nigh impossible. (Anyone I've ever known who teaches a course on the structure of English has at some point referred to that course as an oxymoron.) Teach them a foreigh language (preferably Latin), with emphasis on grammatical structure, and start early. Dave L. dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil #24601 dlindsle@eagle.UUCP #include ".signature.obligatory" .disclaimer I, and I only, speak for myself, and myself only. .cute.quote "If you don't succeed at first, transform your data set!"
mickey@ncst.ernet.in (R Chandrasekar) (12/11/90)
In article <15425@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >----- >In article <cRFNT2w161w@nstar.UUCP> freewill@nstar.UUCP (Bill Williston) writes: >> aren't writing skills and word processing synonymous in 1990? > >No. No. No. Not the slightest bit. [ ... ] I do agree that writing skills and word processing are not in any way synonymous. But I do think there is some merit in using packages to improve, for example, language use. Take the WWB set of programs on Unix machines - in particular: spell, style and diction. These programs can be used to sensitize people to proper spelling, high readability and reasonable language use. Of course, one should not take the output of these programs as absolute truth. Use them to locate 'weak' points, and use other methods to fix these points. So, if you bundle together a set of packages, and have interesting exercises, where you use the packages to critique your efforts, you have the beginnings of a course. The key thing, I guess, is that you get feedback on your creative efforts, something that a large class cannot usually expect from a human tutor. > But even after these are obsolete, it will still be >important to know how to put together a sentence. Teach this >first. By all means, yes. And do consider using well-designed systems to reinforce what you teach. -- Chandrasekar
black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au (12/11/90)
In article <1805@blackbird.afit.af.mil>, dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes: > My unsolicited $.02: > > One of the reasons that students are becoming less and less capable > of putting together coherent sentences is the loose structure of the > English language -- it makes teaching grammar nigh impossible. (Anyone > I've ever known who teaches a course on the structure of English has > at some point referred to that course as an oxymoron.) Teach them a > foreigh language (preferably Latin), with emphasis on grammatical > structure, and start early. Well, you're certainly entitled to put in your $.02 worth, but as someone who teaches both English structure and writing skills I'd be interested in doing what I can to change your opinion, which is probably quite a widely held one. My position is that: - English is just as well structured as any other language (although in specific ways it may be simpler or more complex than other languages); and - Students can learn to write coherent English when they have appropriate tuition, in which instruction is grammar tends to be useful only to the extent it is clearly related to the task of writing (or perhaps reading). In any case it is not the nature of English itself that makes it difficult to learn composition. I'm not sure what I can add to convince people of these things. There is certainly much professional literature relevant to the matter (perhaps a place to start is Dwight Bolinger's very readable _Language: The Loaded Weapon_ (Longman, 1980)). But if you (net.people in general) think about my position and still don't believe me, I'd be interested in knowing why. I suggest that followups be sent to misc.education alone. Paul Black Applied Linguistics in Education black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au Northern Territory University, Australia
bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec11.152706.467@darwin.ntu.edu.au> black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes: :In article <1805@blackbird.afit.af.mil>, dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes: :> My unsolicited $.02: :> :> One of the reasons that students are becoming less and less capable :> of putting together coherent sentences is the loose structure of the :> English language -- it makes teaching grammar nigh impossible. (Anyone :> I've ever known who teaches a course on the structure of English has :> at some point referred to that course as an oxymoron.) Teach them a :> foreigh language (preferably Latin), with emphasis on grammatical :> structure, and start early. : The MAIN reason students today are less capable of writing coherent English than students of a generation ago, is that they are reading much less and watching television much more. Too much TV. Too little reading. Together, they are a powerful tool for promoting ignorance. It has very little to do with the loose structure of English. If they read enough, they will acquire said structure. -- Bob Silverman #include <std.disclaimer> Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730 "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec11.152706.467@darwin.ntu.edu.au> black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes: >In article <1805@blackbird.afit.af.mil>, dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes: >> >> [English is unstructured so we need foreign-language courses] >> > >- English is just as well structured as any other language (although > in specific ways it may be simpler or more complex than other > languages); and > >- Students can learn to write coherent English when they have appropriate > tuition, in which instruction is grammar tends to be useful only > to the extent it is clearly related to the task of writing (or > perhaps reading). In any case it is not the nature of English > itself that makes it difficult to learn composition. > I'm following up here because I feel I may have been insufficiently clear in my original posting. The widespread irregularity of English verbs makes learning any underlying structure difficult -- more difficult, I'd contend, than in other Western languages. In addition, it is difficult to tell gerunds from participles, and because of the lack of any real declension mechanism, it is also more difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect objects (etc.) Cumulatively, these things make it harder to learn to write in English. In any case, study of a foreign language is IMHO a good thing because one can compare and contrast. Thus, one can gain insights into grammatical structure(s) which one might not gain otherwise (or only with considerably more effort). I apologize if my sloth in expressing myself clearly caused me to be misunderstood. Dave L #24601
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (12/12/90)
In article <39897@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
<I felt that Arnold Chamove's posting was very reasonable and as he stated, his
<point of view. I can't understand why Russell came back and seemed to attempt
<to prove that his argument, and only his argument is the correct argument.
Because it *is*.
<Previously Russell stated:
<< One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and
<< secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is
<< important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad.
<
<For me, the more 'pernicious influence' is a teacher who 'knows' what is
<important and attempt to enforce it.
Even the most simple-minded educrat will probably agree that such skills as
reading and writing are essential. Typing is also very important, and I
certainly encourage people to learn to type, but it's not fundamental to life
in today's society. If you think that typing is more important than writing,
well, I suppose we never shall share pedagogical ideas.
<Lighten up Russ, the worlds has lots of room for opinion.
Opinion? Indeed, there are those who are of the opinion that typing and
word-processing skills are more important than writing skills. Russell and
I won't agree with these people on much. Russell's article stated the
(correct) opinion that writing skills are more important to most than typing
skills.
The world can use only so many secretaries but needs plenty of good writers.
--Scott
--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (12/12/90)
In article <1805@blackbird.afit.af.mil> dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes:
<
<One of the reasons that students are becoming less and less capable
<of putting together coherent sentences is the loose structure of the
<English language -- it makes teaching grammar nigh impossible.
I don't think so. The problem is that students aren't exposed to enough good
writing. If they never see any, how can they possibly produce any?
I agree that foreign languages are important, but for a different reason.
--Scott
--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/13/90)
In article <1811@blackbird.afit.af.mil> dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes: > The widespread irregularity of English verbs makes learning any underlying > structure difficult -- more difficult, I'd contend, than in other Western > languages. Hardly. In fact, verb structure is simpler in English than in any other language I know of. The verb ``catch'' has just five forms: infinitive (to catch), present third person singular (he catches), past (I caught), perfect (I have caught), and participle (I am catching). catch/catches/caught/caught/catching is a *complete* conjugation. What other language is so simple? To learn a verb in English you must learn just five words. There is only one standard exception: ``to be.'' And a small set of spelling hints will almost always let you get away with a single form. In French there are at least 200 different verb types, each with its own peculiarities. Even Latin has five basic types and lots of variations. > In addition, it is difficult to tell gerunds from participles, A gerund is a noun. A participle is not. That's about as simple as a language rule can get. > and because of the lack of any real declension mechanism, it is also > more difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect objects (etc.) People are *good* at language. They parse generatively: they only read ``catching'' in ``John is catching the bus'' after they've begun to expect a participle. By the time they read ``the bus'' they expect a direct object. It's easy to read something if it matches your expectations, word for word. You say that it's difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect objects---people ``get on'' the same ``bus'' that they ``catch.'' So what? After someone reads ``get on'' he expects, consciously or not, an indirect object. After someone reads ``catch'' he expects a direct object. ``Get on the bus'' and ``catch the bus'' are trivial to understand. You're talking about these ``problems'' of English as if the subject line were ``How to program a natural-language parser.'' Sure, it's not easy to teach generative parsing to a computer. Sure, linguists have only been somewhat successful at formal models of natural languages. But people will continue to read. And when I write Hofstadter's works are amazing! They cannot help but make the intelligent man reevaluate his thoughts and morals. Damn good writing! or I am sick of the regard in which modern English professors hold James Joyce. ``It's good writing,'' they say. ``The best, in fact.'' But when I flip through Ulysses I find nothing but a morass of incomprehensible sentences obviously designed to drive any man insane. That's good writing for you! Just imagine: millions of students suffering through this drivel, trying to make some sense of the nonsense that we call good writing. It's an outrage, I say. Damn good writing! people will understand me perfectly in each case. > In any case, study of a foreign language is IMHO a good thing because > one can compare and contrast. True. ---Dan