Dr. Louis' Blog

Hi, Dr. Louis,

I’ve been working with my students using the Jane Schaffer approach -- that is, focusing on CDs, CMs, decoding prompts, and writing 2+:1 chunks. The next step, with which I need your expertise, is to guide them in writing strong topic sentences based on the chunks they have already created.

Thanks for your support,

Faith

‍

Hi, Faith,

I love the way you have started. Thank you for asking me for my input. That you want to use JSWP® with fidelity is wonderful and will make a huge difference as you share with your teachers and work with your students. Following are my remarks:

‍

Your Example:

TS: Spring is an exciting season because plants begin to grow and the weather gets warmer.

CD: Flowers start to bloom in many places.

CD: The weather becomes warmer and more comfortable.

‍

My Initial Response:

• Your TS is fine.
• Your CDs have commentary.

‍

The Fix (2+:1):

• ‍TS: Spring is an exciting season because plants begin to grow and the weather gets warmer.‍
• CD1: In Texas, during the spring months, roses, salvia, and lilies begin to bloom. (Notice the five bolded, specific, and relevant details -- that's what we mean by CDs!)‍
• CD2: The temperature also changes in the spring. (Notice my "changes" versus your "warmer" and "comfortable." These latter words are commentary because they are relative. What seems "warm" or "comfortable" to me might not seem "warm" or "comfortable" to you.)‍
• CD3: While winter temperatures in Texas range from the 30s to the 50s, when spring arrives, the temperatures range from the 50s to the 80s. (Note the specificity of details.)‍
• CM: The landscape is colorful (refers to CD1), and the temperatures are comfortable (refers to CD2 and CD3).

‍

The Final Draft:

Spring is an exciting season because plants begin to grow and the weather gets warmer. During a typical Texas spring, flowers, such as roses, salvia, and lilies begin blooming. The temperature in Texas also changes. While winter temperatures in Texas often range from the 30s to the 50s, when March arrives, the temperatures tend to hover between the 50s and the 80s. During this special time of year in Texas, the landscape is colorful, and its temperatures are comfortable.

‍

My Guidance:

• Your TS was fine, and it is derived from the right-side of the JSWP® T-Chart.
• With "2+" for Concrete Details, don't hesitate to let your students write more than 2 sentences.
• Notice how each sentence of concrete detail has multiple details. Remember, "2+" means sentences, but there may be multiple CDs in one sentence -- or not.
• Notice the revision in the final draft. Here is where you would talk to your students about learning new vocabulary and eliminating repetition. Remind your students, "There is always room for improvement."
• For generating commentary, remember that students need to question themselves to brainstorm insightful commentary. For this reason, the JSWP® T-Chart is your best friend. From elementary to high school, teachers tell me all the time that the T-Chart is the best of all the graphic organizers. We can't assume that a student can automatically come up with words and phrases, such as, "special time of year," "colorful," and "comfortable." The T-Chart solves this problem! And the TS, as well as the Concluding Sentence (CS) for a body paragraph, is also generated from this graphic organizer.
• When students brainstorm on the T-Chart, creating a revised TS, commentary, and a concluding sentence becomes not only much easier and less redundant than usual but also prevents students' simply paraphrasing the CDs.

‍

I hope this guidance is helpful. I’m excited that you are honing your craft, which is what a master teacher does!

‍

Keep reading and writing!

‍

Warm regards and Happy Spring!

Dr. Louis

Dear Dr. Louis,

Should I make one prompt for the whole book or break up the novel into a few prompts, covering only the major sections of the book, or could I have the students read it first and decide for themselves what they would like to write about?

Thank you,
Sean M.
High School Teacher
Monticello, Minnesota

‍

Hi, Sean,

‍

Thank you for your question.

‍

Before students begin to read, present them with 2-4 prompts for the novel and set a date for students to "sign-up" for their prompt (by p. 40, for example).

‍

Why? For several reasons: 1) certain students resonate with certain prompts; 2) you don't want to read 100 essays on the same topic; and 3) giving students choices helps them to work that cognitive skill and empowers them. Here are some other guidelines:

• Make sure that you set a cap. For example, if you have four prompts and sixty students, after fifteen students sign up for Prompt #1, it's gone.
• The prompts should be broad enough that the students can find evidence and provide analysis from the beginning to the end. Some ideas are prompts with elements, such as characterization, literary devices, conflict, setting, or symbolism. Remember, in literary analysis, these elements, also known as methods, lead to meaning; so, somewhere in the task, I suggest that the student must demonstrate how characterization, for example, creates tone and contributes to a theme in the piece. Or how setting derives tone and contributes to the overall meaning of the text. Or how the symbols they choose contribute to theme -- like that.
• Give the students our "Dialectical Journal" and require 3-5 entries per chapter, so they can record their concrete details and commentary as they read and make good decisions at the end. Check these journals once a week (quick check) to make sure they are doing them correctly and hot haphazardly.

‍

Regarding breaking up prompts for major sections, I love to find and focus on pertinent passages and have the students write a body paragraph in a timed setting. Doing so makes them "think on their feet." So, if you teach the novel over six weeks, for example,

• each week, I would have them write one body paragraph on a particular passage.
• Make sure the prompt is narrow enough to answer it in one body paragraph.
• It's a quick grade for you, and
• it assesses their comprehension of the novel along the way as well as keeps their writing skills fresh.

‍

Keep reading and writing.

‍

Warm regards,
Dr. Louis

This morning, I'm writing a lesson for a writing workshop that I'm giving in acouple of weeks. For this literary training, I read a beautiful passage, annotated along the way. I did the thinking, questioning, and prewriting that we teach students to do before they write their drafts -- their interpretations.

As I opened the Word document, what popped up was "Copilot," and it made me sick -- not for adults, who can already think -- I see the benefit for adults in certain situations -- although I immediately deleted it because I want to create my own sentences. Rather, I'm worried for children, teenagers, and college students who are still developing thinking skills through age 26.

Writing is about thinking. As difficult as it may be for most people -- myself included, at times -- it teaches thinking skills.

Just as cell phones in children's hands has proven to be detrimental to their mental and social development, I am convinced that "Copilot" and"ChatGPT" and other AI formats, such as these, are going to create a generation of lazy non-thinkers, and quell the creative writers and thinkers of the future.

For me, this rainy morning, I am excited to write my thoughts down about thispassage. And I want to instill that passion into teachers and their students -- to guide them to explore their thoughts -- their own thoughts and ideas with words and phrases they create -- not those of Copilot who has no name or identity or uniqueness.

From this English language arts teacher of thirty-six years and passionate writer, I humbly beseech the parents out there, please do not let your children take the easy way out by allowing them to write with AI. Let's build their cognitive and creative skills first.

Dear Dr. D',

The confusion I'm having now that you might be able to help me with has to do with how deep to have [my students] go on the WOW sheet in the bubbles. Some students seem to write phrases that tend to define the single CM words as opposed to considering the internal workings of the character (thoughts, feelings, beliefs) that make the character act the way she does.

Janice

‍

‍Dear Janice,

You are right; the students are not supposed to define the words in the first two spots to get the phrases for the clouds. But do not get frustrated, for commentary takes time and patience (from both of you). First, instead of calling them “bubbles,” I would like for you to call them “clouds,” and tell your students that the clouds represent lofty thoughts, not thoughts that can be found in a dictionary or thesaurus. They are called clouds because you can see them, but you cannot touch them. They are found in the sky, in the heavens, in the mind.

I'm glad that you are starting to teach commentary using characters from literary works. Characterization is the best literary element to begin teaching commentary because it lends itself to asking the students to put themselves in the shoes of the protagonist or antagonist (as well as minor characters). We want students to delve deeply into the human condition--what makes us behave the way we behave; make the comments we make; act the way we act. Ask them, "How would you feel if you were the character?" When they give you a one-word answer, say, "What do you mean by that?"

For teachers, I like to introduce a little bit of Carl Gustav (C.G.) Jung here: C.G. Jung, a famous psychiatrist, depth psychologist, and student of Sigmund Freud, spent much of his life and career working with what he called the "unconscious." You might have heard of the collective unconscious where the archetypes reside. Jung is famous for his study of the archetypes. He also called the unconscious, the psyche. And you might find the etymology of that word interesting:

"psyche." n. 1 the soul; the spirit. 2 the mind. [L f. Gk psukhē breath, life, soul].

So, when we are talking commentary to the students, we are trying to teach them to go into that area of understanding and knowing of which Jung speaks. That's why teaching commentary is so difficult. We have to reach within ourselves and pull it out of those inner corners and crevices of our memories, dreams, and reflections about life. By the way, Jung's autobiography is titled Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

The best approach is to tell the students that commentary comes from three places: the head, the heart, and the gut. You cannot touch it like you can touch a table or rain or snow.  You cannot touch sadness, revenge, love, happiness, thoughtlessness, deceit, generosity. These latter words fall into the realm of commentary.

With the clouds, then, you ask the students to take one of the commentary words--let's say "thoughtlessness." Ask him, "What do you mean by thoughtlessness?"

"Well, Dr. Louis, the character thinks of no one but himself."

"Good, that's the definition of thoughtlessness. Now tell me what's going on inside of him that causes him to be like that? In other words, if you were he, what's going on inside of you?"

"Well, I don't want to get close to anyone."

"Good, write that in the cloud, but use the character's name. What else?"

"It's like he can't see or feel beyond himself."

"Good, write that in a second cloud. What else?"

"He's like an island unto himself, but it's sinking."

"Beautiful. Write that in a third cloud and take a nap for the rest of the period. Your brain is on overload!"

How Commentary Began (in Jane's words)

The missing piece, the “so what?” [commentary] was born one day during a one-to-one conference with a gifted junior. He was writing an essay in 1975 about how Lake Erie had changed since he had been a young boy living there. He brought his prewriting to the teacher at her desk. The teacher looked over the list of concrete details and told the boy to analyze his examples — pollution, dead fish, oil slicks on the beach, the fire when the Cuyahoga River burned. The teacher said, “These look good — now go analyze them.” The boy said, “I have no idea what you teachers mean by analyze.” This was a reasonable statement; he wanted to do the assignment but didn’t know how to begin or what it should look like when he was finished. Then the teacher asked him to say how the experience had changed or affected him. He thought for a few seconds and said, “I realized my past was lost. The cherished days of my childhood were ruined. The halcyon days were behind me.” The boy really said “halcyon.” Schaffer was speechless that a student knew the word and used it correctly. The teacher said, “You did it — what you said to me was analysis. And we’re going to call it commentary because you commented to me about your details.” It’s a far more user-friendly word for teenagers than "analysis" and "interpretation." That day began a department conversation about what it means to analyze a topic and how to lead teenagers away from plot summary — the bane of English teachers’ existence — and toward deeper thought. Most teachers don’t remember how they learned to write. They often taught themselves and alone made the leap from plot summary to analysis. Some know a certain person who helped them, but most of us have no memory of the moment. We just did it.

That student’s reactions made us realize two points:

1. Talking is the missing link in thinking. Students can say what they are thinking but need help getting it down on paper.
2. We assumed far too much about both content and mechanics, and that has rung true ever since. We thought students knew about topic sentences and indentations and analysis, but we were wrong on every count. We like to think we’ve made unwarranted assumptions less frequently since then.

I've always loved the sentiment in Zora Neale Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God that begins chapter three: "There are years that ask questions and years that answer." Commentary helps us to do both.

Keep writing (and reading)!

Warm regards,

Dr. D'

‍

Works Cited

Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. 1937. New York: Harper Perennial, 1998.

"psyche." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford UP: Norwalk, 1990. 964.

Dear Dr. D',

Could you please explain the difference between persuasive and argumentative writing…could it be as simple as semantics?

- Gerene

Dear Gerene:

The difference is semantics, but in its most formal sense: the study of the relationship between the structure of a theory and its subject matter. Unfortunately, the semantics of your question is not simple, but I'm going to attempt to simplify the difference between persuasion and argumentation so that we can explain it to our students and parents. First, let me assuage the classical theorists and rhetoricians in the room.

When we talk about persuasion and argumentation, we must first turn to Plato, then Aristotle, then Isocrates, Cicero, Quintilian, the Second Sophistic, and Saint Augustine -- and that only gets us to 400 A.D.! The classical rhetorical theory which these philosophers present is the foundation that precipitates your and everyone else's questions on persuasion and argumentation. As we move forward in history, Hugh Blair and the Belles Lettres, the neoclassicists and epistemologists, George Campbell, Richard Whately, and the elocutionists are the theorists who bring us to the 19th century, and all of them have much more to say on the subject. Discussions of persuasion, rhetoric, argumentation, elocution, propaganda, and many other associated terms abound, and tomes are written on these ideas and their implementation in various areas of our lives.

In what is considered the contemporary rhetorical theory, some of my favorite resources on the subject are I.A. Richards' Philosophy of Rhetoric, Marshal McLuhan's Understanding Media: The Extension of Man; Kenneth Burke's A Rhetoric of Motives, and most recently James Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse. These later gurus have helped me to understand the earlier ones and have brought the discussion to current day (Note: I have left out many other great philosophers, but if you really want to learn about this incredibly interesting concept, you might begin with some of my go-to people mentioned above, and they will send you even deeper into the material.).

My first master's degree was in Language and Composition, so I studied the material, and I like to start with Quintilian when I introduce the topic of Argumentation. Quintilian defined the orator as "the good man speaking good." No, the second “good” is not a grammatical error. In this case, Quintillian means that “a good man only pleads good causes, and truth itself is defense enough for them without the help of learning” (Russell, Bk. XII, 214-15). I like to talk about citizenry ala Cicero, too. I talk to the kids about "Aristotle's four main reasons for the necessity of rhetoric: (1) it assists in the general triumph of good over evil; (2) it is necessary to influence those incapabile of real instructions; (3) examining both sides of a topic helps to find ou the truth; (4) it is necessary as a means of self-defense against the rhetoric of others" (Kinneavy 224).

All of which leads me to answering your question, Gerene, and here's the down and dirty difference in my humble opinion:

If you know me, you know what a stickler I am about reducing students' stress levels by using common terminology.

I try to simplify this incredibly dense topic by telling them that "persuasion" is about convincing people to "act" differently, even if for a short time. So, much of the time persuasive writing and speaking is rife with emotional appeals (pathos) to derive immediate action. Richards discusses the emotional appeals that underlie the discourse of persuasion, and I like to refer to Aristotle's number 2 reason above as the basis for sophistry and people with inflated egos. I tell the kids, "the masses will “ReAct” when someone gets them "all stirred up," but that action might not last (hence, mob mentality).

Over the past couple of decades, persuasive writing on tests weighed heavily on the side of pathos. When we were asked to teach our students the persuasive essay, we focused on putting forth one side, what the classicists called confirmation. Only one side, our side, was necessary to convince people, and the writing at times was plagued with inflammatory and forceful diction as well as logical fallacies (AP Language curriculum excepted).

But Quintilian's good man theory and Cicero's citizen orator both understood that “pathos” was to be used sparingly, and I believe therein lies the transition of language. Enter Argumentation. And with it a change in expectations. I like to tell students and teachers that "Argumentation" (as opposed to Persuasion), is designed to convince people to "think" differently and, therefore, has a more lasting effect on people's thoughts and actions. This lasting effect is derived from a focus toward ethics (ethos) and logic (logos) and away from emotion (pathos). In other words, ethos is first; logos is second; pathos should be used in very small doses.

We accomplish this feat by acknowledging the other side of the argument (Aristotle's #3 above), even providing validity to the other side in some cases (the concession). We provide the anticipated counter argument from the opposing side, then confute/refute that counter argument. So, now we're seeing the state and national test makers and standards people including concession, counterargument, et.al in the changing state and national standards and student expectations. I think these are the reasons they are calling it "argumentation" rather than persuasion.

The difference is semantics. But, perhaps, it's also a difference of connotation: When we say “argumentation,” we're expecting a more thoughtful, ethical, logical, Rogerian, reflective, objective, Toulmanian, issue-based approach to an issue rather than a forceful, inflammatory, feelings-based approach that we used to call persuasion.

Keep writing,

Dr. D'

Getting to know your students is paramount in your year being a successful one. Pretty soon, you'll discover who your kids "really" are, and some or many of them might be longing for "the call for adventure" like Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey. For those of you teaching Homer's great piece and discussing Odysseus' son, Telemachus, or any literature where loss is involved, you might consider discussing "The Orphan" with your students and convey to them that at different stages of our lives, we all experience this archetype.

excerpt from "Crossing Thresholds: The Hero Archetype

and an Introduction to the Individuation Process in Homer's Odyssey."

By Deborah E. Louis

The disappearance of a parent, whether through death, divorce, war, or self-seeking adventure, leaves a child with what Joseph Campbell describes as an "unsuspected world, and the [child] is drawn into a relationship with forces that are not rightly understood" (51). Activated by abandonment, betrayal, victimization, neglect, or disillusionment, this state of woundedness, according to Carol Pearson, launches the child into a form of the Orphan archetype (83). But one or both parents do not need to be missing in order for someone to experience the Orphan archetype. According to Pearson,

[w]henever we feel wounded by an injustice in our lives or an injustice in our society, whenever we realize that this life is not always fair, friends talk behind our backs, people of authority cannot satisfactorily answer our questions, and truths are contingent at best, the Orphan archetype comes to  the forefront. Whenever we lose our idealism, our Innocence, even for a moment, and feel a sense of hopelessness, we are facing our Orphan. (89)

Concerning its place in hero archetypes, the Orphan is a critical stage of a person’s growth and development. Woundedness, too, is an integral part of our human condition and, more importantly, how we deal with that woundedness. According to Pearson,

[t]he gift of the Orphan is to help us acknowledge our wounding and to open enough to share (in places that are safe) our fears, our vulnerabilities, and our wounds. Doing so helps us bond with others out of a grounded, honest, vulnerable place. This provides the bonding that allows intimacy to happen and also to open the heart so we may learn to be compassionate with ourselves and one another. (92)

While the feelings associated with the Orphan archetype are full of pain and alienation, conversely, according to Pearson, “[t]he gift of the Orphan archetype is [ultimately] a freedom from dependence, a form of interdependent self-reliance. We no longer rely on external authority figures, but rather learn to help ourselves and one another” (85). Therefore, at some point in our crisis of abandonment is the beginning of the hero’s journey, the “call to adventure.”

Works Cited

Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Bollingen, 1968.Louis, Deborah E. "Crossing Thresholds: The Hero Archetype and an Introduction to the Individuation Process in Homer's Odyssey. "Approaches to Teaching Archetypal and Mythocultural Literature in a Technological World. Dissertation. April 2013.Pearson, Carol S. Awakening the Heroes Within: Twelve Archetypes to Help Us Find Ourselves and Transform Our World. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991.