A reminder of what we’re doing in class tomorrow, Tuesday, Dec. 8.

Bring copies of your paper in its current state for peer group discussion. Bring sufficient copies for everyone in your peer group, as well as a copy for me.

We’ll take some time at the beginning of class for reading the papers in your peer group.

Pencil edit them as you go, paying particular attention to grammar, sentence and paragraph structure, and spelling.

In the peer group discussion, point out any problems you had in understanding the paper and any suggestions you have for strengthening it.

Return the marked up copy to the author at the end of class.

Remember that your final paper is due to me in class on Thursday, Dec. 10. We’ll watch the last part of “Shattered Glass” and also have a chance to talk with our guest, Ashley Niedzwiecki, the editor of the Delta Collegiate.

This is your chance to ask one of the most influential students on campus questions about the Collegiate, so make sure you read a copy beforehand and come to class with questions.

See the post for Nov. 25 for the rest of the semester’s schedule.

Dr. P.

Tuesday, Dec. 1 — I will return your graded drafts. Peer groups will meet to discuss the copies of your draft you handed out to group members in class. If you were not in class, please email your draft to the other members of your group, and ask them to email their draft to you. Look over the drafts during Thanksgiving break so you can make helpful suggestions.

Thursday, Dec. 3: We will watch the first two-thirds of the movie “Shattered Glass.”

Tuesday, Dec. 8: Another peer group discussion, this time of your work-in-progress on your final paper. Bring copies for your peer group to class with you. We’ll start the class with time for you to read your colleagues’ papers.

Thursday, Dec. 10: FINAL PAPER IS DUE. We’ll watch the last third of “Shattered Glass.” I’ll invite the editor of the Delta Collegiate to talk with you about campus journalism. Read the paper in advance and be sure to have questions for her.

Tuesday, Dec. 15: Your graded final paper will be returned to you for revision. In-class writing day for extra credit. You can write your reflections on “Shattered Glass” and its message for writers; or you can spend the period working on fiction, poetry or memoir. Work in long hand. Plan on drafting and them revising. We’ll save the last half hour for anyone who wants to read their work to the class. The extra credit grade for attendance and good faith effort will add a half grade to your lowest grade on the summaries. If you made nothing but A’s, one of those will go to an A+

Thursday, Dec. 17: Last day of class. Revised final paper due. I’ll try to pull some things together in a lecture and we’ll have a course evaluation. Probably done early.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Dr. P.

Here’s a tentative schedule that will take us through Thanksgiving.

Thursday of this week, Nov. 12, we’ll finish the writing mechanics review lecture, focusing on commas. Then there will be another ungraded quiz on all the writing mechanics material we covered. Both lectures are posted, so please review them. After you’ve taken the quiz we’ll go over it in class on the overhead.

Also, we’ll spend some time talking about how to formulate a good thesis statement for your final paper.

In addition, I’ll pass around a signup sheet for a 20-minute individual conference with me on your final paper topic and the exploration of the topic you’ve done so far. I plan to be on campus all day on Thursday, Nov. 19, for those conferences, which will be in a conference room that I’ll reserve.

Tuesday, Nov. 17: I’ll post a model argument paper on The Writing Life in advance of the class. We’ll spend the class period discussing it. I plan to have your book reviews graded and back to you for revision on this day as well.

Thursday, Nov. 19. I’ll be on campus all day for our conferences. We also will meet as a class at 2 p.m., and I’ll give a lecture on some basics of MLA style. We’ll excuse class a bit early so I can squeeze in a conference in the last 20 minutes.

Tuesday, Nov. 24. The draft of your final paper is due. Bring sufficient extra copies of your draft to share them with your discussion group. We’ll have group discussions of your draft on Tuesday, Dec. 1, the day we get back from Thanksgiving break.

Remember that I won’t accept a final paper unless I get a complete draft from you by this date. The draft and final product together count 70 percent of your grade. For class activity, we’ll talk about how you would like to structure the final three weeks of the class, and I’ll ask you to fill out another course evaluation sheet so I can check how I’m doing.

Incidentally: If any of you had a chance to look through the Midland Issues copy I handed out Tuesday, I’d be interested in your feedback and any suggestions about how it could be more useful to readers. Email me or comment to this post. Thanks.

A. What are the strengths of this review? For example, was it easy to read, well organized, clear?

B. What was the book’s takeaway point? What questions do you have for the reviewer about that takeaway?

C. How could the review be improved?

D. Do you see any flaws in spelling, grammar or sentence structure?

A reminder that the deadline for turning your book review in to me has been extended to Tuesday, Nov. 10.

Last Thursday’s lecture on writing mechanics got a little rushed at the end, so we’ll start class Tuesday by dealing with any questions you may have. Please review the lecture, which is posted on the “Lectures” page.

Then we’ll have a test.

Relax. It will be an ungraded exercise, to give you some feedback on how well you understand the writing mechanics lecture.

I’ll pass out a series of sentences. They may contain one or more errors of the type discussed in the lecture, or they may be correct as written. Your job will be to make any necessary corrections.

Then we’ll put the same test up on the overhead and discuss it. I won’t collect the tests, but I will ask you to turn in an unsigned sheet of paper listing the grade you think you should have gotten on the test and any writing mechanics issues you had problems with. I’ll build a review lecture around those issues for some later class.

In the latter part of the class period, I’d like you to gather in your discussion groups and tell your colleagues about the book you’re reviewing.

Tell them the author and title, of course, but also give them the “takeaway” — the book’s main point — and answer any questions they have. Finally, tell them what you thought of the book — its strengths and weaknesses, and whether you think it would be enjoyable and/or useful for them to read.

On Thursday of this week, I’ll tell you about my ongoing writing project, my 10-year-old alternative newspaper that covers local government in Midland, where I live. The November issue is just out, so it’ll be fresh stuff.

I’ll share some tips about writing that may be helpful , and answer any questions.

Remember also that your book review is to be turned in Thursday in class.

I thought our discussion Tuesday was useful — particularly your comments about how the marijuana debate exercise can help you write a better argument paper.

You identified a number of important points: Both sides in the argument had merit; we should respect worthy opponents; we should avoid setting up and knocking down straw men; we should carefully choose and evaluate the sources of our information, and try for the most credible sources.

I didn’t take notes, so does anyone have anything else to add?

This is the video address of the film that Manuel brought to my attention. It’s about 10 minutes long and is worth a look.

The discussion gave me an opportunity to point out some things about the use of scientific studies in deciding public policy issues.

1) Conflict in scientific studies is the norm, not the exception. It’s to be expected, because of the nature of scientific inquiry. Although some science is “cooked,” most isn’t, and conflicting studies shouldn’t be taken as an indication that scientists are dishonest or that the science is useless.

2) There are a number of policy issues that could be largely determined by science but will never be, because the science required is either too expensive or ethically impermissable. These are called “trans-scientific” issues. The effect of marijuana use on real-world auto drivers is perhaps a decent example.

3) Remember the discussion of curve-fitting? Another way of making that point is to say that no scientific hypothesis is ever entirely “proved” by the data. At best one can say the data may “support” the hypothesis, but there is always that factor of margin of error and confidence level.

The question then becomes: How important is it if we’re wrong. If studies show that such and such is the case 95 percent of the time, what happens if the 5 percent result is the one that happens. Does somebody get a bad case of hives? Or does the world end?

So I would like you to begin thinking about this question — How important is it if you are mistaken about marijuana legalization? What’s at stake there? Is more at stake on one side or the other?

See you Thursday.

In my experience, few instructors allow revision. I do, and here’s why.

When a student actually, physically changes something that’s wrong to something that’s right, learning takes place at a deeper level of the brain and is retained. Students who don’t revise not only miss out on the higher grade, they are more likely to make the same mistakes later in the course, when the going is tougher.

So, please, take the opportunity to revise your work. For full credit (and learning), revise carefully — make all the changes, answer all the questions. Reread to make sure your revision makes sense. And remember to turn in the originals with the revision.