In an unscientific poll of Composition 1 instructors at JCCC, 8 have weighed in. When asked how they felt when a writer quoted the dictionary in the introduction of an essay, 7 of 8 chose “Arrgh. I hate it” with the remaining voter selecting “I rarely see it work but it doesn’t bother me.” No one chose a positive (“I love it”) or neutral (“Fine. Whatever.”) response. The survey was anonymous, faculty had to follow a link, and perhaps that attracted only those with strong feelings; however, there seems a consensus that quoting from a dictionary does not succeed in comp. 1 classes or higher classes.
In response to the question I posed to the faculty list-serv , however; colleagues offered more useful, nuanced and reflective replies. I asked (all emphasis – bold – is mine):
How do instructors here feel about students quoting the dictionary (particularly in an introduction)? This may be a personal bias I need to address. I don’t generally like it, and I’ve had colleagues who felt strongly about it, but I once taught from a writing textbook that encouraged the practice…..-I’d like to be able to honestly tell students if this is a personal style issue specific to an individual instructor, or if citing the dictionary is generally unsuccessful with college writing professors.
Prof. Brannan explained:
particularly for developmental writers, patterns and other structure are critical. The dictionary gambit can be used as fluff--which it often is in Comp I, II, and beyond--but is useful for our 106 and 102 writers. It is especially useful when these students also see the classifying/dividing element in good dictionary definitions and have the concept of specific, detailed examples reinforced.
In the Precomposition class (roughly the equivalent to JCCC’s ENGL 106 ) I once taught elsewhere, the book suggested incorporating a dictionary definition. This lends support to Prof. Brannan’s thoughts. Prof. Lillich expressed:
I just finished grading a batch of definition essays and had several students use dictionary definitions as jumping off points/introductions. This is the developmental level in Engl 106, where the chapter on writing the definition essay suggests incorporating the dictionary into your pre-writing and using your specific definition in your essay. I really think it all depends on what level writing you are teaching AND who your students are.
There seems to be consensus. There’s a time and place for it, but Comp 1 students should be in the process of moving out of the practice. Prof Allen wrote:
At the risk of sounding like I worry about template writing a lot, I think this comes back to that. Students are given certain patterns, tricks of the trade early in their writing experiences and they are never moved out of that. What I don't know is why. Are they not given enough opportunities to think? After all, writing requires the ability to think not just regurgitate facts. Or are they encouraged to stick with what "works" for so long that they fear leaving the security of it? What I do know is that the definition opening is one of those strategies encouraged early on as an "opening technique" for young writers.
Maybe my overexposure to the technique (because I teach comp 1) has contributed to some sort of allergy. The repetitive exposure results in a numbness or fugue in others. Prof. Karle explains:
Dictionary definitions are boring and, as I tell my students, a missed opportunity to say something that is actually interesting to the reader and significant to the paper's argument. I also tell my students that if they must define a word, their own definition (for example of the word hero) would be far more interesting to the reader.
Prof. Schmeer tells writers that their goal is to:
grab our attention and “delight the reader”--that is, engage us and make us want to keep reading. Dictionary definitions are the written equivalent of Ben Stein’s character in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” It helps to show a YouTube clip of the roll-call scene in FBDO or read students papers aloud in a Ben Stein voice when you explain this. They get it right away…
But beginning writers need templates to follow. I think we all forget that we needed templates at some point, too. Learning to think isn’t easy. Learning to trust your thinking is harder. Learning to trust that what you put on the page is often a poor representation for what you think and you need to think harder and represent those thoughts better is impossible unless you are willing to put forth the effort.
I’m going to share the video link in class next semester to provoke a free write on the analogy Prof. Schmeer talks about (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7zYyTotwfE). I like analogies. Prof. Fitzpatrick posited:
I have always thought of things like modes or the known/new pattern or even “claim-logos support-pathos support-ethos support” models as solid training wheels for students to use while they are finding their bearings in this new world of academic writing. ….But you don’t keep training wheels on forever, and the trick is helping students know when to take those training wheels off —and I think it is particularly difficult in late 106 …and early Comp1 (where some students come in with the stock patterns, which have given them success in high school and that are damn near required for standardized tests, and assume every kind of thought can be squeezed into one of those templates). That is something that, in my opinion, needs to be done on an individual basis with the student and the intention of the essay. But, for me, the place to start is to make sure students understand that these things are training wheels (or scaffolding) that will disappear once the ideas have enough wherewithal to support themselves.
This dialogue responds to the question much better than a simple and reductive rule for or against a practice; hopefully my students will read it. Lance Armstrong could show up to a bike
race with training wheels and those who knew of him wouldn’t laugh He’d likely win the race, but for most riders, once they reach sufficient proficiency with a bike the training wheels become a hindrance rather than a help. ( I imagine he’d use them like the wheel weapons in the chariot race in Ben Hur, or like those vicious chrome plastic lug nut covers on semis).
Prof. Heflin makes an important distinction and relates the question to larger issues of research
if the student feels compelled to justify her/his point of view on an idea with a definition, I require that they use an authoritative dictionary, not a common one....so I remind students that they are not doing research by using a common dictionary, but merely doing preliminary research. I push my students to realize that the easy sources can be accessed by anyone, but a scholar accesses the authoritative, hard to find sources, which helps to build the writer's own authority in the process… that is also the rationale I give about avoiding using Wikipedia or eHow or any other abbreviated or condensed encyclopedia--it is not authoritative enough in and of itself (besides other issues).
All comments collected from email over the period of 12/9/10 to 12/12/10 and reprinted with permission of the authors.
When I was growing up nearby, the spring was private property, and so not many people actually saw it. That helped preserve the site. The associations with cannibalism and doom likewise didn't appeal to many (not to mention band of agnostic vigilantes rumored to protect the site), but as several pioneers noted in their logs, it might be one of the most romantic spots in the country, and it feels unspoiled.
Been thinking about the bittersweet my niece found on the trail. There was no vine in sight and I looked, and the stuff brings a good price at farmer's markets... so I'm thinking somebody inappropriately harvested it and dropped a twig on the way out.
