3.1049 quality of writing, cont. (95)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Wed, 14 Feb 90 20:48:50 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 1049. Wednesday, 14 Feb 1990.
(1) Date: 14 February 1990 09:32:47 CST (10 lines)
From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM>
Subject: writing on microcomputers, commenting on writing
on microcomputers...
(2) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 10:23:19 PLT (41 lines)
From: "Guy L. Pace" <PACE@WSUVM1>
Subject: quality of writing
(3) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 12:02:44 EST (19 lines)
From: cbf@faulhaber.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 3.1043 quality of writing, cont. (92)
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 February 1990 09:32:47 CST
From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM>
Subject: writing on microcomputers, commenting on writing on microcomputers...
The most interesting thing about the article by Halio in *Academic
Computing* has been how many of us, while not claiming to have read the
article itself, nevertheless feel free to disparage its author for
shoddy research practices!
Michael Sperberg-McQueen
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------45----
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 10:23:19 PLT
From: "Guy L. Pace" <PACE@WSUVM1>
Subject: quality of writing
At the risk of attracting more flames, I will respond to Patrick Conner's
message that the concept of "print and pattern learners" is invalid.
The point wasn't that language and rhetoric are not loaded with symbols
and patterns, but that humans develop a tendency to learn in particular
ways. The terms "print" and "pattern" are probably poor selections for
the concepts, however, you'll have to take your chances with Marshall
McLuhan if you want to complain about that. You'll find most of the
original work on this subject in McLuhan's _Verbi-voco-visual
explorations (1967). Other works which touch on the subject include
_From cliche to archetype (1970), and _War and peace in the global
village (1968). McLuhan is not the only source of research on learning
and the application of learning psychology to training and teaching. I
stand by the statement that a person's particular learning style would
heavily influence that person's selection of a computer. The language
skills a person brings to the machine should be unaffected by the
machine. A person's language or writing skills are affected by the
person's learning style.
Learners who are heavily pattern oriented usually skip over details,
while learners who are heavily print oriented tend to want every detail.
This probably has little impact in some areas of life. It does affect
how adults approach things like computers and automobiles.
We choose cars and computers based on how we perceive their use. If a
car will require a great deal of maintenance (twiddling) it attracts the
car buff with a lot of mechanical background. Vehicles with long
maintenance contracts and reputations for few mechanical problems
attract buyers not interested in doing their own maintenance.
Similarly, computers requiring little effort up front (like the Mac)
attract those users who do not want to be bothered with the details of
"archane" operating systems. They just want to get to work.
Computers that allow access to the operating system and let the
adventurous types "twiddle bits" attract users with a more technical
interest.
This is not to make any value judgements. Again, the point is that
the computer itself has little to do with how well a person writes or
communicates (or anything else). That was determined before the person
attached his- or her-self to the machine.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------30----
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 12:02:44 EST
From: cbf@faulhaber.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 3.1043 quality of writing, cont. (92)
I cannot understand how anyone can comment on an article (e.g., Halio's
in Academic Computing on the difference between papers produced by Mac
and IBM users without having read it). The synopsis offered, while
generally accurate, was by no means complete, and many of the points
mentioned by other commentators are in fact covered in the article. I
think a lot of Mac people got their buttons pushed. But to make any
serious criticisms of the article, the study it reports, or the whole
problem is simply silly without reading the article.
Charles Faulhaber
UC Berkeley