6 ms·

A big problem lies in secondary school. There's very little exposure to formal argument, and heavy emphasis fitting ideas into a rigid paragraph structure.

jmduke 13y ago
I think that's a good point -- humanities classes at the high school level in general (at least in my experience) were focused on retaining information and spitting it out in a proper format. I remember reading the Iliad for AP English and being quizzed on the name of Achilles' horse.
- lcc 13y ago
  I think questions like that are meant to check that you actually read the book, and with a certain amount of detail. High school students are notorious for skipping or skimming readings and/or relying on resources like Sparknotes, especially with more difficult texts like the Iliad. (I may or may not be speaking from personal experience...)
saraid216 13y ago
IME, I was pushed into the 5-paragraph form more during primary education; in secondary school, there were no such requirements. (That might be a consequence of having been moved into AP classes; I never looked into what regular English did.) I think this was a good thing, since I was forced to learn to support my claims and look at them structurally. The issue is that "English" is a non-subject. In early education, it's about literacy: being able to read and write at all. As you advance, it becomes about logic: being able to coherently express your substantiated view. And then, at the end, it becomes about literature: using deeper historical contexts to analyze a work deeply and interestingly. These are each vastly different subjects, but we call them all "English". Which is silly. We have other words. People with English degrees should know that.
- bane 13y ago
  The 5-paragraph essay gets a lot of hate, much of it deserved as it gets overused, but I've found it a very helpful tool to get students to organize their thoughts. I used to help tutor East Asian ESL students and getting them to understand how to make an argument and then support it with evidence was difficult, but once they grokked how it worked, vastly improved their communications. Were I a regular English teacher, I don't think I'd let a student coast in 5-paragraph beyond a semester. > The issue is that "English" is a non-subject. In early education, it's about literacy: being able to read and write at all. As you advance, it becomes about logic: being able to coherently express your substantiated view. And then, at the end, it becomes about literature: using deeper historical contexts to analyze a work deeply and interestingly. A very good point. We used to call "English" education by the subject you were learning "reading" "writing" "grammar" "spelling" "punctuation" "letters", "creative writing", "technical writing", "literary analysis" etc. But in some grand scheme to simplify things I guess we just use "English" now, which is frankly lame.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    the 5-paragraph structure is wonderful. I used (a 4-paragraph version of) it for my MCATs in one essay and used the french equivalent (these - antithese - synthese) in another - mind you you have 30 minutes to organize and write each essay. It forces you to do exactly that, think about what your point is and put in a place where your reader will actually see it, and not drown it in a sea of words. A scientific paper is basically that, except expanded into bigger sections. When authors take liberties with the structure it really results in incomprehensible gibberish. Even for general expository writing - I found that reading through internship essays, for example, when the essay was a ramble, I would chuck the whole application, but when the essay had clear topics and supporting information structure, I kept it.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Well, make no mistake: the 5-paragraph structure is a crutch. It's like a coloring book: all the lines are drawn for you and you fill it in. That's not a bad thing, though, because you're learning about muscle control and coloration and texture... but it's completely different from drawing your own picture. At the point you've learned how to construct an argument and substantiate it with supporting claims, you're ready to leave it behind for longer (or shorter!), less structured forms... or to pull it back out when you feel it's appropriate.
nooron 13y ago
Goodness, yes. My academic background is a mix of humanities and third-rate engineering (history and economics, hah). I find that even at high levels in undergrad history, there's little sense that arguments don't have to-- and usually don't!-- adhere to the 5-7 paragraph template/bullshit one's often taught in secondary school. I used to tutor a fair bit, and weaning people off that stilted and artificial convention became one of my preoccupations. Now that I'm done bloviating, an interesting historical analogue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-legged_essay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-legged_essay

jmduke 13y ago

I think that's a good point -- humanities classes at the high school level in general (at least in my experience) were focused on retaining information and spitting it out in a proper format. I remember reading the Iliad for AP English and being quizzed on the name of Achilles' horse.

lcc 13y ago
I think questions like that are meant to check that you actually read the book, and with a certain amount of detail. High school students are notorious for skipping or skimming readings and/or relying on resources like Sparknotes, especially with more difficult texts like the Iliad. (I may or may not be speaking from personal experience...)

saraid216 13y ago

IME, I was pushed into the 5-paragraph form more during primary education; in secondary school, there were no such requirements. (That might be a consequence of having been moved into AP classes; I never looked into what regular English did.) I think this was a good thing, since I was forced to learn to support my claims and look at them structurally. The issue is that "English" is a non-subject. In early education, it's about literacy: being able to read and write at all. As you advance, it becomes about logic: being able to coherently express your substantiated view. And then, at the end, it becomes about literature: using deeper historical contexts to analyze a work deeply and interestingly. These are each vastly different subjects, but we call them all "English". Which is silly. We have other words. People with English degrees should know that.

bane 13y ago
The 5-paragraph essay gets a lot of hate, much of it deserved as it gets overused, but I've found it a very helpful tool to get students to organize their thoughts. I used to help tutor East Asian ESL students and getting them to understand how to make an argument and then support it with evidence was difficult, but once they grokked how it worked, vastly improved their communications. Were I a regular English teacher, I don't think I'd let a student coast in 5-paragraph beyond a semester. > The issue is that "English" is a non-subject. In early education, it's about literacy: being able to read and write at all. As you advance, it becomes about logic: being able to coherently express your substantiated view. And then, at the end, it becomes about literature: using deeper historical contexts to analyze a work deeply and interestingly. A very good point. We used to call "English" education by the subject you were learning "reading" "writing" "grammar" "spelling" "punctuation" "letters", "creative writing", "technical writing", "literary analysis" etc. But in some grand scheme to simplify things I guess we just use "English" now, which is frankly lame.
- dnautics 13y ago
  the 5-paragraph structure is wonderful. I used (a 4-paragraph version of) it for my MCATs in one essay and used the french equivalent (these - antithese - synthese) in another - mind you you have 30 minutes to organize and write each essay. It forces you to do exactly that, think about what your point is and put in a place where your reader will actually see it, and not drown it in a sea of words. A scientific paper is basically that, except expanded into bigger sections. When authors take liberties with the structure it really results in incomprehensible gibberish. Even for general expository writing - I found that reading through internship essays, for example, when the essay was a ramble, I would chuck the whole application, but when the essay had clear topics and supporting information structure, I kept it.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Well, make no mistake: the 5-paragraph structure is a crutch. It's like a coloring book: all the lines are drawn for you and you fill it in. That's not a bad thing, though, because you're learning about muscle control and coloration and texture... but it's completely different from drawing your own picture. At the point you've learned how to construct an argument and substantiate it with supporting claims, you're ready to leave it behind for longer (or shorter!), less structured forms... or to pull it back out when you feel it's appropriate.

nooron 13y ago

Goodness, yes. My academic background is a mix of humanities and third-rate engineering (history and economics, hah). I find that even at high levels in undergrad history, there's little sense that arguments don't have to-- and usually don't!-- adhere to the 5-7 paragraph template/bullshit one's often taught in secondary school. I used to tutor a fair bit, and weaning people off that stilted and artificial convention became one of my preoccupations. Now that I'm done bloviating, an interesting historical analogue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-legged_essay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-legged_essay