Chris, Robert, others,
 
consider the following text, and then three kinds of tests. The first is
what I call the old-fashioned kind of store, search and retrieve kind of
stuff at which encyclopedia (from which the example training text is taken)
are so much better. The second is what I think a test should be like. The
third is a milder form of the second, slightly more like the first. It has
an added didactive quality, in that even someone who doesn't know a thing
about this subject can learn something from making Test 2. Notice that the
addition of 'use historical examples' in Tests 2 and 3 will in the end
produce what Test 1 aims for, but with a more lasting effect. Due to time
considerations I have only given one historical example in Test 2 and and
one in Test 3.
 
------ Training Text -------
History of Writing
Writing systems always tended to be conservative, their origins often being
attributed to divine sources. Any change or modification was met with great
hesitation, and even today, attempts to reform spelling or eliminate
inconsistencies in writing conventions meet with strong resistance. Because
of this conservatism major innovations in the structure of a writing system
usually occurred when one people borrowed a system from another people. The
Akkadians, for example, adapted the syllabic portion of the Sumerian
logo-syllabic system to their own language, but retained the logograms, and
used them regularly as a type of shorthand (see Sumerian Language). When the
Hittites borrowed the system from the Akkadians for their own language, they
eliminated most of the polyphonous and homophonous syllabic signs and many
of the Sumerian logograms, but used a number of Akkadian syllabic spellings
as logograms (see Hittite Language).
The earliest known writing dates from shortly before 3000 BC, and is
attributed to the Sumerians of Mesopotamia. Because this earliest writing is
logographic, it can be read only in vague terms, but the principle of
phonetic transfer is apparent and was well on its way to becoming
logo-syllabic. Egyptian hieroglyphic writing is known from about 100 years
later, and it is also the earliest authentication of the principle of
phonetic transfer (see Egyptian Language; Hieroglyphs). It is possible that
the development of Egyptian writing came as a result of Sumerian stimulus.
At about the same time, so-called Proto-Elamite writing developed in Elam.
This system has yet to be deciphered, and nothing can be said of its nature
at the present time except that, from the number of signs used, it is
logo-syllabic. Logo-syllabic systems of writing also developed, at a later
date, in the Aegean, in Anatolia, in the Indus Valley, and in China (see
Chinese Language). From these logo-syllabic systems, syllabaries were
borrowed by other peoples to write their own languages. The syllabary in its
simplest and most reduced form (that is, signs for consonant plus any vowel)
was borrowed by the Semitic peoples of Palestine and Syria from the
Egyptians, leaving behind the logograms and more complex syllables of the
Egyptian system, during the last half of the 2nd millennium BC (see Semitic
Languages). This syllabary was almost ready-made because Egyptian writing
had never expressed vowels. The earliest such semialphabetic writing is
found in the so-called Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, which date back to about
1500 BC. Another such system, dated to about 1300 BC, was found at Ugarit on
the northern Syrian coast, but in this case the writing was inscribed on
clay in the manner of Mesopotamian cuneiform. Similar writing systems were
developed by the other peoples of this region, and it was from the
Phoenicians that the Greeks borrowed their writing system. The Greeks took
the final step of separating the consonants from the vowels and writing each
separately, thus arriving at full alphabetic writing about 800 BC (see Greek
Language). Alphabetic writing has yet to be improved upon in terms of the
definition of a full writing system. See also separate articles on all the
individual letters of the English alphabet.
------ End Training Text ------*
 
Now consider the following three tests on the above text:
 
Test 1:
 
Question 1: What did the Greeks contribute to the development of writing?
 
- They developed from semialphabetic to alphabetic writing.
 
Question 2: What do we know of the Proto-Elamic system?
 
- Only that it is logo-syllabic
 
Question 3: How does the Akkadian script relate to that of the Summerians?
 
-  They adapted the syllabic portion of the Sumerian logo-syllabic system to
their own language, but retained the logograms, and used them regularly as a
type of shorthand (see Sumerian Language).
 
Question 4: What materials were mostly used for writing between 3000 and 800
BC?
 
- Rock, Clay
 
Test 2:
 
Why do you think writing developed from logographic to alphabetic? (use
historical examples)
 
- Principally because logographic writing can encode less detailed and exact
information about sound and meaning than alphabetic writing, making
alphabetic writing a more powerful communication tool. Since, however the
step from visual and aural representation towards alphabetic writing is very
big in terms of conceptual understanding, a gradual development had to take
place. Because of the immediate advantages of a more precise encoding system
in terms of better and more efficient long-distance communication and
cultural memory, every step inadvertently made towards alphabetic writing
will entail enough practical advantages to make it spread quickly across the
different cultural developments. The Akkadians, for example, adapted the
syllabic portion of the Sumerian logo-syllabic system to their own language,
but retained the logograms, and used them regularly as a type of shorthand
(see Sumerian Language). This allowed them to use the more complex system of
syllabic representation and be more exact, but also communicate quicker by
being less exact, thus being in the end more flexible. Since it is in the
nature of communication to interconnect different cultures, it is likely
that during trade, war and other forms of contact, innovations and ideas
such as these will spread across cultures and provide opportunities for
development.
 
Test 3:
 
Considering the development from logographic to alphabetic writing, answer
the following questions using historical examples:
 
Question 1: Why from logographic to alphabetic? (and not vice versa)
 
- The benefit of writing is in formulating knowledge externally. The more
exact this can be done, the greater the benefit.
 
Question 2: Why do you think we need to be conservative in our development
of writing?
 
- Part of the advantage of writing is that it makes information accessible
to a large public. If the language systems of that public quickly develop
into digressing systems, in time the different systems will no longer
understand each other or even their own historical writing. The Akkadians,
for example, adapted the syllabic portion of the Sumerian logo-syllabic
system to their own language, but retained the logograms, and used them
regularly as a type of shorthand (see Sumerian Language). If the Akkadians
accepted the Sumerian system completely, discarding its own, it would have
left a great deal of the part of the population that could read incapable of
understanding new writing, it would force everyone to update to the new
system, and at least for a certain time communication would be totally
disorganised.
 
Question 3: How could writing develop, despite its conservatist nature?
 
- First of all, as stated in Question 1, there are great benefits to a more
exact system of writing. This means that, although it is in the nature of
writing to be conservative, whenever an opportunity occurs for development
and the advantages of this development are somehow understood or
demonstrated, it can be incorporated quickly to combine with the old system
to form a new one. Since writing allows for more advanced communication over
longer distances, in for instance trade it will show up quickly, and
different writing systems will thus be exposed to different cultures. If one
culture achieves more, or is perceived to be more advanced than the other,
the other culture may choose to gain the advantage and incorporate the new
faculties.
 
Question 4: How does the material on which is being written affect the
writing proces, do you think, and what effects can email have in this
respect?
 
- ....
 
Kind regards,
 
Arwin van Arum
The Netherlands
 
*"Writing," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
 
 
 
 
 
Drop these careful lines; words are such a drag
Expose the naked idea and let my mind bathe
In its bright image
----- Original Message -----
From: Booth, Christopher <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Pedagogical Question
 
 
Your step-father was correct, of course, although before the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics you should teach an even more fundamental concept, Copernican
non-specialization. (Occam's Razor even before that.) Newton would have been
just another bad-tempered alchemist without THOSE tools.   ;-)
 
Seriously, your population is far from ideal, and your instinct is
appropriate for an ideal group of students. Your colleague is perhaps too
conciliatory, but given the realities of who your students are and what
they, their parents, the Administrators, and the local job market wants, a
whirlwind panorama of Western Civ. might be more appropriate. If you bend
the textbook toward letting them know that such things WERE, and that they
are different, rich, and interesting, you might have more of a chance of
reaching them than if you try to get a budding highschool football coach or
future CPA or data input clerk wannabe to understand that we read Chaucer in
Middle English because its *wonderful*. The converted to whom you preach
will be reached, the others will shut out the light if you shine it on them
too brightly.
 
Adopt the other guy's approch, then subvert it mildly.
 
Actually, the other approach sucks, but its a single-semester non-major
introductory, required course; your way is how their entire four years
should be structured. Alas!
 
Chris Booth's two cents--although worth much less than that.
 
> ----------
> From:         Robert Kibler
> Reply To:     Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
> Sent:         Wednesday, September 1, 1999 9:29 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Pedagogical Question
>
> Here at VCSU, a colleague and I are at odds over how to teach a 200 level
> Humanities course. He thinks that the course ought to be based on a book
> that provides an overview of events, so that it can quickly pass through
> literary and philosophical events from the Mesopotamians to present day. I
> say that it is impossible to teach everything, and that such an approach
> leaves students with very little access to the past. For my part, I
> further suggest that they are better off reading key bits of
> primary-if-translated texts that are conceptually rather than
> chronologically dependent. My feeling is that if you take these primary
> texts and treat them according to overarching themes--ones that are vital
> in all cultures in time and space--themes such as the gods, love,
> leadership, and philosophy--then the students get both a sense of the past
> that delivers not only the Humanities, but does so in a way that gives
> them individual access to ancient and classical Greece, imperial Rome, the
> anglo-saxon and then the norman influenced middle ages, and then the
> renaissance.  My colleague argues that I omit too much important cultural
> information, and I argue that his approach does not admit enough students
> to the Humanities--that it just gives them a sense of what somebody else
> says about a lot of events. Under my thematic approach, we read bits from
> the following, and ask what it says about the four themes:
> Homeric Hymns, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Sappho, Pindar, The Pre-Socratics,
> The Republic, Parmenides, Thucydide's Melian Dialogue, and all of
> Antigone, to get a sense of the Greeks. I also lecture on Greek
> architecture and politics. For the Romans, we read from the Aeneid, the
> Roman Elegists--Catullus, Propertius, Sulpicia, Caesar's Gallic Wars, and
> Tacitus' Germania. For the anglo-saxons, we read Widsith, Deor, Seafarer,
> Battle of Maldon, the Dream of the Cross, and all of Beowulf. We read and
> translate a dozen Middle English lyrics, and read Chaucer's Prologue, and
> his Miller's Tale in Middle English. We read a Shakespeare play, and we
> read bits from Machiavelli.
>    My colleague uses a book by a man named Bishop, which has lots of
> illustrations and gives very small snippets from many great works--but
> mostly, it is a telling of the tale of Western Civilization (the bent of
> the course) by one expert to the uninitiated. The other expert--my
> collegue, fills in the gaps. Between the two of them, they cover a lot of
> territory, and bring students up to the present. Yet for all of that, as
> my step-father says--neither my colleague's course or my own introduce the
> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--essential, in his opinion.
>    I might also mention that there is a required second Humanities course
> that emphasizes music and art. These courses are taught by faculty who
> kind of begin their approach to music and art in the 17 and 18th
> centuries--and one of them veers off into North American Indian
> culture--the sort of veering that a thematic approach, I think, would
> allow.
>     This is a 200 level course, has 40 students in a section, and very few
> of them English or History majors. If you had to choose between my
> approach and my colleagues, which would you choose and why? Further, what
> is your own general sense about how such a course ought to be taught, to
> such a population?
>