Concrete v. conceptual information

Again in “Reaching the Second Tier,” the author recommends balancing concrete information with conceptual information (theories).

I used to do this in English class much more than I do now. I didn’t see that it added anything to the class and I didn’t see the students wanting it.

Am I mistaken? Are people using a lot of theory introduction in practical, as opposed to theoretical, courses? (Freshman composition is inherentally practical, I think.)

I never had any theory discussed until I got into my PhD work. That may have been a function of the schools I went to, but I don’t really see how. It may be that folks didn’t think theory was important until they got into the doctoral level.

Do the students find it useful to know that there is a triangle or square for theories of writing/speaking? I do a short (one day) introduction to many theoretical aspects of writing, but I fly through it. And I don’t really come back to it in any concrete way later on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge