One year to study rhetoric after completing WWS 1-3

[Colleen in NS]

Hi all,

 

I need some input.  My son has finally completed WWS 1-3.  He is going into Grade 12, and I am trying to figure out how to create a rhetoric course for him.  My ideal would have been to have him start this a couple of years ago, but I felt he really needed the detailed instruction in the WWS courses (though I am currently doubting myself, wondering if he could have skipped that and gone on to study the Kane book or something....but I didn't feel comfortable with that at the time, because I didn't know exactly what was coming as WWS levels were published concurrently with our studies, and I didn't know how to evaluate that compared with Kane and the other WTM recs).

 

Anyway, I have all the typical WTM rec'd. books here:  Weston, D'Angelo, Kane, and Corbett.  Except I still don't REALLY get what is covered in one vs. the others.  Here is what I think I understand so far (correct me if I'm wrong; add in what I am not seeing).  Weston's is all about rules for arguing and how to avoid fallacies.  D'Angelo's is a detailed study of progym skills (and SWB has said in the past that the examples are terrible - but terrible in what way?  Terrible as in they don't illustrate the taught skills well?  Or terrible as in gory to read?).  Kane's is...I can't really tell.  It seems to me that WWS is partly a fleshed-out Kane, and TWTM book says that students who study Kane will get a grasp of rhetoric.  But does that not mean the same as the progym skills?  Cuz I just don't see progym skills in the Kane book.  And Corbett's only has a small section of progym skills.

 

So, are rhetoric and progym not the same subject?  Does Corbett's book cover rhetoric and insert just a bit of progym?  What exactly am I supposed to be teaching for "rhetoric" in the high school years, anyway?

 

And since ds only has a year left, what should I be focusing on for this?  He will be using his WWS skills in his science/history/lit. studies, but I want to do a rhetoric course (or should it be progym?  Or both somehow?) so that he can further his writing skills while still working with me this coming year.  He may or may not be inclined to study this further on his own after he's done with me.  He wants to go to university and study in the sciences/maths/computer science arena.

 

Can someone(s) please help me clarify my thinking?  Help me figure out which of these books to use (no online courses, no other courses - we can't afford them and we have some great books already which I want to put to use - he does know how to outline and does fine studying that way).

 

Thanks for reading my stream-of-consciousness post!!  I hope someone can see below the garbledness.

 

(p.s.  My daughter will be done WWS 3 this coming year, but I'll have a few years with her to go through the rhetoric thing)

 

[Space station]

You could take a look at the syllabi for Rhetoric 1 & 2 on the Well trained mind online academy. That might help you decide how to approach it. Sorry I don't have any specific tips beyond that.

[Penelope]

I haven't btdt, and out of the four I only own the Kane and Corbett books so far. But I have heard SWB say that Corbett could be considered more of the advanced version of rhetoric that only some students will get to, and that it can be used as a college rhetoric text. So I don't know if that is the one to go to if you only have one year.

 

Have you seen this? It doesn't answer your questions, but might give you some more ideas.

http://downloads.peacehillpress.com/samples/pdf/WWEandWWSexplanation.pdf?utm_source=Catalog&utm_medium=Print&utm_content=Page%2B9&utm_campaign=2014%2BCatalog&page=10

 

-------------

Came back to add, I do understand what you are asking, I think, and I have had some of the same questions about rhetoric and progym. At the risk of sounding ignorant-- I have understood rhetoric to be a larger "subject" than the progym. The progym is a series of exercises to practice specific forms to aid in rhetoric. But rhetoric seems to be more than that. See here that Highlands Latin School uses the Classical Composition program (which progresses through the progym) for grades 7-12, but they consider rhetoric separately, as an extension of the study of logic. http://www.thelatinschool.org/academics/logic/

 

I am not really clear how TWTM would differ from HLS in what is meant by rhetoric, or if they are different at all, but aren't they the same in that they separate composition (where one option is Classical Writing, which is the progym) from the study of rhetoric-- making it seem that while there may be overlap, they are not the same. (Thank you for the question as it has reminded me that I need to look at the Kane book again and see how it is different from the Corbett and the rhetoric book by Horner that is on my shelf! High school will be here too soon).

[Chrysalis Academy]

After listening to SWB's recent conference lecture on high school writing, and looking at my big stack of writing books, I think if I had one year for Rhetoric I would choose They Say/I Say:

 

http://www.amazon.com/They-Say-Matter-Academic-Writing/dp/0393935841/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437320250&sr=1-1&keywords=they+say+i+say

 

 

SWB mentions it favorably in several places.  I think it does a great job of teaching them how to engage in academic conversations, and to clearly articulate their thesis and their rhetorical purpose.

 

 

[quark]

Anyway, I have all the typical WTM rec'd. books here:  Weston, D'Angelo, Kane, and Corbett.  Except I still don't REALLY get what is covered in one vs. the others.  Here is what I think I understand so far (correct me if I'm wrong; add in what I am not seeing).  Weston's is all about rules for arguing and how to avoid fallacies.  D'Angelo's is a detailed study of progym skills (and SWB has said in the past that the examples are terrible - but terrible in what way?  Terrible as in they don't illustrate the taught skills well?  Or terrible as in gory to read?).  Kane's is...I can't really tell.  It seems to me that WWS is partly a fleshed-out Kane, and TWTM book says that students who study Kane will get a grasp of rhetoric.  But does that not mean the same as the progym skills?  Cuz I just don't see progym skills in the Kane book.  And Corbett's only has a small section of progym skills.

 

So, are rhetoric and progym not the same subject?  Does Corbett's book cover rhetoric and insert just a bit of progym?  What exactly am I supposed to be teaching for "rhetoric" in the high school years, anyway?

 

 

I was just researching her rhetoric recommendations a few days ago and I think it's the gory, unnecessarily twisted examples that might be a put off for D'Angelo. I remember reading that D'Angelo's method was easier to follow, more systematically laid out (I think?) vs Corbett's but that Corbett's examples were way superior to D'Angelo's. I would love to know the specifics about the bolded too.

 

[Penelope]

I'm planning today and have my first edition of TWTM handy, and its very interesting to see the changes in recommendations for "rhetoric" over time-- Weston AND Corbett in ninth grade and Aristotle's Rhetoric and the Rhetorica ad Herennium in tenth!

 

In the third edition, Cothran's course is mentioned as an alternative, but I don't believe I have heard that mentioned in any of the lectures. It seems that there has been a shift over time (in the books and then lectures) to a more modern sense of "rhetoric," oriented more towards strong synthesis and expression skills with a view to college-prep, rather than a strictly classical study. So maybe the progym is considered more optional with this view (I.e. There are many great resources that will accomplish the same thing)?

 

I really like They Say, I Say, as well. I think if you use that, it would be possible to combine with other resources. I would also get a guide to writing research papers if he hasn't written longer ones yet. I know that doesn't address rhetoric, but it's part of writing. I'm looking at Kane and I see what you mean about the overlap with WWS (makes me remember why I love WWS!).

 

Do you think he could do what is recommended in the first edition and spend a few weeks on Weston and then go to Corbett and go as far as he can? Could you give him a look at it and see what he thinks? It seems like maybe there is no "wrong" answer for you.

[Ethel Mertz]

I was just researching her rhetoric recommendations a few days ago and I think it's the gory, unnecessarily twisted examples that might be a put off for D'Angelo. I remember reading that D'Angelo's method was easier to follow, more systematically laid out (I think?) vs Corbett's but that Corbett's examples were way superior to D'Angelo's. I would love to know the specifics about the bolded too.

 

 

I was just listening to her conference lecture on "A Plan for Teaching Writing, K-12" - especially the high school lecture. I think (but am not totally sure) you can go to the WTM Conference site and order her lecture series. Someone correct me if I am wrong. 

 

From the notes I took: 

 

Anthony Weston, Rulebook for Arguments. Then, in this order: 1. Frank D'Angelo's Composition in the Classical Tradition. She said that the book has good explanations, decent exercises, and really bad examples (so to skip over the examples - and I don't know any more than that about how bad the examples are). 2. Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, They Say, I Say. 3. Thomas S. Kane, The New Oxford Guide to Writing. 4. Edward Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. The latter is a college intro to rhetoric, so you might not get to it at all.

 

She suggests studying rhetoric 3-5 hours per week by reading a section of the text, outlining its content, and then doing the exercise; if no exercise is provided, write a paragraph illustrating the technique or find an example. This last part is from the slides from her presentation. You can find all the slides here.

[quark]

I'm not able to like your post Ethel Mertz. So here's a :thumbup1: . Thanks so much!

[Colleen in NS]

This conversation is VERY helpful.  I will come back in the next day or two to reply in-depth.

[Dina in Oklahoma]

We are not there yet, but I am considering "The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric Second Edition" along with all the others mentioned above.

 

Hope you find what you are looking for !

 

 

[Colleen in NS]

You could take a look at the syllabi for Rhetoric 1 & 2 on the Well trained mind online academy. That might help you decide how to approach it. Sorry I don't have any specific tips beyond that.

 

I didn't know these syllabi existed - thank you!!  Yes, it was very helpful to look through those and see how the instructors are laying out the courses!  Basically it's D'Angelo, Kane, and Corbett.

 

I haven't btdt, and out of the four I only own the Kane and Corbett books so far. But I have heard SWB say that Corbett could be considered more of the advanced version of rhetoric that only some students will get to, and that it can be used as a college rhetoric text. So I don't know if that is the one to go to if you only have one year.

 

Have you seen this? It doesn't answer your questions, but might give you some more ideas.

http://downloads.peacehillpress.com/samples/pdf/WWEandWWSexplanation.pdf?utm_source=Catalog&utm_medium=Print&utm_content=Page%2B9&utm_campaign=2014%2BCatalog&page=10

 

-------------

Came back to add, I do understand what you are asking, I think, and I have had some of the same questions about rhetoric and progym. At the risk of sounding ignorant-- I have understood rhetoric to be a larger "subject" than the progym. The progym is a series of exercises to practice specific forms to aid in rhetoric. But rhetoric seems to be more than that. See here that Highlands Latin School uses the Classical Composition program (which progresses through the progym) for grades 7-12, but they consider rhetoric separately, as an extension of the study of logic. http://www.thelatinschool.org/academics/logic/

 

I am not really clear how TWTM would differ from HLS in what is meant by rhetoric, or if they are different at all, but aren't they the same in that they separate composition (where one option is Classical Writing, which is the progym) from the study of rhetoric-- making it seem that while there may be overlap, they are not the same. (Thank you for the question as it has reminded me that I need to look at the Kane book again and see how it is different from the Corbett and the rhetoric book by Horner that is on my shelf! High school will be here too soon).

 

I, too, remember hearing that Corbett was more advanced.  And thank you for saying your understanding is that the progym is part of the larger subject of rhetoric.  In thinking about all this the past couple of days, I remember that at one point I theoretically understood that, but I forgot!  I think we are thinking this correctly, lol.

 

Huh, I just realized that the chart you linked is slightly different from the one that actually showed up in WWS 3.  Corbett is included.

I was just researching her rhetoric recommendations a few days ago and I think it's the gory, unnecessarily twisted examples that might be a put off for D'Angelo. I remember reading that D'Angelo's method was easier to follow, more systematically laid out (I think?) vs Corbett's but that Corbett's examples were way superior to D'Angelo's. I would love to know the specifics about the bolded too.

 

 

I went through some of my notes, and I found this:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/303489-answering-questions-about-writing-with-skill/?p=3214396 SWB actually does say it's bad writing, and I think she does mean composition-wise, not goriness (but maybe the bad writing includes the goriness, lol)

I'm planning today and have my first edition of TWTM handy, and its very interesting to see the changes in recommendations for "rhetoric" over time-- Weston AND Corbett in ninth grade and Aristotle's Rhetoric and the Rhetorica ad Herennium in tenth!

 

In the third edition, Cothran's course is mentioned as an alternative, but I don't believe I have heard that mentioned in any of the lectures. It seems that there has been a shift over time (in the books and then lectures) to a more modern sense of "rhetoric," oriented more towards strong synthesis and expression skills with a view to college-prep, rather than a strictly classical study. So maybe the progym is considered more optional with this view (I.e. There are many great resources that will accomplish the same thing)?

 

I really like They Say, I Say, as well. I think if you use that, it would be possible to combine with other resources. I would also get a guide to writing research papers if he hasn't written longer ones yet. I know that doesn't address rhetoric, but it's part of writing. I'm looking at Kane and I see what you mean about the overlap with WWS (makes me remember why I love WWS!).

 

Do you think he could do what is recommended in the first edition and spend a few weeks on Weston and then go to Corbett and go as far as he can? Could you give him a look at it and see what he thinks? It seems like maybe there is no "wrong" answer for you.

YES!  I looked in my first ed. and found that, too!  I also have the second ed. and can see where the changes occurred.  But of course the first ed. got me thinking, "Hey, we'll just jump right into Corbett, then!"  I think you're right, in that there is no "wrong" answer for me - I just needed to clarify a few things in my head.  I also found this that I asked SWB four years ago (and obviously forgot about):  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/303489-answering-questions-about-writing-with-skill/?p=3188750 So if we use Kane, we won't need to do the Weston book (although I'm still having a hard time seeing where the rules for arguments are in the Kane book....but I am tired and bleary-eyed at the moment...I'll have to come back to that and figure it out).  And I assume if we used Corbett, Weston isn't necessary either.  I just don't want to miss anything.

 

I also have the They Say, I Say book, but it seems to me a book to use after a student has gone through at least one of the other books like Kane or Corbett.  I'm not sure I'd use it as the only teaching tool.  Yes, I guess it's possible to use with the other resources, but I probably won't with my son - I think we'll lean more towards the rhetoric/classical side of things.  It's his last year, and I can't picture him taking up a rhetoric study on his own after this.  But I'd like for him to have some in his tool box.

 

And yes, we have the Schaum's guide for research papers.  Again, I think of that one as being useful after having learned some progym and rhetoric skills.  And more for research as opposed to persuasive writing.

 

I'm thinking my options are these:

 

- Weston, D'Angelo, Kane

- Weston, D'Angelo, Corbett

- D'Angelo, Kane

- D'Angelo, Corbett

 

(hmmmm....obviously I am afraid of leaving out detailed progym teaching, lol)

 

I'll have to think further through these options - it's a lot to put into one year.  But with my son, it's possible because he doesn't have a lot of other things going on - mainly math, history, literature, and biology.

 

And yes, I will ask him - I was going to the other day until I realized I didn't really know what I was talking about yet.  I think it's going to boil down to a choice between Kane and Corbett, with D'Angelo definitely beforehand, and maybe Weston (I don't want to let go of that book!) before that.  So basically options one or two from above, lol.

 

I was just listening to her conference lecture on "A Plan for Teaching Writing, K-12" - especially the high school lecture. I think (but am not totally sure) you can go to the WTM Conference site and order her lecture series. Someone correct me if I am wrong. 

 

From the notes I took: 

 

Anthony Weston, Rulebook for Arguments. Then, in this order: 1. Frank D'Angelo's Composition in the Classical Tradition. She said that the book has good explanations, decent exercises, and really bad examples (so to skip over the examples - and I don't know any more than that about how bad the examples are). 2. Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, They Say, I Say. 3. Thomas S. Kane, The New Oxford Guide to Writing. 4. Edward Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. The latter is a college intro to rhetoric, so you might not get to it at all.

 

She suggests studying rhetoric 3-5 hours per week by reading a section of the text, outlining its content, and then doing the exercise; if no exercise is provided, write a paragraph illustrating the technique or find an example. This last part is from the slides from her presentation. You can find all the slides here.

 

Thanks for the link to the slides - I didn't know those existed, either.  I compared them to notes I took when I went to the WTM conference in 2009 - they are the same.  They also reminded me of the prompts we can use to write papers across the curriculum.

 

Does anyone have the D'Angelo book?  How would you study it?  I can have him outline the sections, but after each chapter is a set of review questions - if you are outlining anyway, would you bother with the review questions, since outlining helps cement information?  And it has long lists of exercises to do - would you pick a few, one, or all?  Why?  In looking at the WTM Academy syllabi, it seems that the instructor has the students doing one exercise, but I can't really tell.  What would you do, and why?

 

Thanks for thinking through all this with me!  Please still feel free to correct my thinking anywhere or point out something I'm not thinking of.  It'll be easier with my daughter, because she'll have 3.5 years to do this instead of one!

 

 

[RootAnn]

I was just researching her rhetoric recommendations a few days ago and I think it's the gory, unnecessarily twisted examples that might be a put off for D'Angelo. 

 

This jogged my memory of a thread on WTMA's Rhetoric class that included some discussion on D'Angelo's examples. It starts with this post & some of the people whose kids took the class chimed in on the topic. There is some brief explanation of what the class assigned with the different books.