Off topic: Educational Methods

[Patricia M Godfrey pmgodfrey@xxxxxxxx]

Many thanks for all your comments. Caning obviously won't work, but I
will give some serious consideration to the role-playing idea.
	Part of the problem is the distinction between editors and copy editors.
The course is for the Council of Science Editors' annual conference, and
when I was first asked to give it, back in 2000, it was billed as
Advanced Grammar. I assumed the people taking it were copy editors, and
gave them a thorough review of the verbals (gerunds, participles, and
infinitives), and it went over well. After last year's course (on the
formation and use of the genitive/possessive), I deduced from the
evaluations that the people taking it were NOT copy editors, but editors
(i.e., subject, or substantive, editors, who deal with coverage,
organization, and factual accuracy) who sometimes needed to cope with
grammatical issues, and wanted "20 common grammatical errors and how to
fix them." So I told the CSE people we should stop billing it as advanced
grammar and list it as grammar for editors, and will tailor my
presentation accordingly.
	Copy editors, of course, SHOULD eat, drink, breathe, and live grammar.
Alas, English grammar has not been taught in the schools of the USA for
50 years. And apparently for the last 20 years or so, one can even get a
grad degree without taking another language. (It used to be that if
people had studied German or Russian or, best of all, Latin or Greek,
they had acquired a grasp of principles of Indo-European grammar that
could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to English.) So even many copy
editors just go by what "doesn't sound right"--a modus operandi I inveigh
against ad nauseam. One of my contentions is that if the editor or author
challenges a copy editor's change and the copy editor can say nothing but
"It just doesn't sound right," what shall she say if the author or editor
retorts, "It sounds OK to me"? "That's because you have a tin ear" may be
true but is scarcely politic. A roll-playing exercise might bring this
out rather well.
	The thing is, they are paying plenty for these courses, so one would
assume there would be some interest in trying to get something out of
them (unless, of course, their employers are footing the bill and have
sent them, will-they, nill-they).
	Yes, I suspect some at least of last year's class were bored, because I
misunderstood who was taking the course: one of them said he or she
(evaluations are anonymous) had learned all he ever wanted to know about
the genitive. At least, I profoundly hope that person WASN'T a copy
editor. (In the background handout that goes into their binders I've said
that any "copy editor" who finds grammar boring or too difficult is in
the wrong profession.)
Again, thanks for all your suggestions.
	By the by, I'm remembering from my own undergrad days that most of us
did take part in discussions; there were a few shy mice (all-women's
college) who never uttered an utter; and there was always one
professional contrarian who argued everything with the instructor. (No,
that was not I.)
Patricia