t

DOCUMENT RESUME4

ED 123 634 CS 202 717

AUTHOR , Woodman, Leonora\

TITLETeaching Composition: A Conc eptual Approach.

PUB Den 76NOTE 31p.; Paper presented at,the Annual Meeting of the

Conference on College Composition and Communication(27th, Philadelphia, Marchi25-27,,1976); Attachments2-12 which are saples of student writing may

4 reproduce poorly

EDRS PRICEDESORIPTORS'

MT-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.*Composition (Literary) ;, *Concept Teaching;Expository Writing; Secondary Education; *TeachingMethdds; *Thought Processes; *Writing Skills

ABSTRACTThis paper outlines a methodology for teaching

writing which is. based on the following assumptions: that the.controlling idea is the most important feature ofthe reflectiveessay; that the idea sentende.embodying the controllin4 idea has asemantic and rhetorical-anatomy that is prpsent in oral patterns; andthaj. teachers can instruct students in the concept of controllingideas by linking the students' everyday speech to the needs ofwritten discourse. The author argues that recognition of therelatiohship between selected speech patterns and the controllingideaof written discourse will facilitate student growth'in writingcompetence. It is concluded from the results of the author's projectusing the conceptual approach that because it links oral laci written

patternS, the approach appears to provide an accessible bridge to thewritten word; the analogic assertion appears to be a generativestructure; the analogic assertion appears to stimulate clarity \and toforce coherence links that student writing'often lacks; andstructural-competence in writing appears to accelerate the entirewriting process. (Tsy

\/'

V

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best, copy' available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *,

* reproducibility are "often encountered, and this affects the 'quality *

* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERId makes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service,(EDR8). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document: Reproductions ** supplied by EfIRS,are the best that can be made from the original.' *

*******************************************44**************************

.U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

EDUCATION IL WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

tOUCATION

'HIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINAT1NG IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OINNiONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

Teaching Composition: 'A Conceptual Approach EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Leonora Woodman.

My, paper today is an account of a five-week pilot project in the

teaching of composition that I recently completed in an inner city.41;

high'school in Manhattan. Two classes of seniors imrticipated,in the

project. I taught one class and my graduate assistant.taught the other.4

My students were classified as aver4e or betters but once you

ex ine some of the, writing samples I hal; distrihpted, you will recog-

nize at the term average must,be.understood as relative to the student

body In ti particular school rather than as relative to a national1*,

norm. did not obtain 'reading scores for my students -7-the school was

reluctant to provide this informatidn to me but I suspect that many

of them were several grades below the eighth grade readingleuel required

for high.school'graduation in the city of New York.

-My students' experience with writing had been limite. In Converse-

.

tions with students and teachers I found that writing conceived as ideas ,

gr.

initiated, arrangtd and controlled by the writer was a relatively rare

activity.. What was considered writing was a widely used program of con-

trolled composition entitled Write Me A Ream. It consisted of a series

of paragraphs which the student was asked to copy, altering number or

person or tense or voice as he went along. Writing generated entirely by+IP

the student was seldom practiced.

4,I faced One serious problem with my research site and this.was the

appalling rate of absenteeisni that made it impossible to collect and

process data in any responsible way. In the course of the five weeks,

students in both classes wrote six essays including a pre- and post-test.

N,IVP, $0..4 1,, P(PPOI t THIS (_(IPY

.0-ff I' VAT, PIC (N GRANTED sy

Leonora Woodman.

TV F ,`PlotNIAih-j, (01MATIN(,ONf)E tj &(,Ft ('f NT', MT. 1If NATIONIAl INliTUTE a TION tlIATHE{i REPRO

Nr(TtoN clur`,PI T. f P1( SYS TfM REQUIRES PFR MtCSION ot

1

2

1

-2- Leonora Woodman

4 ?)

However, only a third of the students in each class actually Wrote all

%

six. Consequently,,I abandoned the effort to tabulate. my data statis=

tically. My comments a bit later on.the results ofthe protect will be.

prompted by intelligent intuition rather than by hard figures, but Io

think they will be confirmed by the writing sam 'ples you have in your, I

hands.

.1011,

Let me now turn to the purpose and limits of. my prt4ect. I was

concerned first of all with the reflective essay or the essay that does

not rely on temporal sequence as a pattern of organization. Second, my

purpose was to teach the. larger rhetorical features of the reflective

essays, such as focus, unity, arrangement, organization and amplification.

Growth or lack of it in usage, sentence structure and mechanics was not

a consideration.

To meet my objectives,;I developed a methodology that I have labelled.

a conceptual approach to, writing. Its underlying as mptions are (1)

that the controlling idea is the most important fea ure.of the reflective'4

essay-, (2) that the idea'sentence embOdying the controlling ideL has a

. .

semanticand rhetorical anatomy that is present in oral patterns; (3) that

we can teach,the concept of a controlling idea by linking tye--Students'

(

everyday speech to the needs of written discourse. 'These assumptions

i

underlie my single hypothesis, name , that recognition-of the relation-

/

shOebetween selected speech patte and the-controlling fidea Of written

discourse will facilitate student rokath in writing competence.

My conceptual approach grew ut of my conviction that the reflective ----="3-1

essay poses special, problems fqr 1the young writer. As we all know; the

3

a

t

-3- Leonora Wbo1man

reflective essay is'structuYed by concept'rather than by time, This/

is non. to say that,. concept doe's not inform the narrative; it certainly

does, as every-historian will testify. However, in the reflective

essay, concept is the structural key; it determines the essay's shape

and design; it controls the'selection, arrangement and order of its ideas.

This need to begin with a concept when he tackles the reflective

essay forces the young writer to think in largely unaccustomed ways.

Before he ever puts pen to paper, he muse discriminate, classify aild

.

generalize his experience, only to reverse this order in the deliber-.

ative process of defending his generalization. He must, in short, per-.

petually alternate between synthesis and analysis, and for most students,

A this is a confounding and complex task, or at least it appears to be.

Many teachers of writing in the secondary schools have met this

problera by emphasizing a set of.formalistic and mechanical procedures:

topics are assigned, then narrowed or limited, then outlined, anilsq.

finally diyided into an introduction, body and coclusion. That. these

'procedures stimulate the physical act of writing cannot be gainsaid,

but that they result in the cognitive act of composing is problematical.

Nevertheless, they persist, aided by equally misguided writing assign-,

Ments. Asyou all know, a favored genre often assigned 6 students is

the expository essay that informs. Such assignments, gnd I quote from

John Warrinex's English Grammar and Composition, a language text widely

40 used in the secondary schools, ask students to write about a city in

*. .

which they live,their school's extracurricular activities, a summer.

1t

4 resort, a new type of car and so'forth. Npw apart from inviting

1John E. Warriner and Francis Griffith, English Grammar and. ComposiAttion, Complete Course (New York: Harcourt Brace & World, Inc., 1965), 4!

p. 371.

4

insipidity, such an assignment is

Leonora Woodman

ethodologically misgui1ed, for it

cipscures the fact that most good iting, especially in the humanistic

, and t e crucial element of andisciplines, is informed by an id idea

lies of in its announced subjedt ut in its evaluative predication. It

is wh t the writer says about his ubject that is the rhetorical key,

for it is only then that he announces his view, his case, his thesis..

Conseq ently, my methodology requi d that the student always adopt an ,

interpr tive posture towards his su ject. He must not merely describe

\

it; he must assess it; he must, in -hort, develop -interpretive predica7

I tion bef re he begins to write.

This brings me to the underlyin

A

assumptions outlined earlier. Be-,

fore a st dent can generate an idea t structure his essay, he must first

know what in idea i$,, and I suggest th t he may identify an idea easily

,

and quickl if he is laugh the semanti, and rhetorical anatomy of an

idea senten e as it appears n his own s eech. Now of.couraea must ex-.

plain the anatomy of an idea,s ntence. T do so, I shall introduce a

phrase of my, own cditage and the' try to define it explicitly.

11

I haire learned that when a st dent is ked to develop an interpre-4

A

tie Statement before he begins to w ite, he requently comes up with a

1 nguistic structure t at I have labeled an a aiogic assertion`. The

label is my own, but I trace its genesis to Jame. Moffett's Teaching'4'

the Universe of Distou se, where he speaks f the three logics informing

written discoutse: ch .nology, analogy, and autol gy... I have used the

second of these,as the basis for my'formalation

First let me define analogic. Like Moffett, I am using this word

to designate a cognitive process culminating in an c term or set

4

Leonora Woodman

of terms rather'than as a linguistic structure where bad things, seem-.

ingly unlike, are Said to share a point of condvence. For example,

when 'a child says "Ay math teacher is. a bore," the word bore in his

predication represents the culmination of the analogic process.. What

the child has done is examine the separate acts of his teacher and has

concluded that they all share a common element: they, produce boredom,'

Perhaps his teacher spoke in a monotonous voice; perhaps, he read from

lecture notes without pnce inviting discussion, perhaps he rambled and

was unprepared. Whatever the reasons, the child assets that bore is

the linguistic symbol that expresses the common elemipt shared by

these'acts. This is what I mean when I use analogic to -define a mode

of cognition.)

Now it is my view that the Analogic process I have just describedet,

in relation to the child's utterance is equally characteristic of sophis-

ticated written discomrse% indeed, Moffett's example, which rdon t

have time to quote, makes this relationship explicit. 1A hild who comes

up with a sentence like "My math teacher is a bore" is abstracting from

seemingly disparate phenomena a common attribute that the phenomena is

said to share. Although such an analogic statement is primitive, it is

nevertheless analogous to what, let up say, Tony Tanner does in his

book City of Words when be proposes that contemporary American fiction

exhibits a tension between the need flor'a,n,unpatterned,.Unconditione

life and.an equally insistent fear that formlessness may result in,the

loss of identity. That Tanner arrives At his thesis only after xtensive

1James)Moffett, Teaching the Universe of D4ourge (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1968), p. 34.

It

reading hand serious eflecti

Leonora Woodman

n, whereas the child utters his spontane-

ously and naturally, does noralter the fact that the cognitive process

is the same. Both have exa ined the separate aspects ofitheir subject////

and both have concluded .tha

the quality or qualities as

their perceptions. 440

This kinship is, I th

they share a common element expressed in

ilhed. Both, in short, have classified_

nk, of considerable impo

ing of Ilriting because theistrticture that emerges

process is completed is of en thg same, regardless

tion. This is especially true whenth speaker or

ities or characteristigo

nce in the teach-

the analogic

of level of absaac-

writer assigns/qual-'

his subje t, requiring that he use words, *. o

that are abstract 'or gene al. Consider for a moment 'the three .sen-'

. t

tences that appear on the first sheet of your handout (see Attachment

I). The first you alrea y recognize. The second was written by the

1y ,

celebrated Shakespearean

in his essay'On Hamlet.

tale pen of the historia

1

critic, A. C. Bradley and heads a paragraph

The third, also a topic came -fromnce, came-it

Dixon Wecter. -All of them exhibit the ana-

logic proce5s,i)ut, what is'of greater consequence is that they all

share common structural and rhetorical features. All, for example, are

,conclusions containing an analogic term or terms summarizing a prior,

set observations or impressions. Hence, they are all deductive

statements susceptibl of elaboration. Moreover', they are all restric-

rive, limiting the wr ter to a'partiaular perspective. Clearly, they

al) share the sharact ristics of what We commonly 'call a topic sentence

or thesis statement: they are deductive, restrictive and general.

7

a

fr.

-7- Leonora WoodTan

True enough, the child's sentence lacks sophistication; its semantic

content is primitive and rudimentary. Nevertheless, its stride and

rhetoric parallel the sentences of the mature writers I have cited.

It is a genuine idea sentence, la concept, if you will, and I suggest that

if the student is taught initially to use sentences like'these to struc-'

ture his essiVs, he need never be bothered with arcane rhetorical nomem,

. clature, since he already knows how to generate.such sentences spontane-

,ously and naturally. They are ehe staple ,his everyday speech.4,

Furthermore, by beginning at this level, we can not only teach a concept

relevant to all subsequent levels, but we can teach its structure,'and

this, I think, can significantly accelerate the entire writing process.

I have just explained the analogic, portion of my phrase. I must

know explain the assertion part,. since this is the teaching key. The

predication of the analogic Assertion is always, I suggest, problematic

and hence Arguable. In my view a child's statement like "My math teacher

is a bore" is rhetorically analogous to a sentence like "The, strike Is

an ethically legitimate weapon of organized labor." Although, these

statements are light years apart in level of abstraction, they both pro-

pose an interpretation of reality that is not self-evident and is hence

debatable. That the first generalizes from sensory data abstracted

from a single subjeot, whereas the second conceptualizes the attributes_

of an entir lass, does not diminish their rhetoricalWnship. Both

contain interpretive terms.that'may be Challenged and consequently both

need to the defended. Both, in short, propose arguable conclusions.

The problematic nature of the analogic assertion is what I stressed

in my teaching, calling it very simply an opinion. And this is the-

-8- Leonora Woodman

procedure I followed t? get my students first to recognize it and

then to generate it. On the first day of the project I asked them

to write on any one of seven topics thaythey could treat in either

singular or plural form. They could, for example, write on a pet or

pets, a TV program or TV programs. I began in this way because I

knew that somewhere in each essay I would find an analogic assertion

that woul act as a springboard to further instruction. I was not

'disappointed. They were there, buried among the associational debris

4

that characterizes most student essays requiring non-temporal sequence.

I pulled them out and reproduced them with the heading "I Don't Believe

You" (Attachment II).

4The next day I distributed these And challenged each of them,

stressing that the analogic term, which I called a summary word, con-

stituted an opinion that had to be defended. The discustion was lively.

The third sentence by Gr'eg Kelly occasioned the most heated debate,

qince most of my students had seen the movie "Let's Do It Again" and

agreed with Greg's view. that it was "romantic, funny, exciting: and,

L

above all, crazy, all rolled into one." When I played the devil's",

advocate'and challenged Greg's opinion, I received a storm of rebuke,

but I also received a host of detail documenting Greg's assertion.

My students quickly saw my point.

From then on my students worked on oral and written activities

that helped them to recognize that they used the analogic assertion

every day of their lives dnd in the most ordinary circumstances. I

used pantomime, the'sales pitch, visual stimuli, anything"I could

think of to get my students to generate opinions, and when they,did,

r9

-9,

111

. Leonora Woodman

I stressed the structure of their assertio , pointing to the subject

and itspredLation, especially.

to the analogic word ,or words that

constituted the arguable element. The next step was defense, which

became most accessible to my students once they recognized that the

analogic term summarized a prior set of experiences, impressions or

observatibhs. Here I should note my experiential emphasis. I sug-

gested to students that they document their assertions with reasons,

examples'and incidentE draWn from their own life. If their documenta-

tion took the form of a narrative, this was fine, so long as the nar-

drative was used to illustrate a concept.

I want now to share with you some of the essays written during

the project. Before I begin, I want briefly to note that I never

directly evaluated any of the s k-egsays my students wrote.' I did4

.

read many, of them aloud, praising them laVishly but deservedly, but I

never wrote either marginal or 'terminal comments because I wanted to

see if the methciablogy alone would increase student writing competence.

. The first set of essays by Barnes includes the pre-test and the ,

second essay. ,The second essay was written after students had been

introduced to the analogic assertion.'

In his pre-test essay (Atta hment III) Barnes writes about cwo.

movies, following a pattern used by many beginning writers: he first

,locqes himself in time and then frequently but haphagardly resorts

to the analogic assertion to chara cterize his movies--one Or-ple other

is "cheap," "exciting," "funny" and so forth. Hqwever, each asser-

,tion remains unexplored and the entire paragraph lacks focus.

10

-10- Leonora Woodman

Let's. see what hapOned in Barnes' second essay (Attachment IV)..

At fist glance there seems to be little change. Problems in mechanics

remain formidable to the point,where meaning is seriously obscured.

Nevertheless, this.essay reflects a significant gain in structural

control. Note that Barnes begins his essay conceptually with an ana-

logic assertion that is immediately elaborated, Baseball is boring,"

he. writes, "because all they dg is run around in circles- and hit the

ball." He continues with a contrast with football, again elaborated.

Thencomes an even more significant demohstration of control. In the

f .rst essay, when Barnes had finished with^One movie and wished to

'

return to another, he signalled his transition temporally rather than

conceptually with ''back to 'Black Christmas.'" Hpre, however, he

develops a true conc4tual transition--"Baseball is alscoa'very easy

sport"--and this, too, is immediately elaborated. I find this'feature

especially notewo rthy, because the concept of transition was a totals

mystery to Barnes. Barnes' gain in structural Competence is, I think;

entirely attributable to his.use o f an idea to structure his work..

The next two essays are essays three and four written by a His-

panic student. I use them for'two reasons: fir:Stthey demonsttete

that second language acquisition in no way interferesitaith structural.

off

competerIcein the acquired language; and second, they,illustrate that

the analo gic assertion is,a generative structure, encouraging the

writer, to formulate ideas and to discover detail that he never knew he

possessed.

Luis enrolled 'in the class the\4y studedts wrote their third

essay. He dutifully wrote too,, uninstru4ed and mystified. You hive

Leonora Woodman

his essay on his friend before you (Attachment V). It is brief, com-

posed mainly of a few random-and unrelated observations.

The second essay (Attachment VI) was composed a week later after

Luis'had learned something about generatinpoiopinions. Note that he41110

immediately begins with a thesis that he proceeds to document. Note,'

too, that mid-point in thck second paragraph, when Luis decides to

chronicle his counsin's intellectual pretense, he deve ops an awkward*

transition--"About.the intellectual part " - -but its aw w rdness is of

less consequence than presence, for it indicates that. the concept

with which Luis began still controls his subsequent thought. The

essay lacks a conclusion and it is riddled with mechanical error.

Never theless, it is focused, organized, detailed and coherent, no mean

achiev ement.

/'

The nextnext three sets of essays consist of the pre e t and the

post-test; Let's look at Vahak's first. Vahak is an, Armenian boy who

has been in this country for only two years. He told me that he,,had

studied some English in school beforekhe arriyed,in this country.

In his pre-test,essayttachmentVII) Vahak struggles to develop

the thesis that the violence of many TV prpgrams breedg violence among

the young. Apart from its tenuous logic, this essay shows considerable

P4.

difficulty with syntax and especially with idiomatic constructions.

Let me now read Vahak's final essay to show you what happened in five,

4weeks (Attachnzent-V-1-1-1--)-7---

4

AThis essay is poignant, powerful and,passiodate. I can state

its excellence in standard rhetorical terms: .itshas focus, unity,

fullness, of detail and superb organization. But what I find most.

12

.

ad,

t

it

-12- LeonoraWoodman

astonishing is that it is written in absolutely idiomatic English, and

this from ,a boy who has been.in this country for only two years.

Frankly, I am somewhat puzzled IV this dramatic change, but my guess isP

that the methodology encouraged idiomatic proficiency because it linked

selected speed patterns to writing`.o

The last two sets of.essays illustrate how the methodology' leads

naturally and spontaneously to a more abstract conceptual level. In

the course of the project Ilkdid not teach.* stpdents how to deVelop

a generalization aboUt a class. I focused instead on subjects in their

singular fo4,rm. Intete post-test essay; as in the pre-test essay, stu-

. . * .

dents "could,yhoweyer, develop a generalization bY treating a suggested

o

topic in its plural form. Eneida did this in bOth essays, but the

differenoe between them is significant.

In her pre-test essay entitled "Movies," (Attachment IX) Eheida

graVitates toward'chronological sequence and narrative format. Her

title'is really misleading; she is Adtuallyswriting about a single-

movie and not even about that, since she is primarily concerned' with

her response and not -with specific features of.the movie..

In her post -test essay (Attachmen ts X) Eneida again chooses a

subject in its plural form, but this time, she-is in firm control of

it, immed iately beginning with the two -part thesis.that teenagers

who marry waste their lives and have money problems., And. .She doesn't

dose sight of it for a.moment: patagraph two picks -up the'idea of.

'problems generally, paragraph three the idea of money problems speci-

'-fically; and paragraph four the idea of a wasted ife.

ty

Ate

b

-13- Leonora Woodman

Now this essay is flawed in Many ways and I do not mean to-cite

it as anexample of Oblished writing. ,However, it is structurally

sound--it is coherent, Organized and'even interesting at.times because

tie writer has used her persbnal experience to document her thesis.

It is my 'view that once the writer achieves this level, it is then pos-

sible to refine the secondary matters of spelling, punctuation and

.grammar easily And quickly:, .

A comparison of Gregory'S two essays'also reveals a dramatic gain

in structure and coherence. In his pre-test essay (Attachment XI)

Gregory struggles to express his dissatisfaction with the length of

current movies. His objections do give-the essay an argumentative edge,

but the,thesis is blurred and the thought is.exceptionally tortur4d.

Gregory's post-test essay (Attachment XII) shows, Ithink,*a

nifican gain in clarity, if we see it as relative to his first piece

of writing: He b4gina by stating that cars are very cheap nowadays,

2

but what he really means is that cars today are made very cheaply, and

you will see this unambiguous assertion in the middle of the second

.-paragraph.,,

Now this essay id very primitive; clearly Gregory has severe

problems with mechanics and especially with syntax. But notgthat he4

does begin with athesis and then uses a rudimentary comparison-and

contrast strategy to document it. Moreover,in the finL1 paragraph,

'he constructs a causal relationship,..suggesting that theflimsy Con-'

f.

struction of automobiles 1:s responsible for the injury sustained in

111, 'accidents. Thus, despite its considerable flaws, the essay demonstrates

- :

significant growth iniconceptual and structural control.

IPA

fe, - ,

4

1

-14- Leonora Woodman,

0'

I'll ricilg summarize briefly what I think my project reveals about

a Conceptual approach to writing.

First, because it links oral'and written patterns, the conceptual

approach appears to providera most accessible bridge to the Written

word. But it does so in a selective way, Writing is not just speech

written down, as some researchers have suggested. Rather, it is an

extension of speech only when speech has been cleansed of the adventi-

tious and contingent, when, in other words, it has been shaped and

designed. The analogic assertion, when it appears in speech, provides.

thii design.

Second, the analogic, assertion appears to be a generative struc-

ture. It stimulates thought;it compels observation; it promotes dis-I

covery. My students wrote more after they understood the analogic

assertion because they' discovered that they knew ;more.

Third, the analogic assertion appears to stimulate clarity.and to

force coherence links that student writing so often lacks. Coherence,

as we all know, is directly related to the quality of thought: If tie

tchought is obscure and imprecise, lapses in coherence quickly follow.

But if the thought is preciselyeStated; if, moreover, it becomes a

structural device, recognized as such by the' writer, lapses in:cOher-

ence seldom appear. ,

Fourth, structural competence in writing appears to accelerate

.the entire writing process. Votonly did my students make substantial..

stylistic and organizational gaigis in a very shirt time, but many of

them moved tpa higher conceptuallevel independently and withoutti

instruction.

1

, .

15

. Leonora Woodman

..#

Finally, I thiflk my tesults indicate that there is no such thing

as a child who cannot wr te. There are, of course, children who are

.nbt skilled in manipulat ng'the linguistic conventions of standard

English. But if we consider written discourse as composition, that is,

as thought that is shaped, directed and controlled, then there is no

child who lacks the conceptual resources to engage in the task. This

is chat my students taught me, and it was a profoundly important les-

son.

Leonora WoodmanDept. of Languages, Literature, Speech and TheatreTeachers College, Columbia University. :

4' 4

16

1

NO.

fv,

The Analogic Assertion

My math teacher is a bore.

Hamlet had speculative genius without being ahad imaginative genius without being a poet.

A. C. pradley, Shakes

Thepre

1 .

(American) hero must be 'a man of good will add so a, good neighbor,erably something -of a joiner.

i, \

\

Dixon Wecter, "HOW AMERICANS CrOSE THEIR HEROES"

\

ATTACHMENT I

.r

,

hilosopher,, just as.he

4

e rean Tragedy

t

5.

.17'

,k

I

0

a.

.4.

II.

r t

ATTACHMENT II

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU C

.400'

I like basetbalr because it can bKill you ih so many different ways.

Henry Wheeler

S

My hobbies ate skin diving, stamp collecting, and movie going. At

first I never liked any of them, but then ybenI really got down to'-

doing them, I found that they were very exciting'.

PatriciaLacaille

1

Last Sunday, I went to see Let's Do It Again. This picture'was very

romantic, funny, exciting, and above all, crazy, all r011ed'into one

Greg Kelly

\

4

'

Basketball is a very interesting gamg,

RAymond Ffazierr

Television is educational and you can learn:a lot froMit.

Eva Kinlau

Rico Drown is a good basketball player.

s

Richard Brown

y.

On'TV it seems as though the TV programs are mostly based on some kind

of'violence.

-Sharon Jones,

" s

Pets are very dirty animals to have in projects.

18

Carol Jennings

OILr, e

C.k(91kkill

I tztAksvylC

4 1.) 0-0

ktI/rt

3-q-3 flAATt Cr\PV-4- c-k.A)

ATTACHMEAT III

0;±.

.A

..X14-) CN-Ft4CIVIIM)

C \ kArt C YUL. (4.1.011 (tt.4c..<) ,-tx4N \14-0\,

IAA-A.6, viz rk_Q_ of,

A

. )'_111`r,A

o

1-1A. A-11

19

1:/'

lob

ANI`

V)/`ChB/-1

\-cr

rccy-

r(vNk,-

(6\.

r\ft.1,

,

l- ----7-1----1'c'

4.......-11;Le--;'A.---Z7'1

,9

te- 0-1-1-e_,./ ,

... ,72-4,- ,3,- jve-,crze.. __4....1,_ --,---),

, .4.., X -7:1C.----e--7.-L..

)

41,

ATTACHMENT V

.11

21

A

I

ATTACHMENT VI

egi

--1Q-5L.4-.sz-0-- ,eaeL.,4_ ,714cd

6t) cr.L, ai 1447.; ,Z44-ezeeket4 Ixerz-Ces-;;

747_ -44_24

ex-144A-cf-y_A ..,75Lot__

40,e6-

,iA-44cLitfeL .

-t` .441i -r 51,41-44,eticid

944

7-s-4aLej(- .9ferkray_ ok./

G,7- 6Li

..//3/7r-'7 3

22,

4

.t,

;LIZ y 73 .

ATTACHMENT VII

075

.6

ro:(6af c UtAired Krct, c(cc,(6it-!

, yv,/, .

co C" oWl. CAA- 4---Cf/i-C/14- ./2-e-C- t-Ccz,2 c14 .1C( .4a/l-i t./

! et-Zirt--t Covd .et,t.427 oi 1,t,tYch-vvii rv, /5u. ../(,(z) 1,<A4_

MX- A c 7 a:iix (-4-/1- /),"- L(C441-- ka.---( 4,,,/, ,-_,-7,rtzi.c,41

/z-tog Utrit a-le cZ: o-ct-e- ./L6 c / ey . / 1 ts- .2,e e/ a2u.2

71/: p 7 D y zai4AA CV2.2 z).7.,d ,4.(..--riczu...t vici ..e.4(.. CC.-- c4A,

,Z/11h/11".,:;- a-1191 (/t /e4/.1 .w., )t.:* /7; L-O (A-a cce,-,t --atf./2Z

; P-1-r,7it- / iz-7 6'(vZ-C C- cyl/-4-6;te ertAA- .A.c c, 1 e-:4 -12...y t-C C-(

6-u.,a cl-i-dc4t4 L . Y6 t.x. -W4A-- G L ( c7C/L-A--. fr: '1 ire t 4

lea41 ./2.-C4 /2c 0/16. .6i,;(...y /.4.../ad . Pri-a- .-60( cf.41-i/ ; /lc; i-cci Arc/ t- -(,../.:(... ifcc-j ...j4...d -cz. vait,c.c. c.4.A., I. v. pc-te).7-204,4.

-Ltez bj ....h_c_e4A-Ti tz.a.,-6--- ,04.14., 74 A.2 yc.,,,,,,,, czii/&*6i "Lzfo /e:.'69 It- fl/L-Cti ,-Cs-fr/L-e- -,z/voaTT VIcrILCCit -4 ,,,,,ia .,,,,L,6.7 '7 ();'-' CO162-, / (1,(A'C Cam.toe- 41,411 C (14.' .)t.-- 7/4.4-e 771_,. v/OZe_ivt_cf.41 c cL4A-- t.,_-1.

1A-0.(41-e cur/ .,2 cre-c 4-

Pt

23

11*

73fty(00act

ATTACHMENT' VIII

/a eix.;-0/t_AA/ )146/.7ri

./f L6edlocri

c ado^y,

c9te coalci ..-61L.4_e 1-1%, .g .41110X.2,0L/ceo

,Zeet.. vt.1,;u2, A 1 i cy,oz,0 , 04.4161 .J ex-ix.t L.?.6.1 e/ 4-6A-01.0- qX4...,d- 4-r._.. cin., ,,..e.:te, LA

OA- C.4 kt/\. a tzfu:4 9 jo 01,tf Os 0-rolf Ilivlcz.a

eri19ti-lt-e .7A-y 4a-aoa. //c-nx,z,, ig d 0 A:i i,L,Z,

4/. 6:1-1-0-,d Avii... ,-4641.. 6c-czt- ....76 . i(e) -lit4,tz.e.` tin+17)kug oc1-4 . eA or.,-1 i J ke*Le .,:t k h_61/4,,/

'aih26-1(,4- ef .00.2 44,-,prik . ..ot0, v it . As.. ,s414-21 , cy'62-1.,i

-??-z _d '"6 4-te..ect,. gi., aGcucz 4.21ti.,71(0 4-

4na-slia. , ,W7...ii oniL Ad( e/ ;9,

i i 4.ti-.e..oe`/, aLdoec,",, 1767:; /Z a.,. L4-t_c' OA- c41,6 ..70 LC -.41.0-41( ..

1"-12-ei -1."9641 0A.50. Ce'lLt ocnta.: CeLt 711,451M :.e.:4,> r/14--

) e.e AW ol-,-1,(y A z./LeA,;,,,

ce:acz,./i_ 0,14_ 2it_c_. IVO 7Z..VIL yttr,, ict.,t.c. c...e.,4

Way') 2 / I- & t - 4 - ' 4 V 01.4 . -.4ya/ all .?fit.c4-1--- cycl-t_

4_(1,X .,te, -ai.;t-ez_c-A.

OIL C.e ceirt- j-9 fx,Ap 2 (y..wtit

e-.DID foAcc.4 to o

24

L.Z. A /'% 04)

..6at could'Ne /el/ c9/-- am- /Ltn

Ca a ;LI/Ye

Geri-eh/ /14-act--1 1:2-4-49a

Crl'UZ

ATTACHMENT VIII(CONTINUM

f

A4ie 27.. tiv _}, 01-c.c.s2 /)-L.¢./y/,

/904,1427 8/7 9.1.11-7/ CZ/Le 47V1.4. 6)&:6_ 44:e._ ea 9X4(y ac

aluAaef) etv;,_ .A:ea.Z. 121-

1t9eziaA rt.-1,4 2,4&, A

LAA.e eo-a.-(47 4e.t.,Le

./Icy /1.1.-e41-rj of .712.4-d(cf6

.

C -1,11 .477X/r 'WiLCQX e4t- 4,fie

!dc cc .c.e_ii_y ot..40-z-dr 1(//.7).

ia/ c-dd Carte. etnx);,.

6at. 9 wegadvstaiwzoo!oicytt .z74-LA ,

..:

25

r

' t

$L-1 6

ATTACHMENT IX

r /Ai,

6_

,titc.t t A /LL t2j6,4 C712

1.1 C VC 060 4.6-7' n,/

j7

.

1

(-"'' 1

. , f-,6 ir) a/AAA-a ,e;i,,E,

,tidLck2,. ,e---62( ,.&=4 ,

727,'aAA=c-4

LiAE, ai-- e2..

ATTACHMENT X

//c2

I

ICtiarV)C.

"=72).1,1), ziAL.

Cto 71q1-21.24...1,60 ...t./44.../'

je-4):C1,4

. ,

ai ate- (-2) a20-..1

ha.22_, ate.

162/h., /L6, 1.0(.

z: rhc4(

7441 ie CC (f-e.di,0,1AL ct6 makki.u( izatk cc/LW

al-rat limLe

64./0 Cf-r2,tL"

01,0-Miejitandt

p'u42,Ta.kg,.

a-1,14( 12a4c;

2 'ILO& .aa,-0:v efryzA- OR, 7,..22&t.c,th

tY) 1)1 j-i,e-ec-6.)-iv Leti)-e_ 71.

Latbt._ 01 -7). /77.9.itizA.a.&. ..016-71z.12,

/4_,(..; //5,.;),

,r761J,

, 1,(47,a-

!al/1i ryie-7/61(4/1

$

Ies

Immrrri

ATTACHMENT X

(CONTINUED)

x.....;

4.. ), .

\ 4

av_ii( thi, -to 04 lit Cg/k-c II-.

,Co.)

kL-11-4-: I:LC titet-6.//1 Irao- cif 't

A1Z,:,661Y

I . A i f);'' :,OZZL,

TY? g./..),u, ilec,uk, A )21At

1.11L/L SU)/ C4721el

Jcz-z-fa 41>X4.- ei-o;.-72

/1LA { irCA-Itat_S-, / 04..IV (/'-.(:1:4-2-9 . ari(jd -*6 t -/

, U

6pae(X,14,1,2_:.) -lair w ,zei, . aid` -...11.. -t-2)--o

/d1-1'1--io .0 cs 1,644-- ae' ji1/444 Aiii., 1

..,,,,,,t -ti,z,r ntia:ks. <dip '6L--)( 4. V, a J A:v-tAl ti-I-4'1,..

APF 9,4t,, c,f,Tvu

)S1/14,I,L. .)

a/XSr.W aker--,) -Al

ra

411-140. V14

. / 1 r . - v--), ''...,

r ,.

1 .-/,', !, , :II "

:. ' ../

. . I :

..> 1/17 . f

,

-

I 11- ../ /} //i.dal..t/ii..7/J 4/ i I c:,---/ s-i

.,

-,'.{..) ,,-6-:' .- . - - ^tf - ,Ver-.1- .7?-7 .,.:1-7V.,-"4-4,-,J-(117..7/../e.-)

46A ./../.,1.,/_, ..e.,2 r''-'.-Ar'7- IL -- / d:../,',?/..../) 7 //,/ ' '"/--//-e' >t-tr. -- ,,, ...... , Je- "._, ..e.ig...7,4/.,.,

-, 1c i' -(1 -v-: 1 1- -'. c,

, :?.j("//. f / / e I ( 1.4 . ,,fir Z ' ,- -o r' 414/2- , /),/Cle40.7.

: 4i

-,y 1 /

:ATTACHIVNTXI r

4

,

(qY

0 ,, ,-7 , ft-/1 a...r.1,1-l4 ,e) p,e7.:!!,4,`' ../,://:?./.,/,/ .4,,Lii

' ", , .? A./. ; . (1' , :t.

T

,P , / .,.,/ ?;/k

: . :--,;., .-/ , ?/.4-.!! ,7---:

., ,A,I1 ,/ :.;;/,.._2/,/ .,,, -.--e.--.4.:eze-1/ng_l ..4'14,6-,/.4../ ..(x,i ,

'6.711,42. j

29

*4

-

-.s.

e...,:t-,..

/

rSATZ1 In XIX

(coN 212-NUED)

1

I0

4

of

h

\

3

t

,

a

a

-

str

f-'

,tt.e

N.

C