At 10:28 AM 3/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Patrick's priest story is interesting. I confess that I occasionally tell >anecdotes that I know will pique curiosity (and possibly learning!) although >I suspect they may not pass the Stephen Ambrose/Doris Kearns Goodwin test of >crediting the correct source, nor even getting the facts right. My most >frequent examples in class, which are subject to a certain amount of >exaggeration and distorted memory, are family stories. I've told some of >the stories so often that sometimes I can't even remember which child of >mine was involved in the purported event. But I suspect that when teaching, >the important thing is to help the student make the connection. I always >hope they won't nail me on accuracy, but if they ever did, I'd freely >confess I couldn't prove it and that it's just an example to help them >understand. I'm painfully honest with regards to my personal failings.
I admit that I too engage in a bit of what I would call minor and 'benign' exaggeration of personal stories told in the classroom. As Beth correctly points out, most of us do this sort of thing for pedagogical reasons. However, we must be careful not to go too far with these kinds of practices. The relevant case here is that of historian and Pulitzer-prize winner Joseph Ellis, whose exaggerations in the classroom about his alleged involvement in Vietnam and civil right movements resulted in a very public and embarrassing scandal. If I remember correctly, he was actually suspended without pay from Mount Holyoke as a result of his embellishments. Regarding Patrick's question about priests not remembering those baptismal prayers, I have to wonder. From a levels of processing approach, wouldn't a truly spiritual intention when performing just a few baptismal ceremonies lead to the quick memorization of such prayers? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
