Steve, I've been travelling....sorry for the delay in responding.
The 5 paragraph theme is the reigning template for teaching writing in US
secondary schools. It's also known as the 3-point theme (and by !#! who-is-at #!#@ by
people who don't like it). Paragraph #1 is the introductory paragraph
which states the paper's thesis and outlines its 3 major points. Paragraphs
2-4 are each dedicated to the 3 major points. Paragraph #5 summarizes what
the writer said in #s 1-4. The thinking is that writers can extrapolate
from this form to produce any argument.
I'll attach the article, which is a case study of one young teacher who
adopts the FPT as her main vehicle for teaching writing. The opening
section summarizes the discussion surrounding the advisability of teaching
this form.
Peter
At 01:55 AM 11/13/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Peter,
>
>I enjoyed reading your paper too!
>
>I have what could seem like a silly question, after having read your whole
>talk. Would you explain what a 5-paragraph theme (template, rubric,
>formula) is? I'm kind of guessing ...
>
>Thanks,
>- Steve
>
>
>PS. Great metaphor and writing passage about rhizomes, ways of thinking,
>and the nature of culture/cultivation, Peter. Here are some excerpts for
>those who would like a taste of Peter's talk:
>
>from Rethinking Rhizomes in Writing about Research:
>
>To a gardener, rhizome is a term used to describe the ways in which
>particular kinds of plants propagate; that is, how they spread or
>multiply. A rhizome has a horizontal underground stem that shoots out new
>roots that themselves may be separated out to start whole new plants ...
>
>Deleuze and Guattari (1987) adapted the term rhizomatic in their
>postmodern essay "A Thousand Plateaus" as a way to distinguish between
>human conceptions that have clear centers and lineages and those that are
>decentered and unruly. They call this first, paradigmatically dominant
>conception arborescent, which from its root in the term for tree suggests
>to them a strong, vertical, stiff center and linear, hierarchical,
>sedentary, segmented structure, with branches divided into smaller and
>less significant outgrowths as they spread upward ...
>
>[According to this metaphor] Rhizomatic thought, in contrast to arbolic
>thought, is nonlinear, nonhierarchical, decentered, horizontal, and
>possessed with other qualities antithetical to the dominant paradigm. It
>may move in many directions, like rhizomes themselves; the propagated
>division may grow just as lustily as the original root, and perhaps more
>so if more carefully cultivated. A rhizomatic idea, argue Deleuze and
>Guattari (1987), "ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic
>chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts,
>sciences, and social struggles" (p. 7).
>
>[Peter continues] Speaking as a gardener, I would argue that these
>connections don't simply happen but are cultivated. An iris, for
>instance, cannot have its rhizome immersed in water for more than 24 hours
>or it will begin to rot at the root. A sun-loving plant, whether arbolic
>or rhizomatic, will grow poorly in the shade. Phlox that thrive in the
>arid southwest succumb to mildew in the humid southeast. In other words,
>if I may borrow a favorite phrase from poststructuralism, the metaphor
>begs for considerable troubling in order to be useful in the social
>sciences or humanities. That troubling begins for me with a term common
>to both gardeners and social science researchers, culture. How
>individuals and related individuals grow in a particular setting or medium
>is a consequence of the conditions that mediate their development. And so
>simply being rhizomatic, I would argue, is not sufficient; for both plants
>and people, an environment of appropriate fertility must provide the
>setting of development.
>
><end of quote>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST