Professional Documents
Culture Documents
can also start to build some cultural literacy about western customs that will help
unlock complicated texts they will encounter on the AP English exam.
One advantage Chinese students have over other second language learners is a
strong foundation in English grammar. If Pre-AP teachers develop lessons that
apply that knowledge to speaking, listening, and writing activities students will
develop language fluency more quickly. This workshop will offer some models of
how to extend grammar instruction to help students become more proficient in
English. Pre-AP teachers are encouraged to develop other lessons based on these
models.
Vocabulary acquisition is another area in which Pre-AP teachers can help build
language fluency. As with grammar instruction, it is important that students be
engaged in activities that allow them to speak, listen, and write.
In conclusion, the Pre-AP English teacher is critical in providing opportunities for
students to develop language skills. This is true for native speakers, but even more
important for second language learners.
Exam Structure
Multiple Choice: Approximately four
passages. While in recent years the multiple
choice has had more post 19th century prose
than pre 20th century, that could shift. Students
should read both modern and older texts. They
should also be prepared for a few writing
convention questions. Approximately 54-55
questions. One hour. 45% of total score.
Essays: 2 hours and 15 minutes- 65% of
total score
1 Synthesis Essay Students are given 15 extra
minutes to read the 5 to 7 sources related to the
topic in the prompt. After the 15 minutes of
reading time, students have two hours to write
three essays. The synthesis essay can ask
Representative Authors
The following author suggestions are taken from the AP English Language Course Description
Guide. The full Course Description Guide can be found on AP Central (
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/Controller.jpf). The guide make is clear that the list in
merely a suggestion and that other authors can be used.
For the purposes of this workshop the list is offered to start a conversation on texts that might be
used in a Pre-AP Vertical Team curriculum. Since the test contains text selections from Pre-20th
century, it is important to expose students to some early writings. Many of these are available on
the internet and do not have copyright issues. Students also need Post-20th century texts. These
might be more difficult to acquire as many are copyrighted.
Pre-20th Century
Joseph Addison, Matthew Arnold, Francis Bacon, James Boswell, Thomas Carlyle, Samuel
Taylor Coleridge, Jean de Crvecoeur, Charles Darwin, Thomas De Quincey, Frederick
Douglass, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Benjamin Franklin, Margaret Fuller, Edward Gibbon,
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, William Hazlitt, Thomas Hobbes, Harriet Jacobs (Linda Brent),
Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Johnson, Charles Lamb, John Locke,
Thomas Macaulay, Niccol Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill, John Milton, Michel de Montaigne,
Thomas More, Thomas Paine, Francis Parkman, Walter Pater, Samuel Pepys, John Ruskin,
George Bernard Shaw, Richard Steele, Jonathan Swift, Henry David Thoreau, Alexis de
Tocqueville, Oscar Wilde, Mary Wollstonecraft
20th Century to the Present
Edward Abbey, Diane Ackerman, James Agee, Paula Gunn Allen, Roger Angell, Natalie Angier,
Gloria Anzalda, Hannah Arendt, Michael Arlen, Margaret Atwood, James Baldwin, Dave Barry,
Melba Patillo Beals, Simone de Beauvoir, Lerone Bennett Jr., Wendell Berry, Sven Birkerts,
Susan Bordo, Jacob Bronowski, David Brooks, William F. Buckley, Judith Butler, Rachel
Carson, G. K. Chesterton, Winston Churchill, Kenneth Clark, Judith Ortiz Cofer, Jill Ker
Conway, Arlene Croce, Richard Dawkins, Vine Deloria Jr., Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, Joan
Didion, Annie Dillard, Maureen Dowd, Elizabeth Drew, W. E. B. Du Bois, Leon Edel, Gretel
Ehrlich, Loren Eiseley, Richard Ellmann, Nora Ephron, Niall Ferguson, Timothy
Ferris, M. F. K. Fisher, Frances Fitzgerald, Janet Flanner (Gent), Tim Flannery, Shelby Foote,
Richard Fortey, John Hope Franklin, Antonia Fraser, Thomas L. Friedman, Paul Fussell, John
Kenneth Galbraith, Mavis Gallant, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Atul Gawande, Ellen Goodman,
Nadine Gordimer, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephanie Elizondo Griest, David Halberstam, Elizabeth
Hardwick, Elva Trevino Hart, Chris Hedges, John Hersey, Christopher Hitchens, Edward
Hoagland, Richard Holmes, bell hooks, Zora Neale Hurston, Pauline Kael, Evelyn Fox Keller,
Helen Keller, George Kennan, Jamaica Kincaid, Martin Luther King Jr., Barbara Kingsolver,
Maxine Hong Kingston, Naomi Klein, Paul Krugman, Alex Kuczynski, Lewis H. Lapham, T. E.
Lawrence, Aldo Leopold, Gerda Lerner, Andy Logan, Philip Lopate, Barry Lopez, Norman
Mailer, Nancy Mairs, Peter Matthiessen, Mary McCarthy, Frank McCourt, Bill McKibben, John
McPhee, Margaret Mead, H. L. Mencken, Jessica Mitford, N. Scott Momaday, Jan Morris, John
Muir, Donald M. Murray, V. S. Naipaul, Geoffrey Nunberg, Joyce Carol Oates, Barack Obama,
Tillie Olsen, Susan Orlean, George Orwell, Cynthia Ozick, Steven Pinker, Francine Prose, David
Quammen, Arnold Rampersad, Ishmael Reed, Rick Reilly, David Remnick, Adrienne Rich,
Mordecai Richler, Richard Rodriguez, Sharman Apt Russell, Carl Sagan, Edward Said, Scott
Russell Sanders, George Santayana, Simon Schama, Arthur M. Schlesinger, David Sedaris,
Richard Selzer, Leslie Marmon Silko, Barbara Smith, Red Smith, Susan Sontag, Shelby Steele,
Lincoln Steffens, Ronald Takaki, Paul Theroux, Lewis Thomas, George Trevelyan, Calvin
Trillin, Barbara Tuchman, Cynthia Tucker, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, John Updike, Gore Vidal,
Alice Walker,Jonathan Weiner, Eudora Welty, Cornel West, E. B. White, George Will, Terry
Tempest Williams, Garry Wills, E. O. Wilson, Edmund Wilson, Tom Wolfe, Virginia Woolf,
Richard Wright, Malcolm X, Anzia Yezierska
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa1998021539/PP/
John Meng
College Essay
Eat! my father silently hissed at me, There is absolutely no reason to feel guilty;
besides, you might even develop a taste for it.
I struggled to hold back my rage.
Not...funnydad
He chose wisely to end the brief exchange, jumping back into the not-so-funny table
humor that engulfed the rest of my relatives. It was a scheme to lower my defenses. Out of the
corner of my eye, I saw that he had already adjusted his gaze to the center of my plate in eager
anticipation. Gulp There was no way out. Cornered against an unbreakable standard of etiquette
and a father who might just have had a little too much to drink, I finally decided to gather
whatever confidence that remained, take the risk and dive head-first into the ominous future.
My hands were quivering uncontrollably and yet I began to meticulously position the
chopsticks in their positions. Uncles, laughing, became silent; aunts, gossiping, became still;
fathers, anticipating, became motionless. After staring at his cold plate for 10 minutes, was this
Americanized boy really going to experience gritty Chinese culture? I cautiously raised the piece
of meat towards my mouth; time slowed down for sure.
Are you out of your mind?! Think of the consequences. What would people say?
pleaded a voice inside my head.
Life cannot be lived without risk! Think of the success! Be polite to your relatives!
persuaded another.
It was true. My uncle treated me to this dinner. I would be insane to anger relatives.
Shutting my eyes, I crossed the point of no return and swallowed the piece of meat. On that
fateful day, Ia law-abiding citizen who has never robbed a bank, committed fraud, or
participated in money launderingviolated one of civilizations most sacred pillars of humanity;
I ate a part of mans best friend.
Opening my eyes, I watched my family cheer and felt my confidence skyrocket. I
succeeded? I succeeded! I had become an epic hero for my derring-do. Victory was surely mine.
Wrong. I nearly vomited 5 minutes later. My stomach quarantined me to the bathroom for
the evening. After arriving home and recounting the incident, my friends made fun of me for 2
slow weeks.
I learned the hard way. Risks do not always have a happy ending. And yet what better
way could I have learned it? Success without failure, is that even possible? Maybe it wasnt the
best ideaphysically, morally, and sociallyto have eaten that fateful piece, however, in taking
that risk, mans best friend did become my friend. He taught me the necessity of taking risks and
the humility that often comes attached. I have no regrets. Gulp Maybe this topic wasnt the best
ideawho knows, you might just be a member of PETA. Brushing aside crushed fairy-tales, I
embrace the possibility of a happy ending. This is a risk I must take.
Seminar
Purposes:
Guidelines:
No one person or persons should dominate. If you have spoken three times, wait
at least five minutes before talking.
Please address your peers by surnames.
Grades are determined by student and teacher.
Your grade is based on a healthy balance among 1) listening to others 2)
speaking 3) questioning and clarifying points made by others 4) familiarity with
the text 4) ability to draw parallels and make connections.
Be aware of people who are trying to jump in, but are having a difficult time.
Ask thoughtful questions that clarify and expand ideas.
Be willing to qualify or abandon your initial opinions if you are persuaded by
others that you need to do so.
When drawing parallels and making connections refer to the text.
Be comfortable with silence.
Make eye contact with your peers, not the teacher.
The teacher will act as facilitator not as the authority.
Remember, this is a discovery and critical thinking activity. Most comments are
welcome. Evaluation of those comments is encouraged.
Linear thinkers need to be comfortable with ambiguity. Answers and direction
come later.
Its fine to return to a previous topic in the conversation. Just acknowledge that
you would like to shift the discussion or to return to a point that Mr. Jones made
earlier.
Seminars raise more questions than they answer. Refinement of thought comes
through other activities.
General Comments
Textually Supported
Questions
Please rate the following components of the discussion on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest.
Briefly defend your ranking.
Participation
1 2 3 4 5
Content
1 2 3 4 5
Listening
1 2 3 4 5
Cooperation
1 2 3 4 5
Overall
1 2 3 4 5
On the back, write a paragraph analyzing the discussion you just witnessed.
Seminar Evaluation
Name: __________________
Level 1:
____ Contributes to the Discussion
____ Listens Actively
____ Is Considerate
Level 2:
____ Does Not Digress Unproductively
____ Is Neither Impulsive Nor Overly Hesitant
Level 3:
Extends and Expands Discussion by:
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Questioning
Involving Others in a Meaningful Way
Offering Analogies
Alluding to Previously Shared Readings
Clarifying the Contribution of Others
Comprehending and Contributing at the Universal Level
Examining Critically and Logically the Ideas of Others
Grade: ____
A. What were the main points made during the discussion? Which if any were confusing or
unclear?
B. What did I hear that I already knew or thought?
C. What interesting new point(s) did I hear? Who made it (them)?
SOAPSTONE
S ubject: _______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
O ccasion: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
A udience: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
P urpose: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
S peaker and S hift: _____________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
TONE: ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Rhetorical
Situation
Audience
Purpose
Logos
Imagery
Appeals
Ethos
Pathos
Imagery
Organization / Structure / Form
Diction
Syntax
Surface FeaturesFigurative
Language
How to Recognize
3rd Person
Omniscient
Nonparticipant; Knows
thoughts of all characters;
can move locations within
seconds; has God-like
abilities; usually
summarizes not in the
diction and syntax of the
characters, but of the
narrator
Nonparticipant;
Knows thoughts of one
character; reports dialogue
and actions of remaining
characters but not their
thoughts.
Nonparticipant; observes
the action or retells a it
from accounts of others
Direct Discourse
Identified by quotation
marks; reproduces actual
speech
Possible Impact on
Theme and Tone (Other
possibilities exist)
May intensify action and
suspense, but might be
unreliable as s/he has not
had time to reflect on the
conflict.
May lose some of the
excitement associated with
a 1st person subjective
narrative, but the narrator
often gains some reliability
over subjective narrators
Reliable speaker knows
thoughts of characters;
therefore, knows
motivations and agendas;
Less opportunity or need
for reader to draw
inferences; can slow
narrative pace; can distant
the readers from the
characters.
Reliable speaker, but less
so than a 3rd person
omniscient; reader distance
is lessened for the chosen
character.
Cannot report thoughts so
loses some reliability
associated with omniscient
narrators; more objective
than a 1st person narrator,
but often not as passionate;
style may be journalistic
Allows reader to draw
inferences about
characters; supports or
refutes narrative
commentary; often
quickens the narrative pace
Examples
Indirect Discourse
Free Indirect
Discourse
Stream of Conscious
or Interior
Monologue
Grammatical structure of
reported speech; narrator
reports what was said, not
how it was said.
3rd person narrator, but a
stylistic departure from
pure 3rd person omniscient
or limited omniscient
narrators. Instead of
reporting thoughts of
characters solely in the
style of the narrator, the
narrator reports the
thoughts in the style of the
character.
Can be either a 1st or 3rd
person narrator, but the
characters thoughts are
replicated using 1st person
pronouns; resembles
natural thought patterns
that do not follow spoken
or written syntax; often
dependent on symbols and
motifs