Exploratory Essay Workshop Reflections

After reviewing the comments from my inquiry group regarding my exploratory essay, I can reflect on the workshop process as follows:

1.)  I believe the most helpful piece of advice I received from my inquiry group was the help regarding my run-on sentences.  I am notorious for my long, verbose sentences that make sense in my head but read as very awkward and cumbersome.  Lynnsey especially pointed out several places where I need to separate sentences for the paper to continue to flow.  Other than that, my group felt I did a good job on this paper. I feel I can make it a good second draft with a few changes.

2.) Probably the least helpful advice I was given was the praise I was given on my paper.  I know that sounds terrible, and I hate to say it, but I'm afraid it's true.  I don't want people to be kind to my writing; I know I have a LOT to do to improve it. I also know that people have a hard time critiquing me because they may not know how to do this assertively (and constructively).  Heads up, Josh, Joey, and Lynnsey: I can take the heat, I promise!!! Please don't be afraid to tell me how I can be better, because I will promise to do the same for you.  We all have to get real with each other and I will take the criticism as best I can.  After all, it's better we give it to each other than get it from Megan (when it's too late!).

3.) For my inquiry group, I had a few questions about comments:
      a.) How do you guys think we should go about citing the handouts and assignments given to us to compare in this essay? I'm not sure on all the details of each reading, so I'm going to email Megan to get some advice. Let me know what you think...
     b.) Do you think the choice to leave my "questions I was left with" paragraph as it is? or should I do like y'all and integrate it into my body paragraphs?  I wasn't sure about the choice, but I think it could work either way.  Personally, I liked that y'all integrated them, but I couldn't figure out how to do so without making the paragraphs even longer than they already are! Please advise...

4.) As for the changes I intend to make on the second draft, I plan to do the following:
     a.) Amend my run-on sentences where my inquiry grouped marked them to make things more clear
     b.) Possibly integrate the questions I was left with after comparing these articles into the main body of the essay rather than leaving them at the end
     c.) Revise my in-line citations and complete the Works Cited page using proper MLA documentation style once I receive more information about the readings' origins

Exploratory Essay First Draft

In his essay “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT”, test-prep guru Stanley Kaplan explains that critical thinking is “to think things out, to think about the hows and whys.” He believes this is the most important skill to be taught to students in his SAT prep classes and he uses several different methods to accomplish this goal.  He’s not alone in this belief; the authors of several other readings we’ve talked about in class also believe the skill essential to success, not just in test taking, but in education in general. Though each of these authors is coming from a different place and teaching a myriad of learners from multiple demographics, their teaching methods still have certain characteristics in common.

                The first teaching method I realized these authors had in common is the usage of newspaper articles and current events as a way to encourage the development of critical thinking skills.  When discussing vocabulary building activities he used to prepare students for the SAT, Kaplan claims in “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT” that newspapers can be a useful tool. He explains, “Each week I instructed students to cut out ten newspaper articles and underline all the challenging words. The more they read, the more powerful their vocabulary became.” Kaplan implies that critical thinking skills were used by the students in order to read and interpret the more challenging material in the newspapers, forcing them to read more as well as use their resources to find a way to understand the vocabulary.  Though Kaplan uses newspapers to expose students to new words, other instructors mentioned in the articles we’ve read use them to expose students to new concepts and connections in the classroom.  In her article “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work”, Jean Anyon describes the “affluent professional” class of schools, claiming that “Social studies also involves almost daily presentation by the children of some event from the news” and that the instructor guides the discussion of these events “to help [the students] see the connections between events” because, as one instructor says, “These children’s opinions are important—that they learn to reason these things through.” Anyon mentions the method of using current events because it is a good example of how critical thinking skills are being taught successfully in upper class schools. This further proves her theory that the “curriculum of work” characteristic of upper class schools (as opposed to that of the lower-class schools) is actually preparing students to take on executive, professional jobs of the upper class.

                I also noticed that several authors mentioned that having an interdisciplinary curriculum present in the school aided their instruction of critical thinking skills thought so necessary for academic success.  In the handout we read from the American Montessori Society, their elementary school teaching methods involve “work with the Montessori learning materials and an interdisciplinary curriculum as [the student] passes from the concrete to the abstract.” This seems to refer to critical thinking skills, meaning that Montessori proponents believe students are learning in their elementary school years to connect “concrete” facts in order to understand larger, “abstract” concepts.  In his article “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, Earl Shorris describes his Clemente course in the humanities to prospective students as a course comprised of “philosophy, poetry, art history, logic, rhetoric, and American history” where each subject will be instructed by “people of accomplishment” in each of their respective fields.  He implies that each subject is an integral part of the “humanities” education each student is lacking and that each of these subjects will help them build “a foundation for getting along with the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world…”  Shorris believes that all the humanities are important and intertwined, and his description of how the course flows from the philosophy of Socrates and ancient Greece to the artistic depictions of this era of history shows how connections between language and thought and history are made by the students because they can see how one field affects and connects to another. From the successful outcomes mentioned in the article, Shorris demonstrates how these students became more willing and able make critical connections and learn in the Clemente course—one student said that this was because “it was the first time anyone ever paid attention to their opinions.” Clearly, he feels that the interdisciplinary approach featured in the Clemente course encouraged the development of these critical thinking skills within his students.

                The concept of students becoming teachers is another teaching method valued by several authors and used to promote critical thinking skills.  In the description of the Montessori educational philosophy, student teachers are mentioned as part of the “hallmark of the Montessori method”, where “older students reinforce their learning by teaching concepts they’ve already mastered.”  This implies that when students become teachers they gain more skills than when they are taught by the teacher alone and that these skills are taught because they are essential to the students’ development as learners.  This concept is also seen in Anyon’s description of the teaching methods characteristic of upper-class schools.  She describes language arts instructional methods in the “executive elite” class of schools, outlining how each student in the class “had to plan a lesson…and explain the concept to the class.” Grades were given based on the student’s style and presentation of the lesson, as well as their classroom management skills.  Anyon mentions this method as how the large proportion of language arts is done within this class of school, suggesting that the leadership and critical thinking skills developed during the “student teacher” activity are of high value to the “executive elite” school students and are important for their development as future executive-level workers.

                After noticing the similarities and differences between the teaching methods described in each article, I have to wonder at the effectiveness of introducing a novel teaching method into an established classroom and seeing how it would affect the development of critical thinking for students.  While several of the methods are shared between the teachers and authors of these articles, each classroom situation seems to be missing something and could stand to be improved by the addition of a new and effective way of learning.  For example, what would happen if Shorris were to begin to use current events in his humanities classes? Would that help his students to apply their new philosophy or logic concepts to their own lives in a more effective way than using hypothetical situations? Would using student teaching methods improve how students are prepared for the SAT in Kaplan’s courses? Could the “executive elite” classes benefit more from an interdisciplinary approach like that outlined by the Montessori system?  It would seem that since all the authors achieved success in their classrooms by employing these different methods, they would argue that each different classroom would be positively affected by the inclusion of a novel teaching method.

Works Cited

Anyon, Joan. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work.” Journal of Education 162.1 (1980).

Kaplan, Stanley. “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT”.

Shorris, Earl. “On the Uses of a Liberal Education.”

“Montessori Education—American Montessori Society” Handout. Distributed February 13, 2013.

Responding--Really Responding--to Other Students' Writing Reading Response

In this amusing guide to peer review, author Richard Straub outlines some very useful tips for the complete and thoughtful review of another person's writing.  Straub outlines some ideas for what (and what not) to do when reading another writer's paper, in particular, emphasizing thoughtful comments over hasty, abbreviated criticism.  He tells the reader to praise and critique in equal measure so as to not seem harsh. He also says to not be ambiguous--instead, he says to point the writer in a specific direction while avoiding telling them exactly how to fix the paper.  He says that the reader should take into account several factors when reading and providing comments: the nature of the assignment, the goals of the paper, the author's particular style, and even the draft stage of the paper. Straub even goes so far as to suggest where the reader should write their comments so as not to seem invasive.  Finally, Straub gives an example of a student's comments on his classmate's paper and shows how thoughtful comments can be given to good effect.  He critiques the commentator and shows how he might have done a better job, but highlights how the comments given will lead the writer in the right direction on the next draft.

I really thought Straub did a great job in engaging the reader of this article through the use of humor and examples.  I happen to respond very favorably to humor in writing, so his conversational style appealed to me a great deal.  I really liked how he reprinted the comments on an actual paper and evaluated the reviewer's comments; Straub didn't feel it to be a flawlessly done review, but he highlighted several of the more thoughtful comments and how they would effectively steer the writer in the right direction.  This gave me a better idea of what to do than just telling me how to do it. I find I learn more from seeing real examples rather than being given a list of directions.   I do believe that Straub made it clear for the readers of this article how important it is to consider everything about the paper and focus more on content as opposed to structure.  I feel that it's more important to get the idea right first and worry about picky things like grammar later, though I know that some teachers have often only valued the structure and syntax because it's easier to grade papers based on those criteria. 

"First, don't set out to seek and destroy all errors and problems in the writing....You're not the writer. You're the reader. One of many. [The writer] is in charge of what she does to her writing. That doesn't mean you can't make suggestions."

I really liked this line because it hinted at some of my own tendencies when I review papers for my peers.  I attempt to rewrite parts for them, probably out of a desire to help them succeed, but Straub makes a good point. I am NOT the writer and it is NOT my responsibility to fix the paper. I do not have the control here; the writer does, and I'm not afraid to say that that is hard for me to not have the control. I have to remind myself of what Straub is saying here: my responsibility is to steer the writer in the direction of improvement where the paper is concerned, and my comments should to that WITHOUT rewriting bits for them.  I have always had trouble with this and I will attempt to apply Straub's suggestions while trying to still be helpful. 

"On the Uses of a Liberal Education" Reading Response

This reading assignment centered around a project called the Clemente course, where the instructor educated at-risk students from lower classes about the humanities, a set of knowledge to which few if any of the twenty-odd students had ever been exposed.  The purpose of this course was to educate the students on how to better respond to the world around them--a world the author describes as full of "forces" that hinder the lower classes' abilities to ever contribute to and function within society.  The author and his colleagues selected a group of thirty disadvantaged students judged to be most likely to benefit from the course and brought in various instructors to educate them in history, art, logic, rhetoric, and ethics.  Before and after the course, the researchers administered a questionnaire to the students to measure the level of "forces" they felt in their lives and the degree to which they reflected on their life. The author also shared bits of his personal philosophy on humanities education throughout the article. In particular, he expanded on why he felt it was important to educate these students, citing particular examples of how the course seemed to affect changes in how the students responded to their environment and dealt more appropriately with conflict.  The study found that, after taking the Clemente course, the students were more able to respond to situations with reasoned reflection and many began to participate more in society--getting better jobs, going to college, and abstaining from criminal behavior. The author draws the conclusion that exposing people of lower socioeconomic classes--an experience usually reserved for the upper and middle classes--could make the difference that catalyzes upward mobility within the lower classes.

I do take issue with the fact that none of the data from the questionnaire was mentioned and analyzed in the description of the study, which makes me question whether the favorable results were quantitative as well as qualitative. The author gives several examples of how the class yielded positive results, relating ways that students changes the way they reason out and respond to conflict, but he gave little mention to how this knowledge could've also been dangerous to the students not able to properly apply it.  These two points made me distrust the results a bit, but not enough for me to believe that the study was invalid.  I just think the reading read as a bit biased in favor of the hypothesis.

I agree with the author on several points, especially when he posits that "the humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world instead of just reacting to whatever force is turned against you."  It reminds me of the movie "Dangerous Minds" when the teacher talks about the students learning to use learning writing as a way to make themselves tougher and more prepared to take on the world.  I think this line is "golden" because it speaks of the manifold benefits of education, in particular, humanities education.  Teaching kids how to think rather than just facts that they should know is the only way students will learn to put all that knowledge to use.  Also, this line goes right to the heart of the matter--in saying that the humanities are the "foundation for getting along in the world" it hints at the gap between those that usually get along (privileged elites) and those that don't (the underpriviledged poor) in society, while also showing how education in the humanities might help close this gap. 

Class Discussion on 2-11-13

Just now getting around to posting this, better late than never, I guess...

After discussing college admissions and financing a college education, I was very intrigued by the impression I got from some members of the class, particularly about scholarships.  This may be a bad impression, but I felt some students really felt victimized by the financial aid process and felt that it should've been easier to find a way to pay their tuition with scholarships or with grants at the very least.  I was very confused by this. It seemed that people felt that admission to college was where their responsibility ended, but I cannot agree there.  I think it's important to remember that most college students are adults by the time they begin attending college and as such, the responsibility lies with them to figure out a way to finance their future.  I realize this may be harder than ever with so many people competing for scholarships and the dwindling availability of grants, but this is why people must try harder to make the funding happen for themselves.  We must at some point accept that attending college is still viewed as a privilege and not a right, regardless of what one might think.  I really appreciated the viewpoint of one student in class, who voiced a very mature viewpoint: she didn't feel her parents should have to pay for her to go to college, even though they could obviously afford it--clearly she felt the sense of responsibility that others have struggled and failed to develop.  We're all adults now, and the sooner we realize it and shed that sense of entitlement, the better off we'll be when faced with more of the realities of post-college life and the shrinking job market.  I hate to say it: but job hunting will be harder than scholarship hunting, heads up, folks.

Also, I was impressed by one student's description of a College Summit class required at her high school that focused on college preparation. This class struck me as a fantastic idea and something that more schools should offer.  It would be a simple way to organize and empower students to face the process of getting into and paying for college, something that seems to constantly confuse and overpower students to this day.  I count myself lucky to have benefitted from an excellent guidance office in high school whose main focus was arming students with this crucial knowledge.  Even with all that, I still had difficulties navigating the FAFSA, but nothing's perfect.  It just seemed to me that this type of class would be a good use of class time, maybe in homeroom or study hall (if those still exist) or on an afterschool basis if time is not available in the regular class day.  Students need to be prepared for all that comprises college, and a class like this couldn't hurt.

"How Working-Class Chicas Get Working-Class Lives" Reading Response

The portion of the chapter assigned to me talked about "High School Tracks" and how this tracking helps to reinforce class and even racial lines within the school the subjects ("las chicas") attended.  The author first explains how the "chicas" get tracked into the vocational-level classes, sometimes without the student's knowledge.  Then she goes on to describe how this knowledge affects both the way the "chicas" believe about their opportunities for college acceptance and the way that they approach even finishing high school.  The author explains the differences between the college "prep" track classes and the vocational track classes in terms of what skills they teach to their respective learners, and concludes that since students of color and of the working class are predominantly the students tracked into these vocational classes, the tracking of students in high school is in fact reinforcing class- and race-based lines outside the classroom.  Still, the author makes sure to point out that the "chicas" are not so willing to believe that they're at a disadvantage when it comes to the vocational track.  Several descriptions of success are given by the "chicas" that hint that they feel their lower wage jobs make them better off than their parents The author explains how this makes the vocational track seem to be almost acceptable to the "chicas" and their parents because of the inability of both to understand that better jobs are not necessarily those that will earn a living wage.

I believe that the author does a very good job of presenting direct evidence of the "chica" viewpoint, in many cases, quoting them directly to prove her point.  I think the author assumes we know a lot about the substance of the vocational and college-prep tacks, though, and refers to it passingly in several instances, but I think a better instance would have been to give better examples of the different classes within each track so as to better understand the differences between the two.  I believe she still does a good job explaining how the lack of education for both the parents and students has a great effect on how the students perceive school, the "tracks", jobs, and social class.  Each example is very illustrative and I like the fact that the author chooses in most cases to include the "chicas" opinion verbatim.

I agree with the author's conclusion that high school tracks are indeed reinforcing racial and class lines.  This makes me think that the concept of high-school guidance has really suffered, in turn, making the students really pay the price for the poor guidance.  Stil, I don't know that schools are completely to blame--the author makes a good argument that parents and students alike are ignorant of just how insufficiently they're prepared to earn a living wage from this vocational track.  In my opinion, this means that both students and parents should strive to be more involved in their own school experience and should attempt to understand the real outcomes associated with their performance in school.

"These students are held up as models to which all should aspire, and so much attention is paid to exceptions that it is easy to forget those who make up the rule."

I really liked this line because it hints at a lot of society's negative views on those students who form the "rule" of class and race-based distinctions within school.  I myself could give several examples of friends that came from nothing--illiterate parents with bottom-rung jobs-- that are now more successful than myself. And right alongside these examples, I would have normally said how this meant that anyone could've risen up and achieved something because these people did.  After reading the assignment, I am not sure about that now. These students may be a great example of "defying the odds", but their celebrity only seems to make it clear to me (at least, after reading this article) that more should be done to help disadvantaged students understand their own potential. This would help because students, teachers, and parents could understand their child's real chances, focusing less on what could be and more on what they really could get out of school.

"Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work" Reading Response

In the reading "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work", author Joan Anyon attempts to lend support to the theory that schools educating children from a certain socioeconomic background are using specific types of classroom work to educate their students to fill occupations characteristic of their same class. Specifically, that schools for working class children teach children to be blue-collar workers, while more affluent schools instruct children to fulfill more skilled, executive roles in the workforce.  In the section where she describes the "Executive Elite" schools, Anyon relates observations that students in these schools are given a great deal of control over their learning process and that they are greatly encouraged to employ analytical thinking in order to solve a problem.  She also says that observers noted the students doing a great deal of complex work, mostly involving research, critical thinking, and reasoning tasks.  Further observations show that children in this class of school are encouraged to give their opinion on various concepts and ideas in class, especially when they are attempting to develop a process for solving a problem.  The children in this type of classroom setting are also allowed a great deal of freedom in their movement around the class and even made to be "student teachers", so that the responsibility for learning is placed even more firmly on the students' shoulders.  Also, observers relate that the teachers in this class of school create an open and engaging environment for their students--they encourage students to give their opinions on all work-related subjects and they also give them the ability to challenge and discuss points of contention in the classroom where appropriate.  In the concluding paragraphs, Anyon says that the evidence and observations related in the article serve to prove the existence of a "hidden curriculum of work"--that schools from each socioeconomic class: (a) prepare their students for jobs characteristic of their same classes, and (b) how students from each class of school are socialized to interpret work, authority, and success in school differently based on their social class. Anyon concludes by reiterating that the experiences a child can have in school can influence the place that child occupies in society after school ends.

After reading the assigned section for "Executive Elite" schools and the paper's conclusion, I have mixed feelings as to whether Anyon argued her point well.  I think that she gave some very good examples of how each school works, but she never really gets down to the point of comparing and contrasting each school and class.  The differences are clear if you read each section, but at no point do I see the author making these differences plain.  I think the "data" portion of this paper is clear and well related, for I feel that the author gave very good illustrations and examples of the practices in each social class of school. I just don't think she ever clearly completed the "interpretation" section of the paper where she should've highlighted differences and similarities between each of the classes.  Also, I think that her sample size is a bit limited.  It seems to me that she thought this as well, for, at the end of the article, she calls for further investigations to be made to lend support to her theory.  I do not believe that studying five schools and one grade within each school is enough evidence to conclusively prove her theory, but I do think the evidence she gives is rich and compelling.  I just think more schools and more grades need to be sampled, though I realize this would not be a simple undertaking.  After reading this paper, I am left with the question of whether or not there is more to this story.  I would like to have seen more classrooms observed within each social class, so that many different teaching and learning environments might be analyzed.  I would also like to see what happened to the students within each class observed--maybe a longitudinal study should've been conducted alongside this one to see what sorts of occupations these students would really hold after their experiences in school.  Seeing more and richer evidence might help me to believe more in the "hidden curriculum of work" theory proposed by Anyon here, but as it is, I am not completely convinced.

I do agree with Anyon to a certain extent that a student's social class could have some bearing on how they learn in school and how they approach schoolwork.  It would be hard to deny the connection between wealth and educational resources available to students and teachers, but I don't necessarily think it has everything to do with it.  I feel that a student's experiences in school are dependent on a great deal of other factors both inside and outside of the classroom, and I don't know that socioeconomic class has the greatest effect on schoolwork.  Teaching styles and learning environments are as unique as the teachers and students themselves and this could also have a great deal to do with the differing evidence observed in these classrooms.  Maybe someone should attempt to investigate how a similar type of classroom setting and similar types of resources may have an effect on students from differing backgrounds.  That kind of study would yield some interesting results in terms of how students are prepared to work, and I would be very interested in the findings.

The teachers attempted to keep tight control over the children

during lessons, and the children were sometimes flippant, boisterous, and occasionally rude.

However, the children may be brought into line by reminding them that "It is up to you." "You must

control yourself," "you are responsible for your work," you must "set your own priorities."

I thought the above line was very ineresting because it seemed to draw attention to both the greatest success and failure inherent in the "Executive Elite" classroom environment.  In creating an environment where students are given a great deal of freedom and authority, the children are allowed to develop a great deal of responsibility over their own education, and this is integral to their development as independent thinkers. But this great benefit seems to come at the cost of classroom management. From reading this quote, it appears that the students balked at the authority of the teacher and the rudeness may have come as a result of the teacher's attempt to take back that position of authority from them.  At one point, a teacher in this class of school was observed to say that she "thought 'these children' would have more control.  That's the point, really--they seemed to have a bit more control in the classroom than the teacher herself and therefore they got confused as the identity of the real authority in the classroom.  This is different than behavior observed in the lower classes of school, where classrooms are ruled by the teacher and behavior is strictly monitored.  I think that classroom management in most cases would be the biggest challenge faced by teachers at these "Executive Elite" schools because, in giving them a great deal of freedom, students are given a greater share of the power and can become confused when that freedom is threatened for the sake of maintaining order.  Still, I think the risks outweigh the benefits. Students at these schools are benefiting from being held accountable for their own work because they're being asked to consider bigger concepts than just the task at hand, making them more capable of independent, critical thought that observed of their peers at lower classes of school. 

Commenting on the Comments

I've just gotten my paper back with comments and suggestions, so here goes:

1.) What was the most helpful piece of advice you received? Explain.
I'd say the most helpful advice I received was Megan's advice to explain myself more.  Several times she commented "tell me more", leading me to believe that I didn't flesh out my argument with enough examples to fully carry my point.  I will admit that I thought I had enough story in the piece to illustrate my history, but I think what she means is that I should explain more about how my experiences specifically affected my writing and my views on writing in general.  That was the whole point of the assignment after all, so it would seem that I need to work on relating each significant event in my history back to my views on writing and being a writer.

2.)  What was the least helpful piece of advice you received? Explain.

Not much of what Megan had to say was unhelpful.  I appreciate that she enjoyed the organization of my paper, calling it "clever", and I am glad I made a good choice in doing so.  Least helpful, I guess, would have to be her comment that she found it interesting that my writing career was finished after I gave everything I had to the Freshman Seminar speech on plagiarism.  I really did give it my last real effort, and along with it, my last real shred of confidence.  I thought I had really made it clear that that was the last of what I really had to give. I don't agree with her that anything was "fixed" with that piece of writing; I simply gave it all I had left so I could be saved the shame of being expelled from school. My point being that her comment seemed a bit ambiguous whereas the others were fairly straightforward, so I'd like to talk to her and understand what she meant by it.

3.)  What questions do you have about Megan's comments?

I guess I need to know what she's looking for when she says "tell me more". Frankly, I thought I had told quite a bit, so I need to know how to flesh out the piece without becoming verbose (or at least more that I already am!).  I also want to know what she meant when she commented about it being interesting to her that my confidence was "fixed" with a piece of writing.  If I gave that impression, it was a false one; in my opinion, my writing confidence is non-existent at best.

4.)  What are your plans for revision? Be specific. I should be able to understand exactly how your work will change in exactly which places.

First, I plan to speak to Megan about how to expand on what I said in each place where she asked for "more" in the comments.  I'm not really sure what she's looking for here, but I plan to get a better idea of how to do that without going overboard. This means that I will expand on the details I gave at least once in each paragraph and then attempt to answer the specific questions she asked me after asking for "more".  Secondly, Megan asked me several times to describe how I felt about writing during significant events in my history.  I had not really done this in all places that required it, and it seems I got away from the original assignment in not doing so. In the next draft, I will add those thoughts to the description of each event I related and then explain how each event affected my views on writing.   Lastly, I will attempt to answer questions put to me by Megan when she asked me "What makes a 'good' writer" and "how do you define a 'good' writer". I realize I made that statement about me being "a very good writer" without explaining myself at all. Therefore I will revise my paper at that point with an attempt to define what I believe to be "good" writing, how to identify "good" writing, and why I called myself "good" once upon a time.