preparation of the undergraduate. Perhaps the biggest mistake we teaehers make is to fail to realize how little we knew at the undergraduate level and the bumps we had up the ladder of economic training. The matter of nomene]ature is the biggest stumbling block. As trained economists, we have difl~culty understanding one another because of words. When I was at the University of Kentucky, Professor Bradford and I started to make a list of words which we thought the beginning student shou]d know. It ran into the hundreds. Furthermore, we do not use them properly ourselves much of the time. I suspect that language alone discourages more students than any other factor.In considering what should be taught, Dr. Kohls rightly concludes that we try to teach too much. I am glad that he gets into the problem of where concepts should be taught as he does in bis discussion of cumulative building. Also, he is correct when he states that Ÿ is the responsibility of the faculty to get together "to prepare a master chart of purposes, concepts and principles along with the relative role and place of all individual courses." I would emphasize that this must be done even ir a ]ittle head-knocking is required. Sometimes I feel we teachers confuse abridgment of academie freedom with self-discipline and "university citizenship." Policies properly conceived with respect to what and where subject matter shall be taught are not an infringement of academie freedom.Finally, although it was not the purpose of either speaker to consider how to implement the ideas expressed and how to improve teaching, this is quite as important and is worthy of consideration at the next annual meeting.Director James and Professor Kohls have provided us with two excellent papers in an area which has received too little attention from our profession. I agree with their major propositions, and hence, will devote my time to points which I believe deserve emphasis and to other considerations which they purposely omitted from their papers.In my judgment, schools of agriculture generally are not moving lar enough or fast enough in the revision of their curriculums to meet the future needs of our students. New technology has been and will eontinue to be developed by our scientists at an increasing rate. If this view is correct, it has two important implications for our edueational programs.The first implication is that we must place a high rate of depreciation on

With Mason’s increasing population of multilingual students, faculty in writing intensive courses at the undergraduate and graduate level are often looking for innovative, efficient approaches to providing feedback on student writing.This session will provide an overview of dynamic written corrective feedback (Hartshorn et. al, 2010; Ferris,1999), a strategy that allows faculty to look past errors in accuracy by prioritizing attention to student efforts towards complexity. We use this model in English composition classes to help multilingual students become more reflective, self-reliant writers in terms of their idea development, critical analysis and language accuracy. During the session composition and language faculty from INTO-Mason’s undergraduate and graduate program will explain the research behind the technique, provide examples of this feedback approach and engage participants in a discussion of its potential use in their classes.  This method can be used to support all students across a variety of disciplines that require writing assignments. References:Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.

No abstract

No abstract