Verb moods: Is it "if I was," or "if I were"?

Today's topic--Is it "if I was," or "if I were"? 

Which is correct?

A.) I wish I was a scuba diver.

B.) I wish I were a scuba diver.

If you chose B, you're correct!  Let's try another.  Which of these is correct?

C.) If I were president, I would make cupcakes the national dessert.

D.) If I was president, I would make cupcakes the national dessert.

If you chose C, you're correct!  Why is that?  Well, all the examples above use the past subjunctive verb "mood."  The subjunctive mood happens when we are expressing wishful thinking (referring to something that we know isn't going to happen).  A few more examples:

If the Easter Bunny were real, he'd probably be kind of scary.

If I were a secret agent, my code name would be The Countess.

If Lynn were here, we'd have enough people to play Balderdash.

I'm not a scuba driver. I'm never going to be president. The Easter Bunny isn't real, and I'm not a secret agent. Lynn isn't here, so we don't have enough people to play Balderdash. All of those are hypothetical scenarios, examples of wishful thinking. Therefore, the subjunctive mood is correct.

So when is it correct to say "if I was"?

"If I was" is an example of the past indicative verb mood.  We don't see this one quite as often as we see the past subjunctive, but here are a couple of examples:

If Shawn was at Rob's party last night, he's probably still recovering.

If she was in class yesterday, she heard Dr. Brown's lecture about social cognitive theory.

In these examples, we're referring to things that could easily have happened (we don't know for sure that they did, but they might have). So there's no wishful thinking; the past indicative is correct. 

For a more detailed discussion about verb moods, check out this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

Today's topic: A frequently asked question about verb tense

Here is a question I hear all the time:  "When referring to source material, should I use past tense or present tense?  Is it always 'Jones stated...' or is it sometimes appropriate to say 'Jones states'?"

We'd all like the answer to be cut and dried, but unfortunately that isn't the case.  As with so many other issues in writing, verb tense depends on context.  Let's start with a concise explanation from the 6th edition APA handbook:

Past tense (e.g., "Smith showed") or present perfect tense (e.g., "researchers have shown") is appropriate for the literature review and the description of the procedure if the discussion is of past events....Use past tense (e.g., "anxiety decreased significantly") to describe the results.  Use the present tense (e.g., "the results of Experiment 2 indicate") to discuss implications of the results and to present the conclusions.  By reporting conclusions in the present tense, you allow readers to join you in deliberating the matter at hand. (pp. 65-66)

So:  Use past tense when reporting on another scholar's research or referring to your own results.  Use present tense to discuss what your findings mean, their implications for practice or further research; as the APA handbook points out, this lends an immediacy to the discussion.

There is another facet to this issue, and that is the present perfect tense (e.g., "has/have shown").  We use the present perfect tense when we're referring either to a.) something that didn't happen at a specific time or b.) something that started in the past but continues to this day.  This actually comes up quite a bit in scholarly writing.

Let's look at an example (used with permission from one of my students who prefers to remain anonymous).  Her paper is about two different learning theories.  The purpose of the section from which I excerpted this passage is to give background information about one learning theory and the ongoing conversation surrounding it.  Given that context, which verb tense works best?

A. Past tense:  There is a general consensus...that nursing education needs to shift from traditional teacher-driven, teacher-centric curricula to student-centric models (Handwerker, 2012; Kantar, 2013; Pettigrew, 2015). Many constructivist learning techniques have been explored and found to be effective means for knowledge acquisition and improving critical thinking skills.  Kantar (2014) stated that graduates must have a body of knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge to effectively transition and problem-solve in clinical practice settings.  Similarly, nurses transitioning to management roles have difficulty assimilating and acquiring the type of education which will help them succeed in their new roles (Omoike et al., 2011).

B. Present perfect tense:  There is a general consensus...that nursing education needs to shift from traditional teacher-driven, teacher-centric curricula to student-centric models (Handwerker, 2012; Kantar, 2013; Pettigrew, 2015). Many constructivist learning techniques have been explored and found to be effective means for knowledge acquisition and improving critical thinking skills.  Kantar (2014) has stated that graduates must have a body of knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge to effectively transition and problem-solve in clinical practice settings.  Similarly, nurses transitioning to management roles have difficulty assimilating and acquiring the type of education which will help them succeed in their new roles (Omoike et al., 2011).

Based on the APA style guidelines above, either past or present perfect tense would be acceptable here. However, I think the present perfect is most appropriate, because she is referring to an ongoing discussion within the discipline. Using the past tense gives the sentence a "this happened and now it's over" feel, and that's not the case here.  Although Kantar wrote that article in 2014, her statement is part of an ongoing discussion.  Also note that the sentences surrounding the one about Kantar are all in the present tense ("there is a general consensus," "nursing education needs to shift," "nurses...have difficulty assimilating and acquiring...").  The present perfect keeps that momentum going.

Now let's look at another example from the same paper, and consider what context tells us about verb tense.  The purpose of this passage is to describe the origin of constructivist theory. Which verb tense is best?

A.  Past tense:  Vygotsky's take on learning was derived from social psychology, where the thinking was that new knowledge and mental frameworks developed as a result of social interaction (Brandon & All, 2010; Dumchin, 2010)....Vygotsky posited that humans were life-long learners who were transformed by social relationships (Brandon & All, 2010; Handwerker, 2012). 

B.  Present perfect tense:  Vygotsky's take on learning was derived from social psychology, where the thinking was that new knowledge and mental frameworks developed as a result of social interaction (Brandon & All, 2010; Dumchin, 2010)....Vygotsky has posited that humans are life-long learners who are transformed by social relationships (Brandon & All, 2010; Handwerker, 2012). 

Here, past tense works best.  Why?  Because the context is a discussion of the origin of constructivist theory.  The theory has been established for years; it is not currently in the process of being invented.  Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to its development in the past tense.

The take-home message here is that when it comes to verb tense, context is everything.  I hope you've found this week's post helpful!  Happy scribbling!  

Hang in there!

Since it's spring break this week, we'll take a break from our tips of the week. But I did want to share this quote from the great Dorothy Parker:

"I hate writing.  I love having written."  

So there you have it, ladies and gents.  Even the greats can hate writing sometimes.  But there's nothing like the feeling of accomplishment when you finish something you feel good about.  An inspirational message for all of you finishing your capstones and dissertations right now.  

Hang in there!

The MEAL Plan for Better Paragraphs

Today's topic: Want better papers? Follow the MEAL plan.

If you want better papers, you have to start with better paragraphs.  The MEAL plan is a tried and tested method for achieving this.  It provides a formula for focused, well-developed, logically organized paragraphs. 

MEAL stands for the four crucial elements of a paragraph:

Main idea

Evidence

Analysis

Link

Main idea: This is the paragraph’s central idea, the main idea/point you’re trying to communicate.  Express the main idea in a topic sentence (usually the first sentence in the paragraph, though this isn't a hard and fast rule--some authors prefer to lead up to the topic sentence). You should limit yourself to one main idea per paragraph. When you try to do too much in a single paragraph, things tend to get muddled.  

Evidence: This is the support for your main idea.  This can come in the form of statistics, quotes and paraphrases from your sources, expert opinion, anything that provides reliable support for your point. The evidence you choose for the paragraph should clearly relate back to the main idea and help you develop it. 

Analysis: This is where you explain your evidence and make sure your reader sees how it is connected to the main idea (essentially, you need to make sure it’s clear that the evidence you provided does in fact show what you think it shows).  What does the evidence mean?  Why/how is it important?  Why does it matter?

Link: This is where you double check that the link between the information and analysis you have shared in the paragraph and your main idea is clear. You may or may not have to include a specific sentence to do this; the "link" step is about making sure that the connection between each sentence in the paragraph and the main idea is obvious to the reader.   

Let's look at a sample paragraph that follows the MEAL plan (example from a Walden University Writing Center PowerPoint presentation about paragraphs--by writing instructor Amy Lindquist):

Instructional scaffolding is one strategy for increasing student understanding and learning. Johnson’s (2010) study in a composition classroom revealed that students whose teacher used scaffolding strategies scored an average of five percentage points higher on their final essays than their peers in a lecture-based classroom. This significant difference in scores suggests that scaffolding enables students not only to understand a concept, but also to apply that concept in their own work. Teachers, therefore, should employ scaffolding strategies to help foster independence and confidence in their students.

Now let's break it down into the MEAL plan components.  I'll put the Main idea in bold, the Evidence in italics, underline the Analysis, and leave the Link in regular type.

Instructional scaffolding is one strategy for increasing student understanding and learning. Johnson’s (2010) study in a composition classroom revealed that students whose teacher used scaffolding strategies scored an average of five percentage points higher on their final essays than their peers in a lecture-based classroom. This significant difference in scores suggests that scaffolding enables students not only to understand a concept, but also to apply that concept in their own work. Teachers, therefore, should employ scaffolding strategies to help foster independence and confidence in their students.

Notice that this paragraph follows the two golden rules of paragraph development: it's coherent and it's unified, meaning it has a clear main idea and every sentence in the paragraph works toward developing that idea. There is nothing in the paragraph that does not relate back to the main idea.  When you write your next paper, try the MEAL plan.  I think you'll be pleased at the results.  

Click on this link to learn more about the MEAL plan from the Duke University writing studio (and to see another example): https://twp.duke.edu/uploads/assets/meal_plan.pdf

I hope you've found this week's tip helpful.  Happy scribbling!

Today's topic

The past-perfect verb tense: nope, not a typo.

Today's post was inspired by something that happened at one of my recent presentations.  Someone saw the phrase "had had" on one of my PowerPoint slides and mistakenly assumed it was a typo--that I'd repeated the word unintentionally. But it was not a typo.  It was an example of the past perfect, a frequently misunderstood and misused verb tense.  

In my presentation, I was describing a 1994 study conducted by several leading experts on critical thinking.  These authors found that many college professors had never received training on how to facilitate better critical thinking skills in their students.  As I pointed out on my slide, one of their findings was that "few faculty had had in-depth exposure to research on the topic of critical thinking."

Why did I say "had had" instead of "had?"  This is where the past perfect tense comes in.  

As we all know, we use the plain old past tense when we simply want to refer to something that happened in the past.  For example:

• The burglars escaped.
• We had that computer for six years.
• Jen visited Seattle in 2010.
• Jack never saw the ocean.
• Natalie felt conflicted about leaving Chicago.
• I liked the movie.

The past perfect tense goes a step further.  We use it when we want to refer to something that happened in the past, before another action that also happened in the past.  We form the past perfect when we combine the word "had" with another verb.  For example:

• By the time the police arrived, the burglars had escaped.
• We had had that computer for six years before it crashed.
• Jen had visited Seattle once in 2010 before she moved there in 2014.
• At the time of his death in 2004, Jack had never seen the ocean.
• As you can see, sometimes we have to interrupt the "had + verb" combination with an adverb, like "always," "never," "previously," "just," etc.  This is still past perfect tense. 
• Natalie felt conflicted about leaving Chicago, as she had lived there her whole life.  
• I only liked the movie because I had read the book.

As you can see in the examples above, we use the past perfect when we want to refer to two events that occurred in the past, one of which occurred before the other. 

So let's get back to my PowerPoint slide, and the typo that wasn't a typo.  Why did I say "few faculty had had in-depth exposure to research on the topic of critical thinking"?  Because I was referring to a study from 1994.  The study occurred in the past, and the professors' lack of exposure to critical thinking research occurred prior to the study. 

So that's the past perfect tense.  I hope you've found this week's post helpful.  Happy scribbling!