Paper One Assignment Sheet
CRTW 201
Dr. Fike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
Paper One: FBIs
Acknowledgement: I have borrowed the term "FBIs" and the general outline of this assignment from Dr. Jo Koster. Grateful thanks also go to Drs. Bird and Macri, who give a similar assignment.
Preamble
The purpose of CRTW is not to provide you with tools to shore up your preconceptions--to make you more elegantly agile in arguing for what you have always believed because someone told you to believe it. The purpose of CRTW is rather to encourage you to use the elements and the standards of critical thinking to move your thinking toward what Nosich calls "habits of mind" such as humility, courage, empathy, integrity, and fair-mindedness. One way to do that is to examine what underpins--what led up to--your thinking. We are calling these factors "FBIs": filters, blockages, impediments; but also background stories, contexts, lenses, points of view, reasons, emotions, etc. Call them what you will, but we all believe what we believe because of something or someone. Remember HMXP 102's point that knowledge is a cultural production? Your first assignment gives you a chance to think about how this is so in your own case.
Here are two things--a fact and a problem. The fact: As Nosich writes, "We think in terms of concepts, and these inevitably shape our life to a considerable degree. Very often the concepts we think in terms of are ones we accept uncritically" (26). The problem: This assignment is your chance to respond critically to the concept of same-sex marriage.
Topic vs. Focused Topic vs. Q @ I
Your topic is this question: What is your opinion on same-sex marriage? Your focused topic is an example that will help you unify your paper. A paper without a focused topic will receive an automatic F. You may not write about this issue in gauzy generalizations.
Alternative: If you prefer, you may write instead about your political ideology, a religious or moral belief, or some other conviction that is very significant to your world view or personal life. Just be sure that you can illustrate whatever view you select.
Please understand the distinction between area of inquiry, topic, and focused topic. Marriage is an area of inquiry. Gay marriage is a topic. A specific gay couple is a focused topic. Your paper must have a focused topic. If you cannot come up with a focused topic from your own experience, find one in the library or on the Internet. A segment of a news broadcast (or an episode of a TV show) is a fine focused topic if it features a specific gay or lesbian couple. Just be sure that you summarize the clip properly. Obviously, the same imperative applies to written sources. (Remember: Any sources that you use need to be cited and listed.)
Okay, so gay marriage is your topic. The paper's purpose is not to argue for or against it but rather to understand and analyze the origin of your view--that is, where it came from, how it developed, what factors have reinforced it, which FBIs affect it. Here are two alternative versions of the questions at issue: Why do you believe what you believe about a focused example of a particular topic? How did your view come into existence?
For more on focusing your topic, see WA, chapter 10. See especially the technique called "10 on 1." Remember that you must discuss the focused topic in every paragraph.
A No-Thesis Paper
There should be no thesis in your paper. That is because your paper should analyze, not evaluate. This assignment is an exercise in using the elements, not the standards, of critical thinking. There should be no thesis here, and I will evaluate you not on what your position is or on how well you defend it but on how well you explain how you arrived at it. Remember: you should analyze, not evaluate. Do not argue in support of your view. Do not argue against it either. Analyze how you developed your view of same-sex marriage. So in your introduction simply state your focused topic and intention in a statement of purpose. For example: I will use [a particular same-sex couple] to analyze how my parents [or my church or whatever] influenced my views on same-sex marriage. State your intention to explore a question at issue and a focused topic. Do NOT make an evaluative statement (thesis). Nowhere in this paper are you required to justify or evaluate your view, and it is such justification or evaluation that must be in a thesis. There is to be no thesis in this paper. One more thing: do not use brackets in your statement of purpose; they are in the example to indicate that you must fill in your own specifics.
Connections to Our Readings
You are required to weave at least one quotation from Nosich (other than the one above) into your paper. Ideally, the quotation will be one that you work with in a substantive manner throughout the paper, not one that you include to fulfill the requirement but do not comment on. You must also make a connection to Tompkins or Percy somewhere in the paper. Neither your connection to Nosich nor your connection to Tompkins or Percy needs to be in a thesis, nor should it be because there is no thesis in this paper, merely a statement of purpose. Here are some additional ways to incorporate Nosich:
First, you should start using the elements of critical thinking (Nosich, ch. 2) as you analyze your thinking. See the "Rubric for CRTW." I want to see some evidence that you have begun to use the elements. A paper with NO elements will receive a lower grade. See figure 2.1 on page 49 as you explore your position on same-sex marriage. Also use the questions on page 68 to help you think through your material. Although items 1-10 do not constitute an outline for your paper, they may help you with your prewriting.
Second, chapter 1 discusses impediments to critical thinking on pages 16-21. We have covered others in our reading of Writing Analytically, chapter 2 (see also Tart's material linked to the course calendar). Ask yourself if your position on same-sex marriage illustrates one of the impediments that one of these authors discusses. If so, this paper provides a chance to say so.
Third, use the SEE-I structure as you develop the body of your paper. State: name an FBI. Elaborate: tell your story. Exemplify: reflect on your story. Illustrate: tie things up, especially by making an analogy. Here is another way of understanding how to write a paragraph or a section using the SEE-I structure: topic sentence, information, commentary, significance. Here is yet another way: What is the issue? What are the facts? What do they mean? So what? For a description of SEE-I, see Nosich 30-34. See also page 32: "Using SEE-I gives you a way to 'fill up' those pages--but without just adding filler. With every major point you are making in your paper, you can state it, elaborate on it, give examples, and top it off with an illustration that conveys the point."
Fourth, have a look at pages 190-95, "Critical Writing: Using the Core Process To Write a Paper." Here Nosich outlines a series of steps that would be helpful to follow as you develop your paper. There are six steps: three for prewriting, two for writing, and one for revision. This section should cure you of the misconception that you can write your paper in a single stage.
Outline for Your Paper
Your paper should have a brief introduction. By "brief" I do not mean one sentence. The introduction should be a paragraph. More than half a page, however, is not necessary. You may want to look over WA, chapter 16, "Introductions and Conclusions Across the Curriculum."
The body of the paper uses the SEE-I structure and the elements to unpack one or more or your FBIs. Use the elements to analyze (or as Dr. Koster says, "break down, dissect, scrutinize") WHY you believe what you believe about your topic/focus. In particular, what barriers, filters, or impediments have affected your view of same-sex marriage? Bear in mind here, guys and gals, that I prefer papers that say more about less rather than less about more (again, see WA, chapter 10: do "10 on 1" rather than "1 on 10").
More needs to be said about the structure of your paper's body. It should NOT be a list of impediments (do not say less about more). Nor should it be merely a story from your autobiography ("Here is what happened to me; therefore, I believe in SSM"). Nor should it say, "I believe what I believe because it says so in the Bible--case closed." It SHOULD be an archeological probing of why you believe what you believe (say more about less). For example, ask yourself why you favor gay marriage (or not). Talk about your answer. Then ask yourself why you think that. Repeat the process (using SEE-I to structure your development) until you cannot go any further. Note also that a strong concept like liberalism or conservatism may help you a great deal. Organizing this paper around a key concept is a good strategy. What Nosich in chapter 3 calls a "fundamental and powerful concept" may be a great addition to your statement of purpose and a helpful unifier for the body.
Lots of you are asking me about how to organize/structure the body of your paper. Consider the following: first, lay out the focused topic (the gay person or couple who will function as your main illustration throughout the paper); second, tell your story (or whatever you identify in the thesis as a main influence on your thinking about SSM); then proceed archeologically in the way that WA 101 suggests. "Like the other heuristics in this toolkit, this last one, 'Seems to be about X,' prompts you to move beyond potentially superficial explanations--to go deeper." This sentence refers to technique #5: "Seems mto be about X but could also be (is 'really') about Y." In other words, do the following:
Why do I believe what I believe about SSM?
Reason 1: Seems to be about X.
But that leads to Reason 2.
Reason 2: Seems to be about Y.
But that leads to Reason 3.
Reason 3: Seems to be about Z, etc.
Note: As you do this probing, use the elements, especially context, concepts, assumptions, and interpretations.
The conclusion requires metacognitive reflection. Broaden a little bit. Make an application. Do something with what you have written. For example, if your parents influenced your attitude toward same-sex marriage, did they also shape your thinking in other areas? Does their influence affect the way you view other authorities on other subjects? If you view same-sex marriage as you do because you do not like to disagree with others, what does that say about your status as a critical thinker? What critical thinking habits of mind (see Nosich175-76) have you developed? Which ones do you still need to work on? What challenges do you face as you go forward in this course and in your life outside it? Step back and reflect on what your analysis in the body has taught you about your thinking.
So you can think of your paper as having three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. However, it is not a good idea to use a 5-paragraph structure. I advise against writing about 3 FBIs and devoting a paragraph to each in the body. It is better to pick one and try to get to the bottom of it. Think of the paper as intellectual archeology. For a caveat against the 5-paragraph essay, see WA, pages 7-8 and 209-11.
Requirements:
Feedback on Paper 1 (Fall 2011): Review this section on your own.
Here is a list of problems that I encountered as I graded Paper 1 during the fall 2011 semester.
Statement of Purpose: The assignment sheet provides a specific formula for the statement of purpose. By not adhering to it, you risked having unfocused, additively organized papers. If your professor tells you in writing exactly how he wants you to do something, it is a good idea to follow his instructions.
Organization: Rather than doing 10 on 1, you did 1 on 10--that is, said less about more instead of the preferred method, more about less. The result was an organization, both in the overall paper and sometimes within specific paragraphs, that was additive. A paper that flits from one topic to another is a shallow paper. The solution is to refocus and say more about less. You are then more likely to achieve a logical, organic organization, which is highly desirable. Remember: Your focused topic must be present in every paragraph. For example, do not talk about the following influences on your view of SSM: family, geography, media, politics, and religion. Instead, zero in on just one and inquire more deeply into it. If you are tempted to use the 5-par. essay structure, be sure to see what WA says about this type of organization. I expect you NOT to write anything that resembles a 5-par. essay.
Use of Nosich and Tompkins or Percy: You must actually quote the sources to which you wish to make a connection. Once you have done so, it is important to use the SEE-I strategy to develop the point that the writer is making. Almost no one did the works cited list correctly. Some listed Nosich's book in correct format, but almost no one did Percy correctly. Here is how that entry should have looked:
Here is how you would do an entry for Tompkins's text:
Tompkins, Jane. "'Indians': Textualism, Morality, and the
Problem of History." Ways of Reading: An Anthology for
Writers. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky.
6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002. 718-34.
Print.
Here is how to do Percy:
Percy, Walker. "The Loss of the Creature." Ways of
Reading: An Anthology for Writers. Ed. David
Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. 9th ed.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 459-71.
Print.
Nosich's book should appear as follows in MLA format:
Nosich, Gerald M. Learning To Think Things Through: A Guide
to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum. 4th ed.
Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
I suggest that you type these entries into your paper. Better yet, handwrite and then type them. Otherwise, you may have a correct entry, but you still will not know how to do entries for a book and for an anthologized essay. If you just cut and paste them, you won't really learn MLA format. If you do cut and paste them, be aware that line length may be off and that you may lose the italics in the transfer.
If you prefer, use a lower-case "t" in the word "to" in the main part of the title. That is how Nosich himself does it, but he is mistaken because "to" is not a preposition here (prepositions can be lower case if they are not the first word in a title or subtitle); "to" is instead part of the infinitive, and that is a different story. Nosich should have capitalized it.
Your Prentice Hall handbook has instructions for doing an entry for a work in an anthology on page 424, item 8; however, the Hurston example has the editors' names and the edition number in reverse order. The editors should be first, followed by the edition number. (FYI, I wrote to Muriel Harris about this in the fall of 2011, and I hope that the next edition of the handbook has the example corrected.)
Development: Your papers lacked it. Often your strategy was to tell a story about the origin of your view on same-sex marriage. Okay, that is well and good. But you erred in thinking that telling a story about how you arrived at a conclusion on same-sex marriage is the same as analyzing your thinking about same-sex marriage. The assignment was to do the latter, but often your papers switched topics just when things were getting interesting. Having told your story, you thought that you were done; in my view, however, you had only just begun. Part of the reason for this disconnection is that you failed, almost to a person, to employ the SEE-I structure to develop your paragraphs and the elements to analyze your thinking. For example, I can count the number of analogies in a whole section of papers on one hand. You were supposed to use SEE-I to structure and develop your work as Tompkins does in the paragraph that we examined, and you should have at least begun to use Nosich's vocabulary (ch. 2), but you did not do so.
Overgeneralization: I have stated--and WA backs me up on this--that focus is a crucial part of writing papers in CRTW 201. Yet you still did a couple of things that violated this all-important principle. One was that you fell into what I call the Fallacy of All Previous Thought, in which you assume that, in order to open a paper, you must offer up generalizations or some kind of historical sweep. That assumption is false. I would much rather have you begin the paper with a sentence about yourself, your focused topic, or one of your textual connections. The second was that you used words and phrases like people, some people, most people, all people, each and every person, and others--all of which are paper jargon, a crutch that is easy to use but deficient in meaning. If you had read my "Forbidden" handout, you might have registered my prohibition against such hollow language and various other things.
Lower-order Errors: There were many glitches in your prose. Here are the most significant:
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Fall 2012 Feedback
One: The 5-par. essay structure is very limiting. Here is WA 8: " . . . 5-paragraph form runs counter to virtually all of the values and attitudes that they [student] need in order to grow as writers and thinkers--such as respect for complexity, tolerance of uncertainty, and the willingness to test and complicate rather than just assert ideas." Those of you who used 5-par. essay structure in paper 1 did "1 on 10" rather than the preferred method, "10 on 1." In other words, you said less about more and took an additive approach to your organization. It was better to pick one area of influence (e.g., your family) and say more about it than to consider religion, parents, friends, media, and geographical location all in a single paper. The assignment, I said, was to do an "archeological" excavation of your thinking: depth, not breadth, was the objective.
Two: You need to use a comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses. For example, "Dick throws the ball, and Jane catches it."
Three: Things omitted from your first papers. Basically, all of the papers needed another thoughtful draft.
SEE-I.
The elements. You should have started using the elements.
Quotations from Nosich and Tompkins or Percy.
Sufficient length: some papers were too short. Five full pages was the minimum length.
MLA format.
Underlining, boldfacing.
Four: You should all study "Forbidden!" on our course website. It is a list of common problems that you should learn to recognize and avoid. Note: It is very problematic to write sentences with any of the big four: comma splices, fragments, run-ons, and dangling modifiers. If you have any of these errors, you should seek help soon.
Fifth, using the Bible as the sole reason why you are against SSM did not work very well. Some of you wove biblical quotations into a tapestry that spelled out "SSM is bad." But you did not also indicate why you endorse the Bible's views. It was important to go a step further by examining why you read the Bible that way. For example, what is the origin of the conservatism that underlies adherence to a biblical denunciation of homosexuality (and, by extension, SSM)? WHY do you believe what you believe? Because the Bible tells me so only gets you partway. See WA 258-59, the section on weak thesis type 4. I strongly recommend that you read the section by Morrow and Tyson in the HMXP anthology (on reserve at the library): it addresses all the biblical quotations that are used to condemn homosexuality; and it makes important points about cultural context, cherry picking, and religion-centered homophobia.
You will not be satisfied with your grades, and that is a good thing. But remember that 2 visits to the WC will get you enough extra credit to change a D- to a B- or a C paper to an A. Remember too that my door is open--make an appointment with me to discuss your next paper. And start earlier next time. There is no reason why you should be turning in rough drafts.
Common problems: doing "1 on 10," writing a justification of your belief, telling the story of your relationship with a homosexual person or couple, engaging in fallacies (circular reasoning, straw man), and leaving out some of the requirements (Nosich, Tompkins/Percy, the elements, SEE-I, required minimum length). Some of you have not yet sent your papers to turnitin.com. See also the comments at the end of this handout.