Paper Assignments
CRTW 201
Dr. Fike
Paper One: World View and 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 similar assignments.
Cool Videos To Jumpstart Your Thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVRRP-J9mI
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 on a particular issue. We are calling these
factors “FBIs”: filters, barriers, 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 principle works 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 a major part of your world view: the concept of same-sex marriage (SSM) or some other belief that is important to you.
Topic vs. Focused Topic vs. Q @ I
Your topic is this question: What is your opinion on same-sex marriage (or some
other issue)? Your
focused topic is an example that will
help you unify your work.
A paper without a focused topic will receive an automatic F. You may not write
about SSM 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 illustrate whatever view you select. Other possible topics include capital punishment, government-run health care, gun control, illegal immigration, or some other issue that looms large in your belief system. If you pick a topic other than SSM, it is a good idea to check with me ahead of time. Two notes: 1) Again, you must have a focused topic, an illustration. Do not write about, say, gun control in general. 2) Abortion is a possible topic, but I would rather have you pick something other than that (reason: you are likely to defend your view, which runs contrary to the nature of the assignment, which is to figure out where your view comes from).
Please understand the distinctions among area of inquiry, topic, and focused
topic.
Marriage is an area of inquiry. SSM 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 of one 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 (clip, not whole television series: say more about less). Obviously, the same imperative applies to written sources. Remember:
Any sources that you use need to be cited and listed.
Let us say, then, that SSM 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 FBI most affects it. Here are alternative 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? How has one particular FBI influenced your view on an issue that is important to you?
For more on focusing your topic, see
the technique in WA called “10 on 1.” Say 10 things about 1
thing. The one thing is your FBI as it relates to your focused topic. 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 that 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
SSM. 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 some
other FBI]
influenced my [positive or negative or mixed] view 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 the paper are you required to
justify or evaluate your view, and it is such justification or evaluation that
must be in a thesis. But 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, chapter 1,
into your paper. See especially the section on impediments to critical thinking.
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. In addition, you are required to use
all 10 elements of critical thinking
(Nosich, chapter 2) in the body of your paper.
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. Regarding page 68: Although items 1-10 do not constitute an
outline for your paper, they may help you with your prewriting. You must also
make a connection to Tompkins’s essay
somewhere in the paper. Neither your connection to Nosich nor your connection to
Tompkins needs to be in
the paper’s statement of purpose. Here are some additional ways to incorporate
Nosich:
Regarding Nosich, chapter 1, you must also use the SEE-I as you develop the body of your paper. For a description of SEE-I, see Nosich 30-34. See especially 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.”
You may use SEE-I in various ways.
Also 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" (on reserve at the
library).
The body of the paper uses the SEE-I structure and the elements to
unpack one of 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 filters, barriers, 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”). Write about
one FBI, not several.
For example,
write about your church’s impact on your thinking about SSM; do not write about
your church, your family, and your southern heritage all in the same paper.
I require that you use the following outline and subheadings:
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.” Your paper 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 (perhaps 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 (you could mention it in your topic
sentences).
Lots of students have asked me how to organize/structure the archeology part of your paper.
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 to 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?
Here is an example of how you might use this technique in a SSM paper that centers on religion.
Reason 1: Being against SSM seems to be about growing up in a Christian household. Being anti-SSM is what my parents taught me is the proper Christian stance. But what is underneath my parents’ view?
Reason 2: My parents were following the Bible. Okay, then, so what does the Bible say about SSM? About marriage? About homosexuality? My parents take the Bible literally. But what is underneath their literal view?
Reason 3: They read the Bible the way others at our church read the Bible. How is that exactly? Well, my church is conservative--aha! conservatism, a fundamental and powerful concept--on issues involving sexuality. But what is underneath that conservatism (defined as resistance to change)?
Reason 4: What lies beneath is a sense that homosexuality is a sin against nature, and although church is for sinners, there is no place in OUR church for homosexual people. But why is there no place?
Reason 5: It appears that there is little tolerance at my church for the Other, for those who are different from us, and by different I mean anyone who thinks that sex is okay outside the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. But why are folks in our church so uptight about sexuality?
Reason 6: It appears that they may harbor fear that sexuality that is not tightly regulated may be a threat to them. But why do they think that?
Reason 7: It may be that religion--our church--has served to control the unconscious. When we see homosexual couples, we fear the consequences that would ensue if our own sexuality were given free rein. So I started “Seems to be about X but could also be (is ‘really’) about Y” thinking that my stand on SSM was about homosexuals. What I have discovered, however, is that my religion, which I thought lay at the heart of my stand on SSM, as illustrated by a particular gay couple, actually arises from an unacknowledged part of myself (the unconscious).
The conclusion requires metacognitive reflection
(think about your thinking about your
thinking). Broaden a little bit. Make an application. Do something with
what you have written. For example, if your parents influenced your attitude
toward SSM, 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 SSM 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 Nosich 175-76) 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.
Quick summary: You can think of your paper as having three sections:
introduction, body (with 3 subsections: information, elements, archeology), and conclusion. However, it is not a good idea to use a
5-paragraph structure. Do not write about 3 FBIs and devote 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)
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, saying 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. Also, do not talk
about all of the following influences on your view of SSM: family, geography, media,
politics, and religion. Instead, zero in on just one FBI and inquire more deeply
into it. If you are tempted to use the 5-paragraph 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:
You must actually quote these sources. Once
you have done so, it is a great idea 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 Tompkins
correctly. Here is how the two entries should have looked [the entries have been
updated to the 8th edition of the MLA handbook]:
Nosich, Gerald M. Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide
to Critical Thinking across the Curriculum. 4th ed.,
Pearson Education, 2012.
Tompkins, Jane. “‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the
Problem of
History.” Ways of Reading: An Anthology for
Writers, edited by David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky,
6th ed., Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2002, pp. 718-34.
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 will not really learn MLA format.
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
SSM is the same as analyzing your thinking about SSM. 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 (chapter 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. First, 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. “Since the
beginning of time, humans have,” etc. Yuck! 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. Second, you used words and
phrases like people, some people, most people, all
people, other people, and each and every person—all of which are paper
jargon, a crutch that is easy to use but deficient in meaning. If you had read
my “Get Straight on These Things”
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 3:
Fall 2012 Feedback