I think David Bartholomae's "Inventing the University" plays into some of what's going on in my class now. As I mentioned before, in my students' textual analysis papers (and more recently, their annotated bibliographies) they are reaching out for that academic voice. And Bartholomae, apparently, would be proud. But I want them to stop. If academic prose is necessary, it can come later, when they've internalized it more completely. But right now I want them to use a style of prose they are comfortable in.
I want to see their ideas, and they muddle their ideas by thinking too much about audience or discourse communities, even if they're not thinking in those words. I am trying to acclimate them to academic discourse, but I don't think they can learn how to differentiate summary from analysis and evaluation if they can't even keep their ideas clear for trying to sound scholarly. The prose style cannot come first.
I've got one student who emails me all the time with questions about the assignments, wanting to change topics, and so on. She's very self-conscious about her I-search topic: monkeys. I think it's a great topic and I have told her she can change it if she wants, but she really doesn't need to. She found good sources for her annotated bibliography and she has a personal interest--she wants a monkey for a pet, like Ross had on Friends.
This student is embarrassed of her desire itself, and more embarrassed to be writing a paper about it. The other students are tackling such topics as AIDS in Africa and alternative fuel sources. She wrote me an email an hour ago because she has writer's block and the first draft of the paper is due Friday. I'm thinking, Err...it's just a draft, and it's not due till Friday. But here's what get's me: "Its really hard to make my reasoning as to why I'm interested in monkeys sound professional."
My advice? Don't. She's working with this assumption that her paper should sound "professional," and as such, she realizes she has nothing to say. She has defeated the I-search, which is supposed to validate her experience, by turning it into an exercise in academic discourse.
See, Bartholomae? I want my students to know that they have something to contribute. I think the best way to acclimate them to the academic discourse community is by validating their style as much as possible. There is a sense in which they remain outsiders if they don't talk the talk, but only if we teach them to value "the talk" more than the ideas behind it. If we encourage them to be comfortable (within the bounds of articulate), then they don't have to feel like their failing simply because they can't make it sound "professional."
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Screwing up a single draft
In “Composing Behaviors of One- and Multi-Draft Writers” Muriel Harris talks about multi- and one-draft writers. I've had a lot of thoughts about the implications of this piece. I'm trying to be more open-minded about the idea of starting with clear ideas in mind. I've tended to see these as bad. It's limiting and boring...the writing process is just like filling out a form. But I'm trying to understand that it works for some people. But certainly not everyone.
Failed writing can come from bad single drafting or bad multi-drafting. There's the kind that start with a thesis and don't get anywhere, and the kind that just start off writing and don't get anywhere.
Maybe it's just because I don't understand them, but I find it much harder to fix an essay that was constructed purely with the five-paragraph model in mind than one that starts out just writing. Starting with the thesis, for inexperienced writers, can get you off track fast. They frequently choose entirely too broad a topic, then divide it into three unmanageable subpoints which they treat very generally. These writers need to do more "invention" to fix their papers--something they don't want to do after they've finished the draft. They have to come up with more to say about a narrower topic. Revision means starting over, in a sense.
I see a lot of papers in the writing center that have the opposite problem. They start writing without a thesis and don't quite find one. This is usually easy to fix. Figure out your thesis--every paper has a point, even if you didn't explicitly state it at the end of your introduction. What are you trying to get across to your readers? Read each paragraph and figure out how it relates to your thesis. Why did you include this paragraph? Add a topic sentence to tie the paragraph explicitly to the thesis, or cut the paragraph altogether.
Now maybe this is just me. Maybe I find it easier to help students do what I already do myself. But it's not like I never start with a thesis and subpoints. Frequently I do, I'm just not tied to them. And I usually get there after a little preliminary freewriting. It just seems like it's a lot farther from done when you screw it up that way.
Failed writing can come from bad single drafting or bad multi-drafting. There's the kind that start with a thesis and don't get anywhere, and the kind that just start off writing and don't get anywhere.
Maybe it's just because I don't understand them, but I find it much harder to fix an essay that was constructed purely with the five-paragraph model in mind than one that starts out just writing. Starting with the thesis, for inexperienced writers, can get you off track fast. They frequently choose entirely too broad a topic, then divide it into three unmanageable subpoints which they treat very generally. These writers need to do more "invention" to fix their papers--something they don't want to do after they've finished the draft. They have to come up with more to say about a narrower topic. Revision means starting over, in a sense.
I see a lot of papers in the writing center that have the opposite problem. They start writing without a thesis and don't quite find one. This is usually easy to fix. Figure out your thesis--every paper has a point, even if you didn't explicitly state it at the end of your introduction. What are you trying to get across to your readers? Read each paragraph and figure out how it relates to your thesis. Why did you include this paragraph? Add a topic sentence to tie the paragraph explicitly to the thesis, or cut the paragraph altogether.
Now maybe this is just me. Maybe I find it easier to help students do what I already do myself. But it's not like I never start with a thesis and subpoints. Frequently I do, I'm just not tied to them. And I usually get there after a little preliminary freewriting. It just seems like it's a lot farther from done when you screw it up that way.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Textual Analysis
I graded my students' critical analysis papers this week. On the whole, they weren't as good as their memoir papers. Most of them had a good handle on the concept of "analysis." But it was the style that was really lacking.
On their memoir papers, most of my students got A's or C's. I thought the lack of B's was weird, but I understand now why. A lot of the difference between an A paper and a B paper is style. It's the way the student makes the paper compelling.
The memoir paper was an opportunity for the students to share an important experience from their own lives. They wanted to tell these stories, and they did what they could to tell them well. But they were clearly less comfortable writing a textual analysis. A couple of them were really impressive. But a significant chunk of them understood the assignment, but didn't like it. They were wordy. They would say things like, "All things considered, in my opinion Carter appears to be using his past as a former president to kind of boost his other arguments," hiding behind their words.
I am looking forward to the rest of the semester, now. I was concerned before, about all the research and stuff, but I'm not anymore. My students submitted topic proposals to me yesterday, and I read through them. Some of the topics would be hard to write a good position paper on. A couple of students wanted to talk about legalizing marijuana, another wanted to talk about video game violence, another wanted to talk about gun control. But I'm less concerned than I might otherwise be.
These are topics they want to learn about. One student said in his proposal that his "topic" was more of a question. I said, That's great. Having a question to research is a lot better than a topic. Then you're actually looking for something. But even my students who gave me "topics" probably really do have a question in mind, even if they didn't articulate it. So they might need guidance, but they're not starting their papers yet. I told a lot of them that they should just start their research with the broad topic in mind, and see if something comes up that they would want to focus on in their I-search papers.
I didn't think I was going to like the idea of an I-search paper followed by a source-supported position paper. But I do. I felt a lot more okay with my students taking on topics that have been overdone, because it forces them to take the informative approach first--to learn about the topic first. Then hopefully they'll have the background necessary to write well on a position (especially if I help them narrow it down to something manageable).
On their memoir papers, most of my students got A's or C's. I thought the lack of B's was weird, but I understand now why. A lot of the difference between an A paper and a B paper is style. It's the way the student makes the paper compelling.
The memoir paper was an opportunity for the students to share an important experience from their own lives. They wanted to tell these stories, and they did what they could to tell them well. But they were clearly less comfortable writing a textual analysis. A couple of them were really impressive. But a significant chunk of them understood the assignment, but didn't like it. They were wordy. They would say things like, "All things considered, in my opinion Carter appears to be using his past as a former president to kind of boost his other arguments," hiding behind their words.
I am looking forward to the rest of the semester, now. I was concerned before, about all the research and stuff, but I'm not anymore. My students submitted topic proposals to me yesterday, and I read through them. Some of the topics would be hard to write a good position paper on. A couple of students wanted to talk about legalizing marijuana, another wanted to talk about video game violence, another wanted to talk about gun control. But I'm less concerned than I might otherwise be.
These are topics they want to learn about. One student said in his proposal that his "topic" was more of a question. I said, That's great. Having a question to research is a lot better than a topic. Then you're actually looking for something. But even my students who gave me "topics" probably really do have a question in mind, even if they didn't articulate it. So they might need guidance, but they're not starting their papers yet. I told a lot of them that they should just start their research with the broad topic in mind, and see if something comes up that they would want to focus on in their I-search papers.
I didn't think I was going to like the idea of an I-search paper followed by a source-supported position paper. But I do. I felt a lot more okay with my students taking on topics that have been overdone, because it forces them to take the informative approach first--to learn about the topic first. Then hopefully they'll have the background necessary to write well on a position (especially if I help them narrow it down to something manageable).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)