One begins to write by prewriting. The essential step in prewriting is to figure out what you want your writing to do and who your audiences is, but you have to go on from there to figure out what you want your audience to believe (your opinions) and how you are going to explain and support your opinions (development).
Why? Because good, successful writing is writing where your audience comes to share, understand, or--hopefully--act on the opinions you present them. Good critical thinking is characterized by a combination of specific, useful opinions which are nuanced, supported, and fully backed up.
This week you will do an activity with your new group in which you look learn the basic unit of academic argument, namely, the combination of claim, explanation of claim, plus evidence, analysis, and example. Just as sentences are the basic unit of speaking, the combination of claim, explanation, and support is the basic unit of professional argument and persuasion and--this is important--academic writing.
Notes on assignment:
What revision comes down to is this: 1) find the change which would make the biggest impact on the effectiveness of your message; 2) make this change; and, 3) rinse and repeat until your message can do what you want it to do. However, being able to revise without investing an undo amount of time means you need to revise for specific details of your writing. This week, I want you to revise your King paper to make sure:
A) each of your body paragraphs contains a good solid, clear and specific claim about some aspect of King's rhetoric. Usually, the best claims are short direct sentences with little qualification. Short, direct sentence sentences like, "Throughout the letter, King uses biblical references to gain ethos with his primary audience, other Christians," make the best claims. Notice how specific the claim is.
B) each of your body paragraphs should then go on to invest a sentence or two in which you explain in detail what you mean by your claim. For instance, using the claim from A, I might go on to explain my initial claim in more detail using the following sentence: "The Biblical references fall into two main types, comparisons between New Testament disciples, like St. Paul and King, and speculations about the need for Christians to take action based on faith." Notice how this one sentence more fully explains my original claim by making it even more specific. Notice also, it provides a kind of road map which leaves the reader with specific expectations about the examples and analysis I will perform in the rest of the paragraph.
C) each body paragraph should then go on to support the fully developed claims by looking at examples and explaining how these examples relate to my claim. For example, to support the fully developed claim I made in A and B, I might go on to look at two or three specific examples of each type of biblical reference. As I point to them, either by summarizing or paraphrasing them or through a direct quotation, I would make sure to explain how the example worked to help King gain credibility or build on his reputation. Making this connection between my examples and my claim is essential to how well my claim/opinion will be accepted. It shows to my audience I've taken the time to not only form an opinion but to know why I hold it and why they should share it.
Instead of reading and revising each paragraph of your latest King revision on your own, I want you to share it with your group. Each member of your group should then provide you with feedback on two of your paragraphs and how they may be improved. As you read your group's papers, offer criticism of the form:
"You could improve your second paragraph by clarifying your claim. For example you might say, X. Notice how this rephrasing makes your claim less vague and more specific. You should also invest a sentence to explain more fully what you mean by your claim. Finally, I see you've only used one example to support your claim. Your paragraph would be stronger if you used example, Y. As you develop each example, make sure to connect it by explaining why it is significant in terms of your paragraph's claim. For instance, you might Z."
Focus on specific body paragraphs. Usually, what you'll find is a particular writer will do a decent job with their claims, but they'll need better examples and/or they don't analyze and explain how an example works in the context of their claim.
The best way to do develop your criticism is to take notes as you consider an individual paragraph (prewrite) and then draft and quickly revise and proofread the criticism you share with each group member. Take your notes using the Cornell note taking method. I've described it in an earlier post to this blog.
By this Sunday, 28 September, you should your current King revision to each member of your group. Make sure you get your criticism back to your group members in plenty of time for your group to read your suggestions and revise their current King draft. After you get criticism back from your group, you should send your new revision, the one based on the feedback of your group this week, to the list by Sunday, 5 October. Collect the criticism you offered to each group member into a single email, and send it to me directly at prof.brandon@gmail.com. Make sure to sign this email; and, since I'm teaching multiple sections and have hundreds of emails crossing my desk each week, make sure to let me know you are in ENG 112.
As always, write with questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment