Grading Rubric

Your grades will determined based, tentatively, on the following criteria. Please use this blog and the previous posts to help you in your revision.

Requirements :
• Paper is 8-15 pages,
• Typed and double-spaced.
• Normal formatting.
• 12-pt font.
• Source material is cited according to MLA/APA standards.
• A Work’s Cited page is included.

Argument: You take a stand on an issue upon which reasonable people disagree. As Hacker notes, you are not trying to get the last word in, you are not simply trying to win a fight, but to “explain your understanding of the truth about a subject or to propose the best solution available for solving a problem—without being needlessly combative” (67). To do this, as another textbook, Writing: A College Handbook explains, you:
[...] do not simply quote, paraphrase, and summarize. You interpret, question, compare, and judge the statements you cite. You explain why one opinion is sound and another is not, why one fact is relevant and another is not, why one writer is correct and another is mistaken. Your purpose may vary with your topic; you may seek to show why something happened, to recommend a course of action, to solve a problem, or present and defend a particular interpretation of a historical event or a work of art. But whether the topic is space travel or Shakespeare's Hamlet, an argumentative research paper deals actively with the statements it cites. It makes them work together in an argument that you create -- an argument that leads to a conclusion of your own. (Hefferman 495-496)

Organization: Is evident. Attention has been paid to where each paragraph is located in the paper and what each paragraph is doing. Each paragraph, too, is ordered logically so that the reader can easily access your argument. For assistance, please refer to previous blog posts.

Research: You cannot write or argue about a topic you have not developed some expertise in (You don’t take a dentists advice on how to perform brain surgery). To build your expertise, adequate research has been done—both to give you a better understanding of the topic’s background. As the Stanford writing website says, “all decent writing is the product of an involved process, a decent research paper will have behind it, in addition and invisibly, a many-layered research process.”
• You should have and cite 10-20 sources in this paper
• Those sources should consist of expert opinion, coming primarily of journal articles, book chapters, etc. depending on your topic
• If you use a website (and you should only use them in the most extreme cases. Trying to avoid them at all costs) it comes from a credible source, ie. Government agencies and the websites of well known institutions.
• Mostly, you have done enough work in the library to be successful.
• The paper should not rely on telling your audience your opinions, but showing, through evidence and reason, the supporting framework of those opinions/ideas.

Audience: Also, strides have been made to write in a way—through using warrants, academic voice/language, etc—that make it appealing to someone other than you (audience awareness).
• Notably, you have taken into consideration what opponents of your position would say in response.
• The paper is not written is such a manner that it is only persuasive to one that already agrees with your point of view. In other words, it doesn’t rely on bandwagon appeals.
• Academic voice—no you’s or I’s—are used. Instead of “I suggest that the farm bill be reexamined, “you write “Due to the consequences of cheap food on our economy, one can argue that it is time for the Farm Bill to be overturned.”

Insight : The paper shows insight into the topic. The author explores this subject in all its complexity and reveals and examines the nature of that complexity in his/her essay. Such insights should not be implied but revealed and developed through good examples from the texts.

Revision: It is evident that revision has been employed to improve upon previous drafts.

Language: Is free of typos and grammatical errors and reads in such a way that it is clear what you are trying to say.

Benchmark : quality of this work in relation to what I expect you to be able to do in this class at this time on such an assignment.

No Class--Thurs 11/13

No Class on Thurs. 11/13.

Please use this time to work on your peer review. You should have 2-3 essays from your peers. Read them. Make comments in the margins. Write them a letter detailing not your critique of the paper, but your suggestions for how the paper can improve. You are an advocate here, so act like it.
Please make an extra copy of your end comments (the letters you are writing) and give it to me on Tuesday.

Please focus on:
1. Argument. Rhetorical purposes. How is this essay trying to be persuasive. Does it succeed? How can this argument be strengthened? If you didn't agree with the author, what would your points be?

2. Research. Examine a) if there is enough research. If not, the essay will feel superficial and shallow. The points will rely too heavily on one or two sources and will invite the reader to find discount the points the author is making because they will feel like opinion, as opposed to well researched points. IF the author needs to do more research, tell them.

3. Logic and Organization. First, if the paper is all over the place and jumps from point to point you need to let the author know where he can slow down, expand and connect the points of logic for his reader. Often, our first drafts are wild and your job here is to tame it a little. Is the paper organized?

4. Language. Specifically academic voice. Is this essay written for an academic audience. Can it replace "I" and "you" with third-person pronouns "He," She," "One?"

5. Where can the author expand this paper to make it better (and to fit the requirements of this assignment).

Good luck. See you on Tuesday.

Citing

For information about paraphrasing, summarizing and directly quoting your research materials click here and here for paraphrasing andhere for all the rest.

Also, look in your Hacker handbook to ensure you are using the correct format and style in your citations.

Writing Process--Putting It Together

This is a direct quote of a page at:
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/arguedraft/deductive.cfm

Example

Notice how this paper connects its points

Claim of Paper: Decreasing the average work week to 32 hours would help support family values.

From Body of Paper: Although most of us know that working too much affects family time and thus family structure, we usually assume that this is the case only for people who work 40+ hours a week. Studies of how work-related stress influences family time, however, suggest that too much work, even within what is considered "normal," has detrimental effects on family time. [Topic sentence connects evidence (studies) to the point that 40-hour work weeks have negative affects on families.]

For example, in Smith's 1987 study of 15 average, middle-class families, he describes the undue pressure a 9-5 schedule puts on families. In particular, he notes that this time schedule translates to at least three forms of unnecessary family stress: (1) "rushed" mornings where parents desperately try sticking to a rigid time schedule that gets the children off to school and themselves to work between the hours of 7 and 9; (2) financial pressure of paying babysitters or day care facilities during school holidays and the 2 or 3 hours after school while parents are still at work; (3) overly frantic weekends where, since many businesses close at 5:00, all errands must be done before then. [Note how the author highlights only the parts of the study that influence family pressures.]

The stresses Smith documents are not in families where parents work 60-70 hours a week. The parents working 40 hours a week are secretaries, mechanics, bank employees, etc. The effects on them, he notes, clearly translate to less time spent with family members because of work demands as well as increased pressure when the family is together. [Warrant explaining why proof shows the problem is the 40-hour work week discussed in the initial point made]

Such pressures can't help but influence the quality of time the family spends together, influencing its ability to stay together or to have the type of time most conducive to instilling family values. [Topic sentences which ties point 1 to overall claim of paper] In fact, as psychological studies show, the type of time spent together has a great influence on family cohesiveness. [Transition connecting point 1--effect of 40 hour week on families--to point 2: the influence of time pressures on keeping family together]


Parts and Paragraphs in Your Paper.

Introduction: Introduce your paper, yes. But introduce each new turn in the text, too. You are the guide here. The reader is the wide-eyed follower. Don’t lead them into a Croc nest without first telling them why you are heading there.
Context/Background. It helps, in a lot of situations, to discuss the history of your topic, the various positions held, the posed solutions, the failed plans, etc, as a lead-in to your idea on the matter.
Narration: These are parts of your paper that narrate (tell the story of) certain events or circumstances so that the reader will agree with you. In addition to citing a law, it also helps to narrate what that means (by showing how it is enforced).
Evidence/Proof Paragraphs: This is where you really make your argument.
Counter Arguments and Responses to Counter Arguments: Where you consider and rebut opposing views.
Conclusion. This IN NOT merely restating your thesis. It is drawing conclusions. It is saying, “therefore, then this.” It is expanding the ramifications or consequences of your argument. If what you are saying is right, good thinking, then what. Conclusions are very hard to write. It is that final line that is so often the hardest to pen because, well, it’s the FINAL LINE. However, you also have to conclude each idea in your paper. Use words like “Therefore…,” “Thus…,” “As a result…” “This shows that…” Etc. This reconnects your evidence to your thesis.

Writing Process--Using Warrants

This is a direct quote of a page at:
http:/writing.colostate.edu/guides/index.cfm?guides_active=argument&category1=31m

Presenting Your Evidence

In your paper you must demonstrate why a given piece of evidence supports your thesis, claim or position. You must explain the reasoning process by which they are logically connected. (This is called the Toulmin method where the explanations are referred to as warrants.)

If I walk up to you and scream “Immigrants deserve rights” in your face. I am not arguing, I am probably getting arrested. However, when we stop to define the reasoning behind our statements, and attach those reasons to evidence, we are now in a position where someone might agree with us.

The Colo. State Univ. writing lab website, a leader in web references for writers, states, “First, for each claim that is debatable, or open to question, a reason is offered that supports the claim's validity. A warrant-consisting of a sentence or two-then follows, explaining the reason. Finally, evidence is supplied that supports connecting the reason to a given point or the overall claim of the paper.” Their organization is as follows:

Thesis, Claim or Position: Grading should be optional in non-major courses.

Reason/Point #1: Non-major courses are designed to help students become intelligent, well-rounded citizens. If the goal of such courses is the exploration and acquisition of knowledge, grades only get in the way.

Warrant #1: Rather than learning for the sake of becoming a better person, grades encourage performance for the sake of a better GPA. The focus grading puts on performance undercuts learning opportunities when students choose courses according to what might be easiest rather than what they'd like to know more about. [Introduces why proof is relevant to point]

Evidence: For example, students polled at CSU in a College of Liberal Arts study cite the following reasons for choosing non-major courses:

1. Easy grading (80%)
2. Low quantity of work (60%)
3. What was available (40%)
4. Personality of teacher (30%)
5. Something they were interested in knowing more about (10%)

Similarly, in an interview I conducted with graduating seniors, only two of the 20 people I spoke with found their non-major courses valuable. The other 18 reported that non-major courses were a waste of time for a variety of reasons:

1. I'm never going to do anything with them.
2. I just took whatever wouldn't distract me from my major so I didn't work very hard in them, just studying enough to get an A on the test.
3. Non-major courses are a joke. Everyone I know took the simplest, stupidest, 100-level courses needed to fulfill the requirements. I can't even remember the ones I took now.

Warrant #2: Although not everyone in the interviews or the CLA poll cited grades explicitly as the reason for choosing easy, irrelevant, non-major courses, we can read such reasoning into many of the less explicit references as well. Clearly, students are not choosing courses based on what they can learn from them. Yet they are fairly consistent in their choices: 100-level courses with little work. Although laziness might be seen as the cause of such choices, it is just as likely that choosing according to the amount of work, selecting simple courses, or only studying for the exam are a result of the GPA system. Higher workloads and more complex topics obviously could mean receiving a lower grade; thus, they should be avoided. [Demonstrates how proof leads to point as necessary conclusion.]

Writing Process--Organization-Inductive Method

This is a direct quote from: CSU Writing Center at writing.colostate.edu/guides/index.cfm?guides_active=argument&category1=31
Inductive Reasoning

When an audience completely disagrees with your position convincing them that their reasons for disagreeing are faulty before presenting your own position may be the best strategy.

Introduction: States the issue to be addressed and why it is important.

Body of Argument: Examines positions already proposed and refutes each one, showing why they are inadequate. Typically organized like this.

• Position 1
• Your refutation of position 1
• Position 2
• Your refutation of position 2

Alternatively, all positions might be examined first and then refuted second.

• Position 1
• Position 2
• Your refutation of position 1
• Your refutation of position 2

Conclusion/Position Statement: Once all other positions are shown to be inadequate, conclude with your position as the only logical choice. This is where you argue your point. At the end. Hah. See I told you sometimes you hold off on your thesis until the audience is good and ready to hear it.

When an audience partially disagrees with your position, the best strategy still looks a great deal like when they completely disagree: convincing them that their reasoning is faulty before presenting your own position.

Introduction: States the issue to be addressed and why it is important.

Body of Argument: Examines positions already proposed and refutes each one, showing why they are inadequate. Typically organized like this.

* Position 1
* Your refutation of position 1
* Position 2
* Your refutation of position 2

Alternatively, all positions might be examined first and then refuted second.

* Position 1
* Position 2
* Your refutation of position 1
* Your refutation of position 2

Position Statement: Introduced as the only logical choice after the positions your audience finds most persuasive are shown to be inadequate.

Presentation of Evidence: Supports your position as not only reasonable, but the best one available as well.

Writing Process--Organization-Deductive Method

Deductive Reasoning

The traditional academic argument is deductive, placing the author's position in the introduction and devoting the rest of the argument to presenting the evidence. Unless you are in a field where inductive reasoning is the norm, you can hardly go wrong with this method.

In some cases, all the evidence may be directed at proving the main point; in others, each piece may lead to a sub-point that needs proving before a convincing argument for the main point can be made. Depending on how directly each piece of evidence relates to the position, a deductive argument can be organized in a variety of ways.

* Introduction establishing the context of the argument as well as the author's position.
* Body of Evidence presented, depending on the audience analysis, from most to least, or least to most convincing.
* Conclusion summarizing the argument, presenting a call to action, or suggesting further research.

An argument supporting a ban on logging in rain forests might first need to establish and provide evidence regarding five other environmental premises, each supporting the author's position, regarding the effects of logging. For instance:

• It causes soil erosion
• It affects global warming
• It destroys native species
• It alters water routes and levels
• It destroys indigenous lifestyles

Each premise is a debatable issue in and of itself. Therefore, some measure of the supportive evidence behind each-at least enough to connect them as reasonably evidentiary links-must be given before they can be used to collectively support the author's main position. In these cases, arguments are typically arranged as follows:

• Introduction establishing the context of the argument as well as the author's position.
• Brief Preview outlining each premise, or reason, to be used as evidence supporting the claim.
• Body of Evidence presented, depending on audience analysis, in an order that will make the most sense to the audience.
• Conclusion summarizing the argument and demonstrating how each premise leads logically to the author's position, presents a call to action, or suggests further research.

When opposing arguments are particularly strong and readily accepted, discrediting them point-by-point may be the best strategy for convincing an audience to consider alternative points or support a different position.

• Introduction
• Rebut first opposing argument followed by first counter-argument
• Rebut next opposing arguments, followed by further counter-arguments as you go along
• Conclusion

This is a direct quote of a page at:
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/arguedraft/deductive.cfm

Writing Process--Organization-Rogerian Method

Writing Strategies Part 2

In a rhetorical, argumentative paper you have to be persuasive, which means you must include and present information to your audience that will encourage your audience to agree with you. This tension—created between an author (you) that wishes to persuade and the audience who must be persuaded—must be at the forefront of what/how you put your argument together. The common ground we (the persuaders and persuaded) share is reason. (Duffin, 1998).

What kinds of examples you include, style of language you use and when and how you get your reader to embrace your reasons are all chief concerns of the argument writer. How do we arrange this information? I’ve said that I don’t believe a concrete outline helps many of us. However, knowing some common rhetorical methods will help and employing a general flow chart will help (1998, Kathy Duffin, The Writing Center at Harvard University, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Overvu.html).

Building common ground. In the Rogerian method of argumentation. You build the common ground between you readers and yourself, never giving away your thesis until the very end. Tricky, yes. Useful, probably. This was developed by Carl Rogers, a psychologist, and is useful for emotionally charged topics.

The purpose of a Rogerian argument is to find the common ground held by the author and audience regarding an issue or problem. The authors explores the audience’s POV and must present the audience's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly before asking them to consider an alternative position or solution.

This method downplays emotional appeals is a must for emotionally charged, highly divisive issues and allows for people of good will on different sides of an issue to find, or agree upon, solutions together.

Here’s a sample flow chart (taken from writing.colostate.edu):
Introduction: A problem is presented, typically pointing out how both writer and reader are affected by the problem. Rather than presenting an issue that divides reader and writer, or a thesis that demands agreement the Rogerian argument does not begin with the writer's position at all. The thesis is withheld.
Then: The Audience Perspective. Described as clearly and accurately as possible-typically in neutral language-the author acknowledges their point of view and the circumstances and contexts in which their perspective or position is valid. Done well, the author builds good will and credibility with the audience, a crucial step leading toward potential compromise. Honest, heartfelt sincerity is the key here: if the audience perceives an attempt at manipulation, the Rogerian argument strategy generally backfires. This segment depends, again, on neutral but clear language so that the reader perceives the fair-mindedness of the writer's description.
Then: The author's perspective comes in the next chunk of the argument. For the audience to give it a listen it must be presented in as fair-minded a way as was theirs, in language as equally neutral and clear. To be convincing, besides describing the circumstances or contexts in which the position is valid, it must contain the evidence that supports the claim
Conclusion: The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give up their own positions on the problem but by showing how the reader would benefit from moving toward the writer's position. In other words, the final section of the Rogerian argument lays out possible ways to compromise. (fromwriting.colostate.edu/guides/documents/arguedraft)

Examples of an Annotated Bibliography

Basicially, all I want you to do is list your sources (alphabetically) and tell me, briefly, even in precis format if you like, what the source is about (or "critically appraise the source"). This is my chance to engage with (and grade) the research you've done. If you have been doing your homework, you already have at least six of these annotations completed. You should have 8-20 sources. Please refer to your Hacker handbook for proper citation style.

From: http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm

The following example uses the APA format for the journal citation. NOTE: APA requires double spacing within citations.

Waite, L. J., Goldschneider, F. K., & Witsberger, C. (1986). Nonfamily living and
the erosion of traditional family orientations among young adults. American Sociological Review, 51, 541-554.

The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males. Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self-sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living.

This example uses the MLA format for the journal citation. NOTE: Standard MLA practice requires double spacing within citations.

Waite, Linda J., Frances Kobrin Goldscheider, and Christina Witsberger. "Nonfamily Living and
the Erosion of Traditional Family Orientations Among Young Adults." American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 541-554.

The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males. Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self-sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living.

The Thesis

Theses are very hard to write

“A thesis is never a question… (‘Why did communism collapse in Eastern Europe?’) is not an argument, and without an argument, a thesis is dead in the water” (1998).

A thesis is never a list. "For political, economic, social and cultural reasons, communism collapsed in Eastern Europe" does a good job of "telegraphing" the reader what to expect in the essay—a section about political reasons, a section about economic reasons, a section about social reasons, and a section about cultural reasons. However, political, economic, social and cultural reasons are pretty much the only possible reasons why communism could collapse. This sentence lacks tension and doesn't advance an argument.

A thesis should never be vague, combative or confrontational. An ineffective thesis would be, "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because communism is evil." This is hard to argue (evil from whose perspective? what does evil mean?) and it is likely to mark you as moralistic and judgmental rather than rational and thorough. It also may spark a defensive reaction from readers sympathetic to communism.

An effective thesis has a definable, arguable claim. "While cultural forces contributed to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of economies played the key role in driving its decline" is an effective thesis sentence that "telegraphs," so that the reader expects the essay to have a section about cultural forces and another about the disintegration of economies. This thesis makes a definite, arguable claim: that the disintegration of economies played a more important role than cultural forces in defeating communism in Eastern Europe. The reader would react to this statement by thinking, "Perhaps what the author says is true, but I am not convinced. I want to read further to see how the author argues this claim."

Thesis should be as clear and specific as possible. Avoid overused, general terms and abstractions. For example, "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because of the ruling elite's inability to address the economic concerns of the people" is more powerful than "Communism collapsed due to societal discontent."

Writing Process Part 1

Writing Strategies: Getting Started

Writing is easy. This is the truth. Anyone with five words at his command can slap together a sentence. It may be a grammarless and guttural burp, but it is writing.

Writing well, however, is hard. Unfortunately, it is made even harder when we stop to consider how hard it really is. When we are scared, when we sit there, pen in hand, and consider Shakespeare. And Hemingway. And Tony Hillerman. When we think about all the stuff of language—tone, voice, syntax and all the decisions we must make regarding how and in what order to take all the words of the English languages and lay them down on a sheet of paper so that they mean something—we hesitate. We over think it. We stall. We see that brilliant shining essay at the end of the rainbow. We see its perfections, its charming smile and bright eyes. It’s beautiful, isn’t it?

Surely, that can’t come from this pukey thing before us, we think. We seize up. We stop. We wait for inspiration that never comes.

Our problem: Most of us don’t want to start with the ugliness. I won’t lie to you. Writing is hard work. It is walking forty miles only find you have forty more to go. It stings. But my friends, if you want to write a good paper, you have to start here, in the trenches of the mud field where the sloppy first drafts grow.

How do we get out of here? Write To Discover.

Myth: The first draft is the best draft.
Reality: This way of thinking will cause you to stall. If you strive too hard for perfection in your first draft, you will no doubt come up short and you won’t get a very good grade. A better strategy is to sit down and get started knowing full well you will come back to fix and redo part of it later. This relieves the pressure of having to be perfect. It also allows you the freedom to go back and improve your thinking and your writing after you’ve had a shot at it once or twice. Writing is exploring. Your first draft is are the first crunchy footfalls and there’s a white out up ahead.

Myth: You have to have a clear organized outline before you sit down to write.
Reality: While some people are into outlines and fill one out before they ever write a word, it is more helpful to most of us to build some kind of plan, a flow chart of sorts, that helps keep us on topic without restricting our exploratory process. Not knowing exactly how you are going to pull it off shouldn’t be a reason to stop writing.

Myth: Write your introduction first, then your body, then your conclusion.
Reality. Many good writers write their introduction last. We might even change the thesis after they have written out the rest of the paper. Often, we write entire sections of the paper independently from others. The place we start might turn out to be paragraph 28 in your final draft. There are no global rules for how to do this. You have to develop your own strategies. I use sticky pads. I compose in my head. I compose freehand. I compose outside the constraints of order, keeping faith in the idea I am hunting. Sometimes it works. Sometimes I have to revise a lot.

Myth: You should write an entire draft in one sitting. Don’t stop until it’s done.
Reality: We usually do better if we break the business of writing into bite-sized chunks. If we come back to the paper often, after a break, we are giving ourselves the opportunity to re-read what we have written, to rewrite and revise it, and rediscover what we are up to. It is a process, remember. Make it one.

Reality: You might not be done with your research. You might be unsure of where to go, how to argue, what your point is, and even what your thesis is. It’s okay. Just start. Once you get going, it gets easier. In the end, it is our writing that guides us. We have to trust in it to show us where we are going. We have to have the courage to follow.



Exercise. Aristotle’s Freewriting. Just write. Don’t stop. Don’t worry.

2.5 minutes: Take your topic and define it. For example, under the general heading of “Definition” are questions like "How does the dictionary define _________?" and "What earlier words did ________ come from?" Ex: “The role of adjunct professors in the state of Colorado” Defined: “Who are they? What do they teach? What’s the history of using adjunct teachers and what is their role today?”

2.5 minutes: Comparison: Take your topic, break it into parts, and compare it. Ask, "From what is ________ different?" and "_________ is most like what?" Divide it into categories; compare its parts “How much we pay adjuncts to teach English. How much to teach at community colleges. How much to teach a private schools. What they teach. How they teach it. Etc.”

3 mins: Relationship, "What causes _________?" and "Why does ________ happen?"

3 mins: Testimony, "What have I heard people say about ________?" and "Are there any laws about ________?"

3 mins: Circumstances, "Is _______ possible or impossible?" and "If ________ starts, what makes it end?" Similarly, what are the good and bad consequences of ________?