Think About Writing

Think About Your Own Approach To Writing
Students too often confuse argument with opinion - that is, they write papers that are subjective and self-oriented rather than objective and reader-based. Students are sometimes black and white thinkers, unable or unwilling to address the complexities of an issue. Students who are inexperienced with a certain topic or discipline can jump on the first "band wagon" they find, citing an authority with almost blind reverence, and ignoring all other points of view. Students are sometimes overwhelmed by the complexity of an intellectual problem, finding that it's impossible to take a stand. Students will sometimes defend a weakly supported or poorly reasoned argument because it is, after all, their opinion, and they have a right to it. (adapted from Dartmouth's Writing Program)
William Perry's Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme (1970). In this work, Perry argues that college learners pass through three stages of intellectual development before becoming sophisticated critical thinkers. Dualism. Very young or unsophisticated thinkers tend to see the world in polar terms: black and white, good and bad, and so on. These students also have what Perry calls a "cognitive egocentrism" - that is, they find it difficult to entertain points of view other than the ones they themselves embrace. If they have no strong beliefs on a topic, they tend to ally themselves absolutely to whatever authority they find appealing. At this stage in their development, students believe that there is a "right" side, and they want to be on it. They believe that their arguments are undermined by the consideration of other points of view. Relativism. As students progress in their academic careers, they come to understand that there often is no single right answer to a problem, and that some questions have no answers. Students who enter the stage of relativism are beginning to contextualize knowledge and to understand the complexities of any intellectual position. However, the phase of relativism has some pitfalls - among them that students in this phase sometimes give themselves over to a kind of skepticism. For the young relativist, if there is no Truth, then every opinion is as good as another. At its worst, relativism leads students to believe that opinion is attached to nothing but the person who has it, and that evidence, logic, and clarity have little to do with an argument's value. Reflectivism. If students are properly led through the phase of relativism, they will eventually come to see that, indeed, some opinions are better than others. They will begin to be interested in what makes one argument better than another. Is it well reasoned? Well supported? Balanced? Sufficiently complex? When students learn to evaluate others' points of view, they will begin to evaluate their own. In the end, they will be able to commit themselves to a point of view that is objective, well reasoned, sophisticated - one that, in short, meets all the requirements of an academic argument.
The thesis. The thesis is generally the first thing that we look for when we evaluate a student's paper. Is there an obvious thesis? Is the thesis clearly stated? Does it make a point worth making? Does it provide a sense of the structure of the argument to come? The structure. If a paragraph can exist as "happily" on page 3 as it can on page 4, the writer has a problem. Note any random discussion of points in a paper. Note, too, whether or not the organization folows the plan put forth in the introduction and thesis. Paragraphs: external coherence. Sometimes paragraphs are well written, but they don't seem relevant, either to the thesis sentence, or to the paragraph that came before. If the paragraph doesn't seem relevant to the thesis, ask students to consider ways that they might rewrite the topic sentence so that they can make it relevant. If they can't, they should consider dropping the paragraph from the paper. On the other hand, a paragraph may seem relevant to its thesis, but it doesn't seem to "flow" from the paragraph that came before. Generally, this sort of problem points to weak transitions. Encourage students to make their transitions more carefully. Paragraphs: internal coherence. Does each paragraph have a topic sentence that controls the entire paragraph? Are all the supporting sentences relevant to that topic sentence? If not, is the coherence problem rooted in an irrelevance of content, or in sentences that are poorly constructed? In order to determine the scope of a coherence problem, choose a paragraph and underline the subjects of all of its sentences. If a paragraph's sentences have too many subjects, the "point" of the paragraph will be impossible to determine. Style. In order to diagnose any problems with style in a student's paper, it is necessary to put some of the sentences to the test: Consider the simple subjects and predicates. Is the real subject of the sentence also its grammatical subject? Is the actor of the sentence also the subject of the sentence? Is the action of the sentence reflected in the main verb of its predicate? Consider the "play" between nouns and verbs. Does the student overuse nominalizations (that is, constructing sentences with abstract nouns that might better serve the sentences as verbs)? Does the student overuse the passive voice, thereby hiding the subject of his sentence? Consider the relationship of dependent and independent clauses. Does the student put the important information into the independent clause, or is it buried in some dependent clause or modifying phrase? Consider how the sentences begin, and how they end. Typically, the beginnings of sentences should hold "old information," while the ends should present the reader with something "new." Context and transitions should come at the beginning of the sentence. The end of the sentence should be carefully constructed so that the "new" point is powerfully made and does not trail off in a somewhat rambling fashion (as this sentence does.) Consider a student's use of elegant rhetorical devices, like parallelism. Are these devices effectively used, or does the student botch them? You'll want to model elegance for your students in your own responses to their writing. You'll also want to reward them when they have delivered a particularly elegant turn of phrase. Secondary sources. A student's use of sources can be very telling. Sometimes in a very poor paper you will discover the promise of an idea, only to find that these promises are all footnoted. If this is the case, you may want to consider that the writing problems may be rooted in the fact that the writer doesn't know how to talk about her subject. She may not understand the conventions of the discipline. Or she may simply not know what it is that she wants to say. In either case, the professor may want to meet with the student to find out what problems the student is having with the course materials.

Think About Your Own Approach To Writing

Students too often confuse argument with opinion - that is, they write papers that are subjective and self-oriented rather than objective and reader-based.
Students are sometimes black and white thinkers, unable or unwilling to address the complexities of an issue.
Students who are inexperienced with a certain topic or discipline can jump on the first "band wagon" they find, citing an authority with almost blind reverence, and ignoring all other points of view.
Students are sometimes overwhelmed by the complexity of an intellectual problem, finding that it's impossible to take a stand.
Students will sometimes defend a weakly supported or poorly reasoned argument because it is, after all, their opinion, and they have a right to it.

(adapted from Dartmouth's Writing Program)

William Perry's Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme (1970). In this work, Perry argues that college learners pass through three stages of intellectual development before becoming sophisticated critical thinkers.

Dualism. Very young or unsophisticated thinkers tend to see the world in polar terms: black and white, good and bad, and so on. These students also have what Perry calls a "cognitive egocentrism" - that is, they find it difficult to entertain points of view other than the ones they themselves embrace. If they have no strong beliefs on a topic, they tend to ally themselves absolutely to whatever authority they find appealing. At this stage in their development, students believe that there is a "right" side, and they want to be on it. They believe that their arguments are undermined by the consideration of other points of view.

Relativism. As students progress in their academic careers, they come to understand that there often is no single right answer to a problem, and that some questions have no answers. Students who enter the stage of relativism are beginning to contextualize knowledge and to understand the complexities of any intellectual position. However, the phase of relativism has some pitfalls - among them that students in this phase sometimes give themselves over to a kind of skepticism. For the young relativist, if there is no Truth, then every opinion is as good as another. At its worst, relativism leads students to believe that opinion is attached to nothing but the person who has it, and that evidence, logic, and clarity have little to do with an argument's value.

Reflectivism. If students are properly led through the phase of relativism, they will eventually come to see that, indeed, some opinions are better than others. They will begin to be interested in what makes one argument better than another. Is it well reasoned? Well supported? Balanced? Sufficiently complex? When students learn to evaluate others' points of view, they will begin to evaluate their own. In the end, they will be able to commit themselves to a point of view that is objective, well reasoned, sophisticated - one that, in short, meets all the requirements of an academic argument.

The thesis. The thesis is generally the first thing that we look for when we evaluate a student's paper. Is there an obvious thesis? Is the thesis clearly stated? Does it make a point worth making? Does it provide a sense of the structure of the argument to come?

The structure. If a paragraph can exist as "happily" on page 3 as it can on page 4, the writer has a problem. Note any random discussion of points in a paper. Note, too, whether or not the organization folows the plan put forth in the introduction and thesis.

Paragraphs: external coherence. Sometimes paragraphs are well written, but they don't seem relevant, either to the thesis sentence, or to the paragraph that came before. If the paragraph doesn't seem relevant to the thesis, ask students to consider ways that they might rewrite the topic sentence so that they can make it relevant. If they can't, they should consider dropping the paragraph from the paper. On the other hand, a paragraph may seem relevant to its thesis, but it doesn't seem to "flow" from the paragraph that came before. Generally, this sort of problem points to weak transitions. Encourage students to make their transitions more carefully.

Paragraphs: internal coherence. Does each paragraph have a topic sentence that controls the entire paragraph? Are all the supporting sentences relevant to that topic sentence? If not, is the coherence problem rooted in an irrelevance of content, or in sentences that are poorly constructed? In order to determine the scope of a coherence problem, choose a paragraph and underline the subjects of all of its sentences. If a paragraph's sentences have too many subjects, the "point" of the paragraph will be impossible to determine.
Style. In order to diagnose any problems with style in a student's paper, it is necessary to put some of the sentences to the test:
Consider the simple subjects and predicates. Is the real subject of the sentence also its grammatical subject? Is the actor of the sentence also the subject of the sentence? Is the action of the sentence reflected in the main verb of its predicate?

Consider the "play" between nouns and verbs. Does the student overuse nominalizations (that is, constructing sentences with abstract nouns that might better serve the sentences as verbs)? Does the student overuse the passive voice, thereby hiding the subject of his sentence?

Consider the relationship of dependent and independent clauses. Does the student put the important information into the independent clause, or is it buried in some dependent clause or modifying phrase?
Consider how the sentences begin, and how they end. Typically, the beginnings of sentences should hold "old information," while the ends should present the reader with something "new." Context and transitions should come at the beginning of the sentence. The end of the sentence should be carefully constructed so that the "new" point is powerfully made and does not trail off in a somewhat rambling fashion (as this sentence does.)

Consider a student's use of elegant rhetorical devices, like parallelism. Are these devices effectively used, or does the student botch them? You'll want to model elegance for your students in your own responses to their writing. You'll also want to reward them when they have delivered a particularly elegant turn of phrase.

Secondary sources. A student's use of sources can be very telling. Sometimes in a very poor paper you will discover the promise of an idea, only to find that these promises are all footnoted. If this is the case, you may want to consider that the writing problems may be rooted in the fact that the writer doesn't know how to talk about her subject. She may not understand the conventions of the discipline. Or she may simply not know what it is that she wants to say. In either case, the professor may want to meet with the student to find out what problems the student is having with the course materials.