Instructor: Arnold Sanders (Van Meter G57) Office Hours: 11:30-12:30 MWF & by appointment

Phone: 337-6515 (office) & 461-6272 (home)

SAVE ALL YOUR NOTES AND ROUGH DRAFTS FROM EVERY PAPER!!

Text: Diana Hacker, A Writer's Reference 4th Edition (Boston: St. Martin's, 1999) and xeroxed case studies handed out periodically during the semester.

Course Description: This course will teach you to write analytical papers for college courses.  Our topics will require you to analyze "hard choices" in real-life cases drawn from the popular press and some scholarly writing.  The choices are "hard" because no solution exists which will not hurt someone, and because some solution must be undertaken or even worse results will occur.  In some cases, the consequence of the "hard choice" will be high rewards for one or more parties to the case, and much of our class discussion will involve trying to distribute equitably the costs and rewards of the choice.    Such choices are fairly common in adult life, and often are encountered in college-level thinking (because the easier ones can be solved without a college education!).  This will require you to think carefully about the act of analysis and how to turn analytical thinking into coherent prose that contributes to our thinking about the problem at hand.  Analysis uses many types of writing you already can do, and it leads logically to more difficult types of writing. You might think of it as something you might do in five stages.

1. What is it? Analysis begins by defining the topic in terms of its parts and its relationship to other similar topics. This requires familiar subskills sometimes taught separately, like description, comparison, contrast, and illustration with specific examples.

2. How does it work? Then, analysis attempts to explain how the topic "operates" because the world is a dynamic place: all things are products of processes, and those things also are agents which probably will produce other things (implied consequences).  When those agents are human beings, their values and interests demand that we understand how they are affected by the thing they are involved in. 

3. How well does it work? Once one understands how the topic came to be, and what the topic itself can cause, one must evaluate those processes based upon some rule for judgment which you must persuade your reader is relevant to the topic. For instance, are those things/processes efficient, pleasing, just, profitable, beautiful, moral, etc.?

4. What should/should not be done and why? This evaluation leads one to persuasive argument which attempts to control what those processes should be by maintaining or changing the processes, usually in order to avoid harms or to obtain benefits.  This stage usually generates the thesis of an academic approach to analysis.

5. How do we know? Finally, a thorough analysis leads us back to redefine the topic at a higher level (called "epistemic"): how do we know what it is, how it works, or what it should be? On what principles do we base our analyses, evaluations, and prescriptions? Are those methods and principles of analysis good enough, or has this analysis persuaded us that we should change what  we are doing as academic writers?

        Good 104 papers will progress at least through the first three stages in the first draft. The keys to doing excellent work are moving beyond evaluation to prescription, and epistemic re-definition. That is, once you know how your topic works and how well it works, could you justify maintaining or changing it to avoid harms or to obtain benefits, and would that justification lead you to see it more completely than before?

ATTENDANCE: Attendance and active class participation is required. You must be able to present and defend your analyses orally to succeed in college, and speaking is essential to learning new thinking/writing skills. Especially, discussion reveals what your audience thinks about your analysis. More than three un-excused absences will lower your final grade 1/3 per absence. Written excuses must conform to those listed in the Student Handbook (e.g., Health Center note, written confirmation of death in family, etc.).

Weekly Assignments

Week 1 (9/8, 9/10): Wed. Course Intro.--the "Turtle Joke" & the academic essay; grammar quiz and diagnostic essay. The logical support of arguments in academic essays--

Rule #1: Knowledge may be described as a series of claims: claims of fact ("X is" or "X is not") and claims of value ("X is good or honorable or moral" or "X is bad or dishonorable or immoral").  Both are relevant to academic argument and depend upon each other for meaning, but we must not confuse one type of claim for another.

Rule #2: Claims depend on justification by arguments drawing on other relevant claims of fact or claims of value to induce belief in their audiences; better justification produces higher levels of belief in greater numbers of readers.

Rule #3: Everyone has opinions, but some opinions are logically supported more completely, accurately, and appropriately than others--they should receive higher grades.

Fri. TOPICS, SUBTOPICS, AGENTS, AUDIENCES, AND POINTS OF VIEW. "Hand" exercise. States of emotion, belief, and knowledge: "I feel this is right."; "I believe this is right."; and "I know this is right." PICK UP CASE #1 & SIGN UP FOR CONFERENCES.

Week 2: (9/13, 9/15, [9/17--NO CLASS DUE TO CONFERENCES]) Mon. Be prepared to summarize the facts of Case #1: "Brain-absent Newborn Donates Heart." Who are the "parties to the case"?. Wed. What do the parties of the case have to say to each other, and whose position do you feel most strongly about? Who most needs to know what you have to say--your "Best Reader"? Thurs.-Fri., FIRST DRAFTS OF Case #1 PAPERS DUE IN CONFERENCES.

Week 3 (9/20, 9/22, 9/24): Library Orientation and Case #1 Revision. Monday: Thinking in Paragraphs & Inventing a Writing Plan. Also, bring revised draft of "Baby G." case paper for paragraphing, fact/value distinction, and writing plan workshop. "Brazilian Fisherman" exercise: writing plans and logical forecasts + pick up Case #2: "Gunshop Owner."

Rule #4: Paragraph transition is to paragraphs what forecasting (divisio) is to the paper, and both grow naturally from a careful writing plan. Wed. 9/22., Meet Library A/V Room for research training. Fri. 9/24, by 5PM, revised draft of paper on Case #1 due.

Week 4 (9/27. 9/29, [10/1--NO CLASS DUE TO CONFERENCES]): Case #2: "Gunshop Owner Kills Robber in Store." Mon..: audience analysis and narration of the case (narratio) as crucial stages in persuasion. Wed..: apply writing plan & forecasting tactics, and fact/value distinction to "Gunshop" case. FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ON Case #2 DUE IN CONFERENCES THURS-FRI. Rule #5: When is a paper done? Ask its best readers.

Week 5 (10/4, 10/6, 10/8): Mon..: Discussion of current theses on Case #2 and their best audiences' response to their initial claims. Wednesday., workshop on paragraph logic and address of your best audience. Friday, 10/8, revised draft on Case #2 due.

Week 6 (10/11, 10/13, [10/15--NO CLASS DUE TO CONFERENCES]): Mon.., Research Project introduction--MEET AT OLLI TERMINALS IN LIBRARY! A second revision of the Case #2 paper is due in class. Wed. Short reports on research project topics, search strategies, and problems. First draft of research project paper due in conferences Thursday-Friday, 10/14-15.

Week 7 (10/18, 10/20, [10/22 MSV]): Mon. writing plan and draft of short Research Project discussed in class; Wed. meet in library for work on Research Project and pick up Case #3.. Mon. 10/25, final draft of Research Project due in class (1/24^th of final grade). Mid-Semester Vacation, 10/22-10/24.

Week 8 (10/25, 10/27, [10/29--NO CLASS DUE TO CONFERENCES): Mon. & Wed., Case #3--"Neb. Suit Blames Parent for Teen's Pregnancy." Development of case analysis and logical arguments with "parties to the case," audience analysis, writing plan, and logical tests of completeness. H/O "Appealing to logic" and "Appealing to emotion" (69-81)--read for Monday, 11/1. First draft of Case #3 paper due in conferences, Thursday-Friday.

Week 9 (11/1, 11/3, 11/5): Monday, logical reasoning and logical fallacies; quiz on statements based on "Teen's Pregnancy" case quiz (1/24^th of final grade). Wed. 11/3, review logic quiz. Friday, (11/5) second revision of Case #3 due. H/O Case #4: "The Arbiter."

Week 10 (11/8, 11/10, [11/12--NO CLASS DUE TO CONFERENCES): Case #4, "The Arbiter" [U.S. News & World Report college rankings]. Case thesis analysis; first draft due in conferences Thursday-Friday.

Week 11 (11/15, 11/17, 11/19): Mon., Case #4 revision work. Second draft revision due Friday 11/19.

Week 12 (11/22 [11/24-11/28, TGV]): Mon. 11/22, Discuss in-class impromptu exam construction and writing strategies. Pick up Barber, "The Origins of Language." (An in-class exam on Barber, for 1/24^th of the final grade is scheduled for Monday, 11/29.

Week 13 (11/29, 12/1, 12/3): Mon. 11/29, in-class essay exam on Barber, "The Origins of Language." Wed. 12/1, discuss exam answers, preparation and writing strategies. Fri. 12/3, discuss how to pick a paper for a final portfolio revision, and how to be a good workshop partner by giving pertinent advice.

Week 14 (12/6, 12/8, 12/10): Revision workshops--each day bring a revised draft of the paper you are considering for the final portfolio.

Week 15 (12/13): Mon. self-evaluation & course evaluations. Final Portfolio: 1 REVISION AND ALL ITS DRAFTS, due Wednesday, 12/15.

English 104.09 Style Sheet

Students should know that every academic discipline requires writers to conform to certain standards of visual presentation or "format." Most disciplines' formats differ from one another, but all are important to readers. Because this course is taught in the English Department, papers should conform to the MLA Stylesheet, a summary of which is presented below. For full instructions, see the Harbrace College Handbook (11th edition) or the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (3rd edition, 1988). ("MLA" stands for the Modern Language Association, a major professional organization in the field of English literature and composition studies.) These rules are not trivial--failure to observe them will lower your grade. Ask your instructor and Writing Center tutors for help.

Overall Paper Format:

        All papers must be typed or computer printed, double-spaced, with appropriate margins. Papers should not include separate pages for titles or Works Cited sections, and no blank pages or special binders should be used. All papers must identify themselves on the first page by title, author, course and section number, and date. All pages must be numbered. Each paper must end with an accurate and properly constructed "Works Cited" section. All sources quoted, paraphrased, or summarized (including handouts you get in class) must be acknowledged in parentheses in your text, as in this direct quotation of a claim that "the cost of elective pregnancy termination . . . must be approaching $500 million a year" (Wilson 19).

        Use endnotes only to explain complex indebtedness. The course encourages discussion outside of class. If your paper has benefited in any important way from the ideas of others, acknowledge them in an endnote to the first sentence which says something like this:

1) This paper benefited from conversations in Michelle Tokarczyk's English 104 class, especially from Edith Piaf's comments on poverty and arts funding. I also thank my Writing Center tutor, Nancy Atwell, whose conferences helped me define my thesis about Ginsberg's struggles to write in poverty.

        This note protects its author from violation of the Honor Code, helping to explain how it might be that Edith's paper contains similar ideas about poverty and the arts, or that another writer who talked with Nancy Atwell had a similar thesis about Ginsberg. Remember, acknowledged collaboration on a paper is not plagiarism unless your teacher has told you specifically not to collaborate (e.g., on a take-home exam, etc.).

Common Types of "Works Cited" Citations:

Book with one author:

DeLillo, Don. White Noise. N.Y.: Penguin, 1986.

Book with two or three authors:

Fornara, Charles W., and Loren J. Samons II. Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles. Berkeley: U of California P,          1991.

Book composed of essays edited by one or more authors:

Chafe, William H., and Harvard Sitkoff, eds. A History of Our Time: Readings on Postwar America. 3rd ed.   N.Y.: Oxford UP, 1991.

Article in a magazine or newspaper (note that a translation credit comes after the title of both articles and books):

Tolstaya, Tatyana. "In Cannibalistic Times." Trans. James Gambrell. The New York Review of Books XXXVIIII:7  (April 11, 1991) 3-6.

A single article reprinted in a collection:

Tolkien, J.R.R. "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (1936) Rpt. in R.D. Fulk ed., Interpretations of "Beowulf": A Critical Anthology. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana U P, 1991.

A movie or video:

The Manchurian Candidate. Dir. John Frankenheimer. M.C. Productions, 1962.

Internet web page (note that the date is essential—web page contents change):

"Gilman Inducted into National Women's Hall of Fame." Charlotte Perkins Gilman Newsletter 5.1 (Spring 1995): 8 Dec. 1995. Available http://orchard.cortland.edu/PerkinsGilmanNews.html.

College Writing Proficiency (CWP) Criteria