In the writing center conference transcript that Bean provides in Chapter 2, I thought that the student's final response was particularly telling: "The reason why I'm undecided is because I couldn't create a strong enough argument for either side. There are too many holes in each side. If I were to pick one side, somebody could blow me out of the water" (19). This is a manifestation of what I've seen to be a more general theme. Yesterday I read a student paper in which the assignment involved "treating the Bible as literature" -- doing literary analysis on a "sacred text." The question of the assignment was whether or not God broke covenant with Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac -- a question which requires a YES or NO and a supporting argument. The student managed in a 4 page paper to never answer the question. In fact, within the paper itself, I found the phrase "Any interpretation of the Bible is just that -- an interpretation." The underlying meaning of this disclaimer seems to be: "I have no faith in my ability to construct and defend an argument, so I am just going to summarize the plot." So the essay turned out to be a paraphrased version of the Abraham and Isaac story with a bit of emotive digression.
Bean's allusion to Perry's theory of educational "stages" seems relevant. Perry would contend that this student was stuck in one of the middle stages of development -- that of "multiplicity," in which he/she is conscious of opposing views but sees all views as "just interpretation." The student's essay reveals a tendency to cling to the text itself (plot summary) in order to be sure that he/she cannot be criticized (because no interpretation has been offered). This student was, in fact, frightened at the prospect of having to "make meanings and defend them" (19).
I think the assignment itself was effective because it forces a confrontation -- a YES or a NO. It also requires students to engage rationally/logically with an authoritative text. But the students' response to the assignment suggests to me that, perhaps, the difference between analysis and summary had not been stressed enough during class time. I plan to emphasize and re-emphasize this distinction on a regular basis. Hopefully, when paper time rolls around, my students will have a solid idea of what to avoid (plot summary) and what an essay should do (make a claim and support/defend it). In other words, I want to help them get past "multiplicity" as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a great observation, Tim. In my earlier comments I don't mean to denigrate an assignment which forces a decision, just to encourage decisions that include a "yes, but" model- such as "God broke the covenant, but forged a stronger bond" or "No, but God used a loophole Abraham didn't know about" : answers that entail more considered analysis than arguments that ignore conflicting or complicating evidence. Anyway, I think you're right on the mark regarding the educational stage this student (and many more) are in when they arrive, as well as the importance of separating analysis from plot summary, something I've also seen in tutoring.
Post a Comment