| The
goal for this activity is to help students make an overall point
with their writing by considering how claims can "map out" a response.
(In the past, students have written analytic responses that read
like "generalized lists" - i.e. the author's tone is good…the
organization is effective… the evidence could use some work…).
Here, we are trying to help students move beyond generalized responses
to think more about their purpose/focus and organization.
Practice unpacking the
following claims:
Turkey sandwiches are
healthier than peanut butter sandwiches because they are lower
in fat.
Huckleberry Finn
is a classic American novel and should be read by every student
at the high school level.
Viewers watched Star
Trek during the 1970s because it alleviated their fears about
the ability of races and genders to get along.
Then
u se the claims below (or ones that you generate) to model how
a claim can help the writer connect their points and create an
outline by which to organize their writing. Put these claims on
an overhead and ask students to outline what the paper might look
like based on what the claim says. Take the claim apart, phrase
by phrase; you might refer to this activity as "unpacking a claim."
Ineffective claim: Krugman's essay is pretty good, but I didn’t
like the tone he used and he seems biased against other countries.
Overall, I found his attitude to be sarcastic or even a little
cynical. I did like that he talked directly to the audience, though.
Why this is ineffective. Have them unpack each section of the claim to
reach these conclusions:
- "Krugman's
essay is pretty good, but I didn’t like…" The language
is too generalized - what does the writer mean by "good" and
"I didn’t like" and "attitude"?
- What
does a bias against other countries have to do with the effectiveness
of the text? This may be difficult to explain.
- "I
found his attitude"… The writer can comment on tone but it is
very difficult to impute attitude where we have no real knowledge
of the writer’s internal life. Changing the word choice
here may help.
- Just because we "like" something doesn't make it
effective. Rephrasing to something more concrete that
the writer could support would be more effective here.
- Overall:
The writer has named too many criteria to develop any sufficiently.
Proving all of these items is too diffuse (not focused) for
a four-page essay that provides sufficient evidence for all
of its claims and subclaims.
More Effective claims:
Krugman appeals to readers of the
New York Times by using language that they can relate
to and by taking a position they’ll be inclined to agree with,
but his argument loses focus at the end as he never truly argues
for why a tax on consumption would be ineffective."
Brooks cleverly grabs
our attention through a lively style and by creating a discussion
that seems to be, on the surface, about silly magazines.
This "false superficiality" enables him to avoid alienating
his audience when he delivers his cutting punchline about one
of the flaws in democracy.
Why these are effective:
- Writers
use specific language and make demonstrable claims about the
texts
- Writers
combine their observations to make an overall point that indicates
whether or not the essay was/was not effective (avoids sounding
like a list)
- Writers’
focuses can reasonably be handled in four-page papers.
Ask students how each
response might look based on these claims. How would the reader
develop these points? What examples from the text could he/she
use to develop each point? You might draw up an outline for each.
Finally, you might ask what would make each claim better. |
Return
to Outline
