There
are two main aspects of analysis that we need to solidify in this
unit. The first is a general idea of what it means to analyze
in general. Connecting this concept back to the Analytical/Evaluative
Response from Portfolio 1 will be helpful in solidifying this
aspect of the concept of analysis.
Create
an activity that refreshes students' memories about the Analytical/Evaluative
Response
What
was your purpose? What process did you follow when analyzing
the text? What did you need to establish before you could
begin that process?
This
aspect of analysis functions on a number of levels: In terms
of analyzing the sources students will use for their annotated
bibliographies and ultimately their arguments in Portfolio 3,
they will need to analyze the credibility and effectiveness of
the source. This should be familiar to them from Portfolio
1. However, we take this a step farther in Portfolio 2 in
that students must also be able to recognize and analyze the different
values, beliefs, and purposes writers hold when writing about
a publicly debated issue.
Adding the next level
of analysis
The
second aspect of analysis is actually similar to synthesis--what
we do after breaking something down, how we put it back together. This
aspect asks students to find common themes or threads among various
sources' positions. Arranging different sources accordingly
is the ultimate goal of the Annotated Bibliography.
To
begin teaching these essential and challenging aspects of analysis,
lay the foundation by using the following activities (you may
want to revisit the Key Terms and Definitions section from Week
6 before doing them).
Two Examples of Activities
for Analysis (15-20
minutes each, but feel free to stretch or shrink according to
your additional plans)
Logical Associations
Activity
Portfolio
1 taught us that analysis involves breaking a subject down into
its parts, so let's practice this again:
Bring
in a variety of objects (fruit, toys, poems, photographs, journals/magazines,
etc.). Have students analyze the different parts of the objects. For
example, if you are working with fruit, you might bring in a red
apple, a green apple, a tomato, a green banana, a pear, and an
orange.
Write
on the board the characteristics that distinguish these items
as "fruit": have seeds, grow on trees or vines,
etc. Come to the conclusion that, yes, each of these items
qualifies as a fruit.
Write
on the board what distinguishes these items from each other: color,
shape, where they grow, how they grow, type of skin, how we eat
them, etc.
Compare
the two lists on the board and while you are doing so, you or
a student might group the fruit according to the categories on
the board. You will end up with a variety of ways to "organize"
the fruit. For instance:
1. the
apples, the tomato and the orange are all relatively round
2. the
red apple and the tomato are red; the green banana, the pear and
the green apple are all green; the orange stand alone
3. we
can eat the seeds of a banana and a tomato; we can't eat the seeds
of the rest of the fruit
4.
the pear, the banana, the orange and the apples all grow on trees;
the tomato grows on a vine
And
so on...
You
can do similar activities using other objects, but the goal is
to generate and answer the questions: What are the parts
of the object? What makes these objects different? Where
are they similar? How can we break the group apart and put
it back together in different ways?
Legalizing
Drugs Debate
This
activity takes the previous one a bit deeper as it connects values,
beliefs, purposes, and concerns to people who might be active
in the debate.
In
high school most of us learned to simplify approaches into two
categories, "pro" and "con," in order to examine
a debate. However, shared approaches typically run much deeper
than "pro" and "con" since every person's
views are complicated by various social and cultural factors.
Here's an example: Let's say we reduced the issue of legalizing
drugs to "pro" and "con"--then it could be
said that both government officials and members of religious groups
take the same shared approach toward legalizing drugs, since both
groups oppose making these substances legal. A closer examination
of the arguments made by members of each group indicates, however,
that they do not share the same views. Government representatives
are likely to oppose legalization because they claim that drugs
are harmful to society as a whole. In contrast, authors who oppose
legalization because of their religious beliefs might do so largely
because it goes against the teaching of their faiths.
Let's
consider another group--parents. Some of these individuals may
oppose drug legalization because their children have become victims
of drug abuse. These individual positions would differ from those
advanced by members of the previous groups due to different experiences
that have shaped parents' lives. However, depending on the specific
argument they make, a parent who writes a text protesting the
legalization of drugs might share the approach taken by a government
official or member of a religious group. Thus, although a parent
will have his or her own individual position on this issue, he
or she would take the same shared approach as that taken by certain
government officials and members of particular religious groups.
Yet
another group weighing in on the issue of legalization is civil
libertarians-who believe that individuals should be free to make
decisions about drug use free of regulation by the government.
These authors argue that drug use is an individual choice and,
even if it harms the individual, is nonetheless something that
the individual should be free to do. This argument is similar
in many ways to arguments about mandatory use of helmets on motorcycles
and even to some arguments that "risky" sports such as skiing
should not be regulated by the government.
Two
additional groups interested in this issue adopt economic approaches.
One group argues that the amount of money the government is spending
attempting to combat drug use has largely been wasted. Since drug
use has declined only somewhat since the government began fighting
the drug war, the government should reconsider its tactics and,
as it did when it lifted the prohibition on alcohol, legalize
drug use. The core of this argument is that the money now spent
on the drug ware would be better spent on societal needs. The
other group taking an economic approach - albeit a very different
approach - are companies that would view the legalization of drugs
such as marijuana as a threat to their viability might include
representatives of alcohol and tobacco companies. It's fair to
say that alcohol and tobacco companies don't oppose drug use solely
because drugs are harmful to people (after all, the consumption
of both results in many deaths per year). It's also fair to say
that these authors would be unlikely to come out and say, "Don't
legalize drugs because it will cost us money." As a result, while
representatives of tobacco and alcohol companies might oppose
legalization of drugs for economic reasons, they would probably
avoid couching their arguments in those terms.
CSOW:
Connecting to Students' Own Writing (5-7 minutes)
Given
these examples, clearly it would be inaccurate to clump these
very different arguments into "pro" and "con".
If we did, much of the meaning or truth behind the issue would
be lost. The goal for a "good" writer of public discourse
should always be to produce texts that seek to fairly represent
the issues (for the betterment of society). Thus, it can be viewed
as dishonest for writers to reduce the complexity of an issue
unnecessarily. In part, this is why you (student writers) are
being asked to think critically about these different individual
positions and shared approaches.
After
you've read and summarized your sources, look for common threads
that cut across sources as a way to group them into different
shared approaches. Here's what it might look like for the example
above.
Topic:
Legalization of Drugs
Shared
Approach 1: Oppose legalization because it is harmful to society
as a whole
Shared
Approach 2: Oppose legalization for moral reasons because it is
against religious teachings
Shared
Approach 3: Favor legalization for individual rights reasons
Shared
Approach 4: Favor legalization for economic reasons because the
war against drugs has been ineffective
Shared
Approach 5: Oppose legalization for economic reasons
Of
course, you could argue that the government is also economically
motivated and that representatives of alcohol and tobacco companies
may legitimately believe that drugs are harmful to society. If
the support for these claims outweighs the others, you'd need
to group the positions of authors arguing about differently. Keep
in mind that grouping positions into approaches is far from an
exact science; you'll need to read various arguments before generalizing
views into approaches in order to represent each group fairly.
You
could have students "role play" the people involved
in this conversation/debate or create your own or an additional
debate that students enact to drive this point home. It's
a tough one!
|
Teaching Resources
Return to Overview