Resources: NFG 272-300; EVERYTHING in They Say / I Say ; Class notes on types of arguments (found here) and one of the selected essays below:

Choose ONE of the following essays on which you will complete your text analysis.  (You may want to read several and choose which one is most interesting to you).  Your options are as follows:

• Hal Niedzviecki:  “Facebook in a Crowd” (NFG, 958-960)
• Amy Goldwasser:  “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” (NFG, 666-669)
• David Pogue:  “No Keyboard?  And You Call This a Blackberry?” (NFG, 719-723)
• Dennis Baron:  “Don’t Make English Official – Ban It Instead” (NFG, 869-872)
• David Zinczenko:  “Don’t Blame the Eater” (TSIS, 195-197)
• Gerald Graff:  “Hidden Intellectualism” (TSIS, 198-205)

Purpose: After reading and analyzing the arguments presented in one of the aforementioned articles, you will write a “textual analysis”—a short writing experience (3-5 pages; 3 full pages is the minimum, excluding header) designed to help you develop ways to respond to assigned texts in a critical manner (remember when we discussed “critical thinking” during the second class?)

Format: 12pt, Times New Roman, double-spaced and stapled in the upper left corner. When engaging the critics in the articles, be sure to attribute all quotes and paraphrases to the proper source in text using MLA style. Please include an Works Cited page in MLA style for your selected text. I will provide tips in class for integrating quotes; however, information on quoting and in-text citations can be found in your textbook (see NFG 428).

Assignment: The position paper requires you to pick one assigned reading and to critique the text from your own perspective.

In the essay you will present your own position among the text’s position(s) on an issue. You will engage your essay directly, accommodating and acknowledging good ideas (and explaining why they are good), resisting and rejecting bad ideas (and explaining why they are bad), and negotiating and revising ideas (and explaining how they might best be revised), using examples, anecdotes and experiences to support your claim. Like our class discussions on other topics, you may also bring up positions or points that you feel are ignored or overlooked. This is often an effective way to join the conversation and further the debate.

Tips for getting started: I feel that the best way to approach this assignment is to “workshop” each article/position separately. I find it extremely helpful to first identify the major claims each critic is making and to determine what kind of claim/argument is being used (cause/effect, compare/contrast, policy, definition, etc). Once I understand each “move” the critic makes, I then begin to evaluate each claim in terms of its logic and completeness. Is the argument reasonable? Why or why not? Lastly, I look for additional ways to support or reject the argument. What’s missing, or what has the author ignored?

During this process I always invariably come to some position of my own, which is typically a hybrid of existing ideas or an amalgam of partial agreements with my own new points interjected. The result almost always demonstrates the fact that more than two sides (pro/con) exist on any given issue. Moreover, it typically leads to new ways of negotiation between competing texts which is perhaps the most valuable result of all. My hope is that each of you will see varied perspectives in the reading, and in your critique of what others’ say, you will develop a position of your own.

Feedback: During the class workshop I will provide feedback to students in the way of mini-conferences. For a full review and critique of your draft, please contact me to make a time to come by my office. I typically spend about 30 minutes workshopping one-to-one with students and am happy to meet with you as often as you like. I find that strong writing is usually the product of strong revision.