The assignments for this class reflect a basic philosophy: Thinking is writing, and writing is thinking. What these statements mean is that writing is not a mechanical activity separate from critical thinking. Rather, it is an integral part of developing your ideas. The act of expressing ideas in writing forces us to develop those ideas as clearly as possible, to take a jumble of fragments and unexpressed concepts and order them into coherent, logical prose. Seeing ideas take shape on the page allows us to assess them and refine them by interrogating them: Are they really what I think? Is this the best way to express my ideas? What are the logical connections between these different points? Do these points raise other ideas that I need to consider?

 

TIPS FOR WRITING RESPONSE PAPERS

Response papers are relatively short, but they each require you to reflect critically on the course's material, themes, and modes of inquiry. Each paper MUST have an introductory paragraph with a clearly articulated thesis that states the argument which the rest of the paper will advance. A thesis statement is not a declaration of fact, a broad claim, or an obvious assertion. A thesis statement is an interesting and specific contention about which one can reasonably debate and disagree. A thesis statement also serves to orient the reader by highlighting the major themes that will be discussed in the rest of the paper. Each of the assignments during the semester will pose questions that are intended to guide you in formulating a provocative and insightful thesis.

Examples of thesis statements:

BAD: Culture affects how individuals behave and view the world. (This statement is both obvious and general; nobody would be likely to disagree.)

BETTER: Individuals need to be understood as being in a dialogue with culture. (This statement advances the notion of interaction between individuals and cultural systems or meanings, but it doesn't specify what culture is or how that interaction should be understood. While intriguing, it's too vague and hence can't easily be contested.)

GOOD: While Clifford Geertz rightly asserts that culture should be conceptualized as symbolic and interpretive, rather than structural or functional, he does not sufficiently explore the role of power relations in determining how certain meanings might carry greater weight than others. This is why anthropological attention to culture as meaning must be combined with consideration of how power structures, as described by Michel Foucault, might shape those meanings. (These sentences introduce specific characterizations of culture to suggest why the approach that will be developed by the author is superior to others. The statement is clear, but arguable.)

For an excellent, detailed discussion of how to formulate a thesis statement, take a look at this guide from Harvard University's Writing Center.

 

GRADING STANDARDS

In grading papers, I look for five things:

THESIS
USE OF EVIDENCE
ORGANIZATION
INCORPORATION OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES FROM READINGS
WRITING SKILLS (grammar, mechanics, spelling)

When I grade response papers, I view them as a snapshot. Like a snapshot, they may not accurately reflect you, your overall abilities, or the amount of effort you have put into the course. But, they do reflect your ideas at a specific moment in time. By assigning a number of papers over the course of the semester, I seek to compile a collection of snapshots that, taken together, do provide an overall picture of your insights, ideas, and reactions to the readings. I also pay particular attention to things like improvement over time.

Response papers are graded on a three-point scale. While reasons for a grade vary according to the particular strengths and weaknesses of each paper, there are some general characteristics that the different grades share.

1.5 - 2: These papers are equivalent to a D (2.0) or F (1.75, 1.5). The 1.5 - 2.0 response paper either has no thesis or else it has one that is strikingly vague, broad, or uninteresting. There is little indication that the writer understands the material being presented. The ideas presented are not explicitly linked to the readings or themes discussed in class, which makes the reader wonder whether the author has indeed done the reading. The paragraphs do not hold together; ideas do not develop from sentence to sentence. This paper usually repeats the same thoughts again and again, perhaps in slightly different language but often in the same words. The 1.5 - 2.0 paper often contains numerous errors in grammar or in spelling.

2.25: These papers are equivalent to a C. The 2.25 response paper has a thesis, but it is vague and broad, or else it is uninteresting or obvious. It does not advance an argument that anyone might care to debate. The thesis in the 2.25 paper often hangs on a personal opinion that is not sufficiently justified by the evidence provided. Like the 1.5 - 2.0 paper, a 2.25 paper tends not to link the ideas presented to the readings or themes discussed in class, which makes the reader wonder whether the author has indeed done the reading. The 2.25 paper often has mechanical faults, such as errors in grammar and spelling, but a paper without such flaws may still be a 2.25 paper.

2.5: These papers are equivalent to a B, and this tends to be the average grade given. The reader of a 2.5 response paper knows exactly what the author wants to say. It is well organized, it presents a worthwhile and interesting idea, and the idea is supported by sound evidence presented in a neat and orderly way. The reader does not have to read a paragraph two or three times to get the thought that the writer is trying to convey. The 2.5 paper is usually mechanically correct. The spelling is good, and the punctuation is accurate. Above all, the paper makes sense throughout. It has a thesis that is limited and worth arguing, although the author may not sufficiently explain why this argument is significant. Where the 2.5 paper runs into some trouble is in exploring the complexity or significance of the ideas raised. Examination of points from readings may be cursory, and links between different authors might not be included. The 2.5 paper has good promise, but fails to realize it, either through the development of the central argument or in linking it to broader issues explored in class.

2.75: These papers are equivalent to an A-. They are excellent, in that they have all the positive qualities of the 2.5 paper, but also are lively, insightful, perhaps even exciting. The thesis statement is clear and interesting, sometimes even provocative. Everything seems to fit the thesis, and the ideas presented deepen in complexity as the paper continues. Insights from the readings are incorporated, not in the pro forma way sometimes encountered in the 2.5 paper, but in ways that allow the author to respond with his or her own ideas. 2.75 papers make a clear impression on the reader; they are very good.

3.0: These papers are an unequivocal A. The 3.0 paper has all of the qualities of the 2.75 paper, but takes them to an even more sophisticated level. This paper clearly shows a creative and original thinker at work. The prose is elegant, and the ideas are sophisticated, with remarkable clarity of logic and organization. This paper has a thesis that is provocative and allows the author to explore the complexity of the issues raised, often through incorporation of several different perspectives. The 3.0 paper usually presents a perspective that the reader may not have considered before, or it presents a familiar argument in particularly striking ways. This is the kind of paper that the reader remembers and wants to share with others. There are usually no more than one or two 3.0 papers per class.

 

For more information, contact: aleshkow@holycross.edu