Psych 303
Goldman, Spring 2002
2/6/02
There is now a class website. Handouts and Overheads from classes are linked to appropriate dates and topics.
URL: www.uic.edu/classes/psych/ then click on Psch 303 Writing in Psychology Goldman
Or http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych303/
Corrections to Assignment Sheet (pg. 7 of Syllabus):
|
2/15,16
|
Go over and Discuss feedback on EWA1. Hand In: Draft plan and working thesis for EWA2; TA s and Inst will review and give back with feedback. |
5 pts. |
|
2/21,22 In DS |
Writing Introductions Activity |
3 pts |
|
2/27 In class |
Small groups summarize ideas on revision from Bartlett article |
3 pts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28, 3/1 In DS |
Provide Peer Feedback to one student on EWA2 |
Max of 10 pts. |
|
3/6 In class |
Small group revision of article segments |
3 pts. |
Add to Extended Writing Assignments the information in boldface (pg. 8 of Syllabus):
|
1/23 Assigned 2/7,8 Due 2/15,16 |
Process Write on EWA1 Receive & Discuss feedback on EWA1 |
Max of 5 pts. |
Two Primary topics for Today:
I. Small group discussion and compilation of information from the Process Write on the library Search Process
What strategies for search did you find useful?
What problems did you encounter?
What problems did you solve and how?
What problems would you like some help solving?
What kinds of topics did you research?
II. Discussion of Argument Evaluation Essays they identified Claims, Evidence in and reiterate process of finding claims and evidence.
Review: What are the elements of Argument?
Simple Argument:
Main Claim
Reasons that argue for the main claim
Support for the reasons
Complex Argument
Main Claim
Subclaims
Counterclaims
Reasons that argue for the main claim and subclaims
Reasons that argue against the counterclaims
Support for the reasons
Depending on the context of the whole argument, subclaims and reasons may be difficult to distinguish. Subclaims decompose the main claim (see 1 below). Reasons say “Why” the author holds the claim or subclaim (see 1 below). Some statements may be both a subclaim and a reason.
e.g., 1. Main Claim: It is bad to smoke.
Subclaim: It ruins your lungs
Reason: The tar and nicotine immobilize the cilia in your respiratory system. This makes it hard to breathe.
It is unhealthy for other people.
It is expensive.
Versus:
2. Main Claim: It is bad to smoke.
Reason: It ruins your lungs
Reason: It is unhealthy for other people.
Reason: It is expensive.
In 2, it is difficult to determine if the statements that follow the MC are Reasons or Subclaims. If there was no other information than that provided in 2, I would tend to call the statements reasons rather than subclaims.
Analyzing an Argument: Essay 7 from Williams
(1) I think it would be all right if we had a smoking area on campus. I think then the kids wouldn’t go the liquor store and smoke there. It would be a good idea to get the smokers out in the open so the teachers could talk to them about quiting the habbit. This idea is to the bennafit of the people that smok, so they would support this idea.
(2) On the other hand, I think that the smokers only smok to get attention. And having a smok area at school will only make it almost right for the High school kids to smoke Also they would incorage the people that don’t smok to smok too. Then you would just have more of a problum with smoking at Westminster High school. I also think it’s a fier hazard and we shouldn’t have that at our school We have enof to worrie about without this idea.
(3) It is my opinion that there should be a smoking area on campus. If tey want to muss up their lives by smoking it all right with me. I think it would be graet to teach the smokers the hard way just because they want to fit in. That way I think people suold be allowed to smok wereever they want or they suold stop selling cijrettes all together and take care of this problum once and for all!!
Handout for use in Discussion Sections on Thursday and Friday
Peer Feedback Guidelines:
Two Phases: Phase I prepares you to do Phase II
I. Read and go through the paper with Evaluating Arguments Criteria in mind and the Criterion-Based Questions in mind - You are not answering each of the separate questions separately.
Mark up the student paper for claims, evidence, etc., using small letters in the margins (e.g., a, b, c, etc.) so you can refer back to specific sections of the text.
II. Prepare “Feedback to the Author” by addressing three groups of questions:
1. Quality of the Argument Content – Was there one overall claim? Were there subclaims? Were the claims and subclaims clear and were they supported by evidence and examples? Was there a counterargument? Was the evidence relevant to the claim(s) it was supposed to support?
Reference specific parts of the essay that were clear and other parts that were unclear or confusing. Label parts with small letters (e.g., a, b, c, etc.)
2. Quality of the Writing – Was the overall essay well organized and coherent? Did the introduction make the claim clear? Did the body develop the evidence for the claim? Were there a clear sections that were subclaims or counterarguments? Are there loose ends that seem irrelevant to the claims and evidence? Did the paragraph structure match the argument structure?
Reference specific parts of the essay that were clear and other parts that were unclear or confusing. Label parts with small letters (e.g., a, b, c, etc.)
3. Effectiveness of the Language – Was the paper written in an interesting manner – what were some things the author did to make it interesting? Were the sentences clear and readable? Were there parts that were redundant? Were there any specific word usage problems (where you thought a different word would be better than the one the author used)?
Reference specific parts of the essay that were clear and other parts that were unclear or confusing. Label parts with small letters (e.g., a, b, c, etc.)
You may hand in your Peer Review at the end of discussion Section or you can turn it in during class on Monday, February 11, 2002.