In reading the Allyn & Bacon's guide to argumentation and sythesis, I was struck at how unhelpful this would seem to students. As a tutor I can recognize the different goals the instructor has for English 1000 when students bring their assignments to me. Without realizing, students are performing the synthesizing, analyzing and persuasive tactics already.
A few weeks ago, a student brought an assignment to me for her English 1000 class that asked her to do a close reading of a few panels of Maus II (Fellow tutors: yes, that assignment.) and analyze the theme found in each of them. She was distraught that she had not analyzed the panels well enough. Perhaps this was partly because she was terrified of her instructor and the grade she would receive, but I think a large part of her problem was that she knew the buzzword, but not the practice.
I explained to her, after looking through her paper, that she indeed did have analysis. Granted, there was space for improvement, but she had the scaffolding in place. I think some instructors wish to teach their students what analysis, synthesis and persuasive essays look like, rather than creating an assignment and telling them, "Hey, what you just wrote? That was synthesis. See how easy it is?" In a way, crafting the assignment to fulfill the teaching role is easier than telling the students upfront: You're going to write a synthesis paper.
I think we underestimate students a bit. Yes, there are the students that need the blatent instruction beforehand, but I have seen plenty of students come to me in the Writing Center with unnecessary fears about their writing when they have already fulfilled the basic requirements for the assignment. So maybe "after-the-fact" teaching can be put into good practice, occasionally. Moderation in all things.
No comments:
Post a Comment