« Eisner Powerpoint and Reading Update | Main | Show Day Schedule Changes »
February 02, 2007
Anlaysis is the heart of the precis
Categories: Classes, EDUC 600
I’ve caught up with all the précis papers and wanted to make a few observations that may help you as you continue to write them. I know that philosophical writing and analysis is a new skill for some of you. It may be frustrating and take some time to acquire. I’m willing to help you with that process. Don’t give up. I know it’s tempting to say “I just don’t get it. I am just not good at this stuff.” For many people, writing seems like an innate talent – you are good or you are not. That’s not the case. It gets better with work and practice, just like the skills you develop in other courses. Besides, you won’t take that defeatist, innate talent attitude from your future students, will you?
What’s missing from many of the papers is analysis. Most people get the gist of the readings pretty well and are doing a good job of stating the main points in a limited space. (Although really consider the economy of your language, especially given the short length of these papers). Then, most papers move into some sort of reflective mode, using statements like “I think” “I believe” and “I had never really thought about this point before, but it seems right to me.” I am glad these articles are thought provoking (I would be embarrassed about my reading choices if not), but there is a missing piece here.
That missing piece is analysis, where you deeply consider the author’s ideas, using a close reading of the text to bring penetrating questions to bare on those ideas. These questions can be ones of clarification (“Dewey seems ambiguous with the term “community”) *, of contradiction (“Dewey claims that schools ought to purify social life on one had, yet expose students to a variety of social stimuli on the other.”), or of extension (“Dewey suggests that schools bring different social groups in contact with one another. It doesn’t seem as if neighborhood schools can do this.”) There are other questions that you can bring as well.
(*Just make sure your clairfication questions aren't do to a quick or sloppy reading).
Notice two features of the examples: 1) They are not really questions; they are statements of criticism that arise from questions. In these précis papers, it would be fine to use the questions as a basis for analysis. You could say “Does Dewey mean we need to do away with the neighborhood school?” It more formal, argumentative papers, however, you should couch your criticism as statements, not as questions.
2) They throw you back into the text. If Dewey seems ambiguous with a vital term, then maybe he explains it better elsewhere (if it’s vital, he should at least try). If he’s contradictory, can any of that contradiction be resolved? Is there anything in the text that helps your extension play out? We use the text to try and answer any questions we have before turning to other texts (and, in the broad sense of the term, our experiences are texts as well). Those experiences are important; they shape how we read texts and the questions we ask of those texts, but we need to give the text a chance to answer those questions before we end the conversation.
There’s an exchange in Pulp Fiction between Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Mrs. Wallace (Uma Thurman). Mrs. Wallace says something to the effect of “Most people don’t really listen in a conversation, they just wait for their turn to talk.” Reading a text means you should be in conversation with it. Careful analysis shows that you are listening.
Or, if you prefer, here’s an equation:
Careful reading + analysis + reaction = Criticism
Posted by Nakia at February 2, 2007 09:23 AM