Today’s Plan:
- Review Sicart Reading Responses
- Sicart Summary Paper
- Crafting Quality Thesis Paragraphs
- Handling Direct Quotations
- Williams and Bizup on Sentence Syntax
Sicart Summary Paper
Okay, a few of my stock speeches.
- Writing cannot be taught, only learned
- “Teaching” Writing is not like “teaching” Math (student edition)
- “Teaching” Writing is not like “teaching” Math (teacher edition)
Now, despite all that, I am going to try and teach you how to write a paper.
Invention/Content: What Should This Paper Do?
Your task is to use our readings to identify and explain what Sicart believes makes an ethical game. I can think of two overarching elements:
- Player Complicity
- Meaningful Choices
Break down these elements further–what makes players feel complicit? What makes choices feel meaningful? Conversely, what can interrupt/inhibit complicity or feeling meaningful?
Organization / Arrangement
This first assignment checks your handle on the fundamentals of academic writing. These include:
- Argument. Does the paper’s introduction lay out a CLAIM rather than ask a QUESTION? Does the introduction lay out what the paper will conclude? Does it include specifics? I cannot stress the importance of crafting a sophisticated thesis paragraph (not a statement). Let me clarify that you are writing an evaluation of Sicart. Your purpose is to explain his theory of ethical games to someone who has not read his book. I am *not* asking you to evaluate Sicart’s theory. When you are writing academic reviews, I shouldn’t necessarily be able to tell whether you agree with the review or not. You present the information, and leave it to the reader to make her own judgement (this is obviously different from argumentative writing, where you defend a particular position). This writing has an argument only insofar as it argues for an interpretation of Sicart’s work. You will have an opportunity to challenge/respond to Sicart’s work in the next paper.
- Paragraph StructureDoes each paragraph open with a topic sentence that lays out the claim of that paragraph? Does it transition into and contextualize evidence? Does it supply evidence (quote, reason, anecdote, etc). Does it summarize and then analyze evidence? [Note summarize and analyze are two different things!] Does the closing sentence of the paragraph “end” the thought by referring the specific claim of the paragraph back to the overall argument of the paper?
- Handling of Evidence I’ll be paying closer attention to two of the elements above–how well do you transition into a quote? Do you know how to contextualize a quote [that is, briefly tell the reader where the quote falls in view of the original author’s argument]. What do you do after the quote? How deftly can you summarize the quote–putting it into your own words in a way that “opens” it up for the reader without sounding too repetitive. This is a skill, a real hard one. AND then, how well do you add something to that quote/evidence that does something with it? For instance, if you are talking about player complicity, what can you add to the quote(s) from Sicart to help me understand it more. Do you recognize what keywords in the quote require more explication? Do you have personal experience that can help illuminate the concept? Do you have something to add to the quote to amplify its argument? Extend? Examples?
Format / Style
This paper should be formatted in APA format, but it does not require an abstract. It does require a title page and a Running Head. The paper should include a References list. It is quite likely that Sicart will be the only reference on the list (I am just checking for global formatting). Information regarding APA formatting is in the Hackers and Sommers Pocket Manual or can be found at the Purdue University OWL.
Papers should include an APA Title page (just so you get some experience formatting one) and a running head (APA has really weird rules for the header/page number–I am testing whether you can find and execute these rules). Papers will need a reference list (even though I doubt there will be more than two sources).
Looking through past papers, expected length is 1200 to 1700 words.
Crafting a Thesis Paragraph
Below I articulate three important elements of writing that I will use to evaluate your first paper: developing a specific thesis, properly contextualizing and analyzing evidence, and maintaining logical development.
That said, every piece of academic writing should offer a “thesis” in the introduction. I tend to hate this word, because it comes with so much baggage. For me, a strong thesis lays out AS SPECIFICALLY AS POSSIBLE what information a paper will present. It is a kind of idea map. Let me show you a few potential thesis statements:
- I/this paper explain(s) Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment
- I/this paper explain(s) Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment, noting his key terms and summarizing his suggestions for new teachers
- I/this paper explain(s) how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment might create problems for teachers who prioritize grammar as the central concern of writing instruction
All those examples are bad. Though not equally bad. The first one is an F. The second one is also an F. They are equally devoid of specific thought. They are a placeholder for a thought that, at the time of writing, the writer did not yet have.
The third one is better. It is in the high C, low B range. It could potentially be higher based on what comes before or after it.
Okay, so what does an A look like? Examples:
- I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment emphasizes the importance of familiarizing students with assessment rubrics, often through practice norming sessions
- I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment calls for teachers to separate grading and assessment from the act of providing feedback. When students encounter feedback alongside grades, they often receive that feedback as a justification for a (bad) grade rather than as an attempt to guide and develop their abilities. Inoue makes clear that providing distance between grades and feedback increases the likelihood that students engage and implement feedback
- I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment challenges traditional enforcement of “standard” English on the grounds that it severely and unjustly punishes students from multilingual backgrounds. The evidence Inoue presents creates problems for teachers who prioritize “proper” grammar as the central concern of writing.
Here’s the deal y’all: WRITE YOUR THESIS LAST. Trust me, I’ll know if you write the introduction before you write the paper. Pro-tip: when you are done with your rough draft compare the thesis in your intro to the conclusion. You won’t know what a paper is actually going to say until you write it!
Pro-tip #2: academic and professional writing are not mysteries. This isn’t Scooby-Doo. Don’t keep me in suspense. Make sure all the important things you find in the course of a paper appear in the first few sentences, paragraphs, or pages (depending on the length of the paper). Front load, front load, front load.
Remember that an actual, breathing human is grading your papers. Sometimes they are grading as many as 80 papers a week. I’m not supposed to say this, but very often they are formulating an attitude toward your paper from the first paragraph. If it is some lazy first-draft-think-aloud-stream-of-consciousness-bullshit, then it is highly unlikely that anything you do later in the paper is going to reverse that first impression.
Let’s talk about some examples.
Okay, on to point #2–working with sources. From the rubric:
- Is the evidence in each paragraph sufficient to support claims?
- Does the writer’s transitions provide enough context to help a reader? A description of the methods to understand the value of a statistic, for instance, or enough explication of a quote’s significance? Do I feel like I know where the evidence comes from or is it suddenly thrust at me?
- Connect the evidence to the claim of the paragraph? Put the evidence in conversation with other paragraphs?
- Is it clear where a source stops thinking and the writer’s own thoughts begin? Is there an “I” that differentiates the writer from her sources/”they”? Is the writer adding something to the quote, or just leaving it there?
Plagiarism. It isn’t stealing words, it is stealing thoughts, ideas. Be sure to make a parenthetical reference when you use a idea from Sicart.
Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, writing: “To play is to inhabit a wiggle space of possibility in which we can express ourselves–our values, beliefs, and politics” (p. 9). Play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives. Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle rooom. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.
Next paragraph begins with some kind of transition. Then topic sentence. then context some evidence.
Even if I took the quote out, I need a reference:
Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, noting how play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives (pp. 8-9). Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle room. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.
Let’s work with a passage from Sicart:
Player complicity means surrendering to the fact that actions in a game have a moral dimension. Players use their morality to engage with and adapt to the context of the game. When playing, players become complicit with the game’s moral system and with their own set of values. That capacity of players to accept decision making in games and to make choices base on moral facts gives meaning to player complicity.
This complicity allows players to experience the kind of fringe themes that games often develop without necessarily risking their moral integrity. By becoming complicit with the kind of experience that the game wants players to enjoy, they are also critically open to whatever values they are going to enact. And the degree of their complicity, the weight that they give to their values and not to those of the game, will determine their moral behavior in the game. (p. 23)
Williams and Bizup, Style
I am unsure if we will have time to work with this today, but just in case, there is a .pdf in the Files section of Canvas.
For Next Week
- If you have not completed the Walking Dead episode #1 response, then please do so. We will talk about these next week.
- Read the second Sicart .pdf in Canvas. This contains selections from Beyond Choices. Your Sicart summary paper should reference (quote or paraphrase) at least two of the three sections (and, honestly, all three are relevant and hepful)
- Draft and submit your Sicart summary paper by next Tuesday. This gives you a week to read about 30 pages and compose a short paper. Remember that you can schedule an appointment with the UNCO Writing Center to help you work with source material!
