Today’s Plan:
- Duck and Shawn (Trolley Problem, Sicart?)
- Disclaimers
- Nuts and Bolts
- Further Exploration
- Writing Activity
- Homework
Disclaimers
Some of my staples:
- Writing cannot be taught, only learned
- “Teaching” Writing is not like “teaching” Math (student edition)
- “Teaching” Writing is not like “teaching” Math (teacher edition)
Sicart Review Paper
Your first writing assignment will be due before our next class session on Monday, February 3rd at midnight. I will turn these papers around as a fast as I can (24 students, about 20 minutes a student, 8 hours of grading).
Invention / Content
What should this paper do? Your overarching task is to explain what Sicart believes constitutes an ethical game. Every paragraph in the paper should focus on a specific element Sicart describes. As I discussed in class, your paper has to address player complicity and explore what Sicart believes makes a choice meaningful. Additionally, the paper should address one more idea.
The focus here should be on explicating these terms/ideas so that we can apply them to a variety of games. As player-scholars, what dimensions of games should we pay attention to if we want to assess said games ethically?
Organization / Arrangement
As I said last class, my emphasis with this first assignment is to check your handle on the fundamentals of academic writing, especially in terms of arrangement. So there’s three things that I’m looking for:
- 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 got all fire and brimstone about this on Wednesday–but 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 STRUCTURE. Does 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? 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 fucking 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?
Of course, I am also testing whether you pick the “right” quotes here–this is as much a test of your writing ability as it is your reading comprehension. All of this is hard. I’ve tried to help you thus far by suggesting specific places and passages in the text that you might return to.
Format / Style
This paper should be formatted in APA format, but it does not require a title page or an abstract. In place of a title page, just put your name, course name, semester, and instructor name at the beginning of the paper. It does require 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.
Further Explication
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.
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.
Writing Activity: Working with Quotes
From Katherine Isbister’s book How Games Move Us / Emotion by Design. 2017.
Homework
Get that Sicart paper done!
