english 101 working* syllabus / spring 2005

*I believe in trying to make each course that I teach, even if I have taught it before, “new” and also responsive to the needs of the particular class of students I’m teaching that term, AND even to events and opportunities that may arise as the semester progresses.  I will generally communicate any changes both in class and via email (and posted on the online syllabus).  Your attendance is vital to help make decisions about the directions we may choose to go as a class, and to keep track of changes in the syllabus.

 week 1

jan 10-14  Introduction to the course, texts, and one another.

Wed: by classtime read

·         This syllabus and the attached document on “Attendance, Participation, and Maturity.”

·         The online documents on academic integrity mentioned above, especially “Plagiarism: What It Is & How to Recognize & Avoid It”  http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html

Fri: by classtime read

·         Introduction to Ways of Reading (WofR 1).   In-class writing sample. (diagnostic, ungraded)

 week 2

jan 17-21   Push & Shove

Mon: no class, in honor of MLK Day. 

Wed: by classtime read Wideman "Our Time" (WofR 689)  Read with a pen in your hand, mark words you don’t understand, and put question marks and exclamation points in the margins next to ideas you don’t understand or that you react to strongly.  Make your mark!  

and

Write a 2-page, typed reaction paper to this piece, that includes an MLA-style work(s) cited list at the end, due at the beginning of class.  Assignment:

·         In your own words, briefly (1 paragraph) summarize the essay as you understand it, being sure to strive to accurately identify what you take to be Wideman’s main point, but without giving your opinion on that point (i.e., show me that you let him “push” you, at least a little).  Hint: of course you will have to read to the very end of Rodriguez’s essay to see the full complexity of his ideas—don’t short change him. 

·         Then “shove” back: find an idea in the essay, it may be just a “minor” point, an idea expressed in passing, or it may be a more central idea, that you had a specific, ideally strong, reaction to, and explain your reaction.       

LINK of the Day: Frederick Douglass's NARRATIVE (1845), and his discussion of "holidays" (see especially pages 74-77).

week 3: 24-28 Jan

Monday, Jan 24:

1) Re-read WIDEMAN'S "OUR TIME" with your assignment for essay #1 in mind. Essay #1 assignment is attached to this email and is available at this link:
http://userpages.wittenberg.edu/laskeland/101es1f03.htm .

NOTE: You will need to have a DRAFT of essay #1 BY NEXT FRIDAY (Jan 27). The FINAL is due the FOLLOWING FRIDAY (Feb 4)

2) Read & PRINT OUT (and MARK UP!) Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege" http://www.languageofblood.com/White_Privilege.pdf Think about it in relation to our discussion of Wideman's piece.

3) Read Hacker, The Writer's Reference, 3-12 ("Composing and Revising").

WRITE: THREE Prewriting activities for essay 1 due:

    * Answer the checklist questions for assessing your writing situation on  page 4.
    * Do 1 page of planning, based on two of the techniques identified in Hacker (3-9).
    * Plus a more formal, one-paragraph proposal for the paper that identifies your tentative focus and plan and thesis   for the paper (see Hacker 9-11). All of these are "tentative," which means they are subject to
change as you continue drafting, continue thinking about your project.
 

Wednesday, 26 Jan: Discuss proposals, the writing process, "thesis."  Please Read the online document: "Thesis Statements," from the Univ of Indiana Writing Center, at: http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/thesis_statement.shtml

Draft due: Friday, 28 Jan.  Minimum of 2 pages (normal margins, normal font) for full credit.   Read Hacker, WR C2-C4; pp. 13-36 (on drafting).  Sign up for conferences.

week 4

Monday, Jan 31: No class: individual conferences with you to discuss essay 1 drafts.

Wednesday & Friday Feb 2/4:   In class: watch film Douglass Rushkoff, "The Persuaders," PBS Frontline. Visit website: .

Take notes in class: a reaction paper will be DUE by classtime on MONDAY, 2/7: 

Write a 1-2 page response to this film that includes, at some point, a summary of what you understand the video's argument to be with at least a clear attempt to paraphrase/cite a specific detail, statistic, whatever.  You can use information from the documentary's website, especially from an interview or the discussion of "Neuromarketing." Be specific and accurate about Rushkoff's point.  Then, shove back, and tell me your opinion of the piece.  If you find the work boring or confusing or annoying, push yourself to ask "why?"  Who might be interested in this?  Why?  Why is this argument valued in an academic context?  Would any other kinds of viewers ever value this, outside your annoying profs?  What pressures might be on viewers to dismiss Rushkoff's argument in this work?  (Is his viewpoint radical for our culture?  Why?)

Look at the sample MLA style paper in the Writer's Reference (Hacker 371-77) and make sure your paper conforms to the general format of that paper (name, page # on each page, etc.).  

Go to, and explore, the website for THE PERSUADERS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/

Read for MONDAY ONE interview, of your choice: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/

AND this discussion of "Neuromarketing": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/etc/neuro.html

Friday, Feb 4. Final draft of essay 1:  due by classtime.  .Look at the sample MLA style paper in the Writer's Reference (Hacker 371-77) and make sure your paper conforms to the general format of that paper (name, page # on each page, etc.).  

 week 5:  Plan to go on your own to the Writing Center  sometime this coming week or early next week for help on Essay 2.

Monday, 2/7:   Turn in Rushkoff reaction paper.  Continued discussion of Rushkoff.  Meet in the Writing Center!  Essay #2 will be assigned.

Word of the day: hegemony

Wednesday, 2/9: Read and do a textual analysis of the term "hegemony" for class time.

Friday, 2/11:  Essay #2, planning due.  Type out a thesis and bring it to class.  Bear in mind the qualities of a good thesis as discussed on the "How to Write a Thesis" page you read last week.

week 6  Question of the week: It's week 6; have you visited the Writing Center yet?

Monday, 2/14 : Essay 2 Draft due.  20 points for draft and participation in workshop exercise.  You MUST keep this draft to turn in on 2/18 with the workshop worksheet.

Wednesday, 2/16:  Bring Writer's Reference to class along with drafts.  Reading Adrienne Rich, "When We Dead Awaken."  1-2 page reaction paper due.

Friday, 2/18: Essay #2 Final draft Due, include all previous drafts.   

week 7:

Begin revision, selection, preparation for midterm portfolio!, due week 8.

    NOTE: The portfolio will have 3 parts:

    1) Cover Letter,

    2) Two Revised Essays—ONE of your reaction papers and ONE of your major essays (either essay 1--i.e., the personal essay where you imitated Wideman's approach or explored your own education as transformation based on McWhorter writing--OR essay 2, on hegemony).

    3) For each paper included, YOU MUST TURN IN THE MOST RECENT DRAFT VERSION, with  a grade (either ABCD grade or a check/plus/minus) and  my comments, as well as your newest, most error-free “final” version.

                         Defining Re-vision: Not Just Correcting Errors But Re-Seeing:

Revision means seeing your ideas, the ideas of others as if for the first time, noticing new things, being willing to re-vise your ideas from the bottom up.   According to poet and writer Adrienne Rich, writing does not simply mean to “think well” but requires

an imaginative transformation of reality which is in no way passive.  And a certain freedom of mind is needed—freedom to press on, to enter the currents of your thought like a glider pilot, knowing that your motion can be sustained, that the buoyancy of your attention will not be suddenly snatched away.  Moreover, if the imagination is to transcend and transform experience, it has to question, to challenge, to conceive of alternatives perhaps to the very life you are living at the moment.  You have to be free to play around with the notion that day might be night, love might be hate; nothing can be too sacred for the imagination to turn into its opposite or to call experimentally by another name.  For writing is renaming.  (610) 

For Monday 2/21: Workshop on revised REACTION:  RE-READ, rewatch, ONE piece we've experienced together this term so far AND Re-Vise YOUR 1-2 page REACTION PAPER to it into a 2-3 page thesis-driven piece. (I.e, you need to re-read and then revise your reaction to Wideman, OR the PBS Frontline documentary "The Persuaders," OR Adrienne Rich)  by classtime on this date, using my end comments, and your own further re-thinking of everything. 

Risk re-naming the experience you wrote about.  Risk re-seeing the text.  Risk re-seeing your life.  Question the easy clichés that come to mind: they are likely to be hegemonic ideas that benefit the powers that be more than they do you.  

AS YOU REVISE YOUR FIRST REACTION: Think about 1) broadening your sense of audience.  If you didn't introduce the text by title and author's full name (Douglass Rushkoff, in the case of  The Persuaders), do so.  If you didn't give it a real, descriptive title, do so.  2) develop your scattered thoughts into one, specific thesis.  Cut out things that may not be relevant Flesh out your initial descriptions, give evidence to support ideas that are stated but not developed.  EVERY REVISED REACTION PAPER MUST INCLUDE A QUOTATION, at least one, more is ok, FROM THE TEXT (or, in the case of The Persuaders an interview; but, ideally, try to quote from both. 

Remember, you can re-view the documentary here: frontline: the persuaders: watch online | PBS

Wednesday 2/23 Re-thinking day.  Essay 2 will be returned to you in class.  Bring Rich to class, again. We will look at sample cover letters from other classes. 

Friday 2/25:   NO CLASS: Individual Conferences with YOU!  NOTE CHANGE!

In conference we will discuss: 1) your essay #2 [and your choice for the portfolio] and 2) your cover letter: bring it to the conference.  Also, bring essay 1, so that we can analyse which one would be better for the portfolio.

• Unlike many business letters, it's okay for this one to be fairly personal. You may want to tell me a story about you and writing--what your development as a writer has been BEFORE this class got underway. THEN explain to me your writing process, and your revising process, in general, and how it has developed and changed during your previous academic writing experiences and over the course of this semester.

 [We will look at some  sample cover letters  in class on Mon. 2/28]   

week 8:

Monday 2/28: Workshop on revised essay, EITHER essay 1 (your personal experience essay, responding to the quotation about education or using Wideman's technique), OR essay 2 (on “Hegemony”).  Revise the essay by classtime on this date! 

Re-see your essay, using my end comments, and your own further re-thinking of everything.  Risk re-naming the experience you wrote about.  Risk re-seeing the film, “The Persuaders” if you wrote about it (watch it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/)   Risk re-seeing your life.  

Wednesday 3/2: Portfolio DUE by CLASSTIME: Including

• Revised Cover Letter. (& Draft with my comments)
• Revised REACTION PAPER (& Draft with my comments)
• Revised Essay 2 (& Draft with my comments)

 No class Friday 3/4

week 9: AFTER SPRING BREAK

Monday 3/14: Read Bordo, "The Male Body"

Ads: Targeting Audiences/ Demographics. 

1-2 page Critique of Bordo DUE Your critique must be specific. Please incorporate at least one quotation/paraphrase from the essay, being sure to note the author's stance towards the statement, how Bordo uses the statement in her argument.

(How does all this relate to hegemony, hmmm???)

Wednesday 3/16: workshop on magazines and ads, using the Checklist for Analyzing Print Advertisements. Bring your MAGAZINEs to class, with an ad analysed according to the worksheet.

Friday 3/18: Draft of Essay #3 DUE for Peer Workshop: make this the best draft you can possibly write; a complete draft, minimum of two pages for full workshop credit (20 pts). 

Final draft will be due, with peer workshopped draft, on Wednesday 3/30.

Essay #3: "Analysis of Print Media Ads." Assignment: Choose one SPECIFIC advertisement from a magazine that you know fairly well (and that you can examine at least 3 different issues of!), and write a 3-4 page paper (800-1200 words) that argues who the intended audience of this magazine, as a whole, is, and how your advertisement attempts to appeal to that audience. In other words, use one real, specific advertisement to show an academic audience who this magazine is marketed to as regular subscribers (or–alternatively--who some specific, special issue is directed to, and how that audience relates to the more general, typical audience of the magazine as a whole). You may or may not be part of the intended audience, but it should be a magazine that you know, that you’ve read over the years, at least a few times.

• Your audience for this paper is academics, professors. Ask yourself: are they likely to have some conception, or even a misconception, about who this magazine is for, and/or what the audience is like? Your audience will be interested to know if you think this magazine, the corporation sponsoring this ad, fits with the ideas they’ve encountered from other academics, through analysis like that offered by Naomi Klein or the video we watched in class.

• Examine SEVERAL ISSUES of the magazine and its advertisements, to see if the ads support or dispel any stereotypes your might be likely to have, or to think of if they hear it’s a "sports magazine" or a "magazine for teenaged girls" or a "women’s magazine." Choose your ad carefully, choose one that seems to get at the psyche of the typical reader of this magazine.

MON 3/21 Discussion of scholarly journals (vs. Magazines).   Reading: Selected essays from Spectrum, Wittenberg's Student Critical Writing Review.

Essay #4 Assignment:  

THE RESEARCH PAPER WITH EMBEDDED SCHOLARLY JOURNAL PROJECT.

ESSAY DEADLINES: Drafts due: 4/13; Final Due: 4/18 

For essay #4, we turn from analyzing writing about a periodical with an audience you are familiar with, to analyzing the writing by and about an audience you are probably less familiar with, but which you need to understand: the writing that goes on in your major field, especially that done by and read by your professors. Write a 6-8 page researched paper in which you analyze the discipline you are currently choosing to major in, and examine how the professional members of that field communicate with one another, particularly in professional journals, and try to determine why they write in that way to one another. To do this, you will be required to

• interview one professor and (at least) one advanced student (junior or senior-level) who is majoring in the field,
• write a detailed description of three journals that you will examine several issues of, and in which you will read a minimum of an entire article from each. (I.e., each student will read 3 scholarly articles in their entirety, and scan many more.)  One of these journals MUST clearly fit the criteria of a truly scholarly source; two may be slightly more ambiguous (but two of the three MUST contain at least some articles with references at the bottom.  If one is somewhat non-scholarly but is written by and for "practitioners" in the field--e.g., a journal or extensive newsletter written by and for elementary school teachers or investment bankers, say--it will be okay.) 
• visit a web-site written by and FOR other specialists in the field, that you can determine would be viewed by professionals as a "good" source for information in this field.
• read a book in the field, written for non-specialists, recommended by the professor!
• Additionally, you may wish to visit the Career Development and Placement office (in 210 Shouvlin) to explore the possible careers that may emerge from this field.

Your audience for this essay is this class, me included, and other freshmen who may be considering this field as their majors, but want more information, and who want to get a sense of what their teachers in this field are likely to "really" want to see in their writing.

Friday, 3/25: NO CLASS/ GOOD FRIDAY.

Monday, 3/28: Field Trip to Thomas Library & Proposal for Essay #4 Due BY CLASSTIME!, For class today, write a short, typed, personal narrative (1-2 pages), with me as your audience, about why you are interested in this field and how you plan to research this paper. Include the following three issues in your discussion:

• Try, first, to do some creative work to convince me of your interest in this field. Prewriting ideas: When do you first remember doing something–maybe playing a childhood game or messing around with a microscope–that triggered an interest in this field? Or did you at some point encounter someone–whether a real person, or a character in a book, movie, or on TV–whose job is/was related to this field? Can you imagine the ideal person you hope to become through this vocation? Do you have a personal hero in the field of study, or in a related field, who attracted you to this area? You don’t necessarily have to answer any or all of those questions in your paper, just find some way to show us why you care about this field enough to consider devoting at least part of your adult life to it.

• Then explain who you plan to interview for this essay. (It would be a good idea to contact them by this date, make your appointments). If you know other people in class planning to interview the same person, or planning to research the same field, why not make your appointments together, to save the professor / advanced student time?

• Finally, let me know in this proposal how much you already know about the scholarly journals in this field–it’s okay if it is nothing or not much.

Wed, 3/30.: Revised Essay #3 Due. Topic for discussion: Interviewing strategies, questions.

Fri. 4/1: 

Reading assignment: 

Writer's Reference "Evaluating Sources" section R2 (310-316) and, 

Wittenberg Library’s explanation of "Scholarly vs. Popular Articles."* http://www6.wittenberg.edu/lib/research/schol-pop.php

(*Note that some sources fall somewhere between these two extremes--especially articles/publications written by and for people who practice in the field but who are not necessarily professional researchers.)

2 sources on writing abstracts and/or descriptive annotations:

From St. Cloud State, in Minnesota: "How to Write an Abstract" http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/bizwrite/abstracts.html

From Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada:  "How to Write an Annotated Bibliography"

http://www.library.mun.ca/guides/howto/annotated_bibl.php

-------------------------------No Writing for TODAY (4/1)----------------------------------------------

Topic for discussion: Scholarly Journal Description and Annotated Article Assignment  

Draft Due 4/6; final 4/12:

In 1-2 long paragraphs, write 3 "mini" versions of the paper you wrote for Essay #4, ONE for EACH of three scholarly JOURNALS that you will examine several issues of, in your major field of interest. 

In each essay: Describe in detail who you believe the audience for the journal is, specify as best you can (is it strictly for professors? Or is it also for other people who might be interested? Is it only for certain specialized professors–e.g., not even all biology profs are likely to read advanced microbiology journals on a regular basis). Explain who the publisher is, and who the writers typically are, and try to determine the PURPOSE this journal is likely to serve for its readers, using specific evidence. You must include photocopies of important information (see below).

Also include with each description a proper, MLA formatted entry for the one full-length article you read from the journal along with an annotated entry for that journal

Save everything: your notes, etc. These descriptions may be revised and integrated into your draft of essay #4, and will be included as an "Appendix" to that document.

1) Take notes on and examine CAREFULLY three to four recent issues from EACH of the THREE JOURNALS: [NB: Recent=within the last five years.] What are the regular sections in this journal? Is there a description of the journal printed early in the journal–on the back of the front cover, say? (If so, quote it!) What’s the main, specific focus of this journal? Who is the audience for this journal? How do you KNOW what the audience is? Who writes for the journal--are there brief biographies of the writers?  Are there special issues of this journal sometimes? What are they like? (Provide clear evidence that supports your view.)

2) Read several abstracts (if they exist) to get a feel for the specific subject matter generally covered. Then CAREFULLY read one FULL, scholarly article (probably 20-30 pages) from one issue of each of the journals you have chosen (i.e., you will read a total of 3 articles in full to do this assignment).  

Choose an article that interests you, that relates to your own ideas, goals, paying careful attention to the BIG QUESTIONS: why? (Why is this topic being discussed in this field?), how do you know (what counts as evidence in this field, and for this particular subject covered by this article?), so what? (Why is this topic important within the field? How does it relate to the importance of this field to the larger society?), Opposition (Does this article deal with possible counter-arguments? Does this article seem to be presenting a controversial idea for this field?).

1) Title of the journal, underlined

2) The name of the organization that sponsors its publication (probably a scholarly organization, not just a printer.)

3) A description of the layout of a typical issue of your journal.  (I.e., what does the typical cover look like, front and back.   How is the magazine organized.

4) A description of the specific focus of this journal, in general.  (I.e., what topics, issues, etc. are typically covered). Often, on the title page, or on the back of it, there is a specific statement about this.   Note the titles of articles, quote a few titles here or list a few subjects to give us a sense of the journal's topic and, based on your interview with the professor, how it fits in the field as a whole.

5) Decribe the layout AND content of a typical article.

6) SPECIFICALLY, who are the most likely readers for this journal (its "primary audience")? What purpose would such a reader be likely to have for reading this periodical?

7) Type out a complete, MLA-formatted works cited entry for the article you read, and include a brief, 1-2 sentence summary of that article, i.e., an abstract, in your own words, using quotations only sparingly.

1) The JOURNAL’S TITLE PAGE (located at the beginning of each issue of the journal), if it is a paper journal. May not be available for on-line, electronic journals,

2) Its TABLE OF CONTENTS (located at the beginning of each issue);

3) One ENTIRE article, OR the first page of the article, any pages that you plan to quote from, and all footnotes or endnotes, PHOTOCOPIED FROM THAT SAME ISSUE.

Monday, 4/4:  No class.  Get your interviews done during this time.

Wednesday, 4/6:  Sample Scholarly Journal Descriptions 

Friday, 4/8: Field Trip # 2 to Thomas Library. 

-----------------------

Monday, 4/11:  Draft of Scholarly Journal Descriptions DUE by classtime of course: workshop

Wednesday, 4/13:  Essay #4 Draft DUE for Workshop: Must have at least 2 pages drafted, to receive full credit.  In class, we will read sample introductions to previous students' papers, and discuss effective organization.

---------------------

Friday 4/16: No class: Dr. Askeland will be presenting a paper at the American Association of Colleges and Universities conference.  My paper is called “White Teacher / Black Culture: White Privilege and its Discontents in the Multi-Racial Classroom.”

Monday, 4/18: Scholarly Descriptions FINAL DRAFT due.  Discussion: The Works Cited List.

----------

SAMPLE WORKS CITED:

Works Cited

 Anotherprofessor, Very Big.  ANot So Important Article, But I Have to Publish or Perish.@  Not A Great 

                Journal, But We Have Great Parties 68 (1998): 658-97.

 The Electronic Text Center.  Ed. David Seaman.  1998.  Alderman Lib, U of Virginia.  14

             February 1999 <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/>.

 Professor, Really Big.  AVery Important Article Title on Some Obscure Area of Study That Only

            About Six People Will Read.@  Very Obscure But Very Important Area of Study in a Very

            Expensive Journal 19 (1999): 2-30.

 Zooks, Gad.  ANonsense: A Critical Study.@  What The Heck: A Journal of Trivial Matters 2

(1999): 123-456.

*entries are in alphabetical order!

*everything is double-spaced!

*use Ahanging indent@ to get the proper formatBfirst line sticking out, every entry.

In WordPerfect: Go to AFormat@ at the top of the page; choose Aparagraph@; choose Ahanging indent@

In Microsoft Word: Go to AFormat@ at the top of your screen; choose Aparagraph@

Under Aindent@ you=ll see ASpecial@; there=s a little down-arrow next to a space there; choose Ahanging@

Reminder: NEXT UP: Book Review assignment: START READING!

----------------------------

Wednesday, 4/20:  ESSAY #4 Workshop: Draft must be 4 pages minimum 

Friday 4/22: Final Draft of Essay #4 Due.  

Today: Discuss "How to Integrate Quotations" and Editing Workshop

Checklist:

--Final Draft of Essay 4, with works cited list.  (Include in your works cited MLA style entries for all sources: interviews, websites, articles, books, etc.)

--Final Draft of Scholarly Journal Descriptions with annotated bibliography.

--Rough draft of Essay #4 with peer-workshop worksheet from Wednesday.

--Rough draft of SJDs with my comments

--COPIES (or partial copies) of ARTICLES and tables of contents of the journals in which they were published.

--Your signature form or other proof of interview completion.

MONDAY, 4/25: Essay #4 REALLY DUE today.

Discussion: characteristics of a good book review.  Reading–a sample book review--

of Susan Bordo's The Male Body (handout, also available here, but with some typos, and other errors):

Title: No more Martians?
Subject(s): BOOKS; MALE Body, The (Book)
Author(s): Chancer, Lynn S.
Source: Women's Review of Books, Apr2000, Vol. 17 Issue 7, p18, 2p
Abstract: Reviews the book `The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and In Private,' by Susan Bordo.
AN: 2977804
ISSN: 0738-1433
Persistent link to this record:

http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=2977804
Database: Academic Search Premier
 

In class: "How to Write a Book Review" from our friends at the Indiana University writing center: http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/book_reviews.shtml

Assignment: Based on your research for essay #4, review the book recommended by the professor you interviewed.  Your review must at some point answer the question: why would a professor in this field recommend this book?  (You can, additionally, indicate to your audience whether you liked the book and whether you think this book is effective for readers like yourself, i.e., readers of your age range and skills, if you wish.)

Audience: Same as Essay 4 (research paper portion): Other first year students and me. 

Prewriting: Print out and answer the book review questions & bring your written responses to class on FRIDAY 4/29

---------------------------

WEDNESDAY 5/4: Final Book Review DUE, by classtime.  Evaluations, etc.

OPTIONAL REVISION OF ESSAY #4, incorporating book review info: due by MONDAY MAY 9, 3 pm.)  If you choose, you may revise essay #4 (not the Scholarly Journal Descriptions), for a higher grade, by the final exam date.  You will need to examine my comments on your essay carefully, and take them into account, of course.  But your essay must also be expanded from its original state to incorporate any insights gained about writing in the discipline from working through your book review.  You must include a brief cover letter explaining your revision process.

1)      Often there are better sources for defining a term.  Citing “dictionary.com,” especially if done poorly or sloppily (about which see points 3 & 4 below), serves as evidence for the “Students are often lazy and don’t really care about academic work, which they do sloppily if at all” thesis that many professors, unfortunately, tend to hold in the backs of their minds.  You do not want to fall into that stereotype, unless you like getting Cs and Ds. . . . 

2)      Better sources should particularly be used for defining a term like what the study of history or microbiology or political science or sociology is—i.e., an important term for a paper that is focused on defining an academic field.  A textbook for an entry-level course or other general book (like the one you read for your review?) will almost certainly define the field in its introduction or preface.  Or find a specialized dictionary for the discipline.  Or, more locally, read the academic catalogue’s description of the major or the official website of the department here, etc.  Go to www.wittenberg.edu and link from there.  (The “Academic Catalogue” is a quicklink from the main page, and the departments can all be linked from the quicklink “Academic Departments”)

 3)      If you do need to quote from a dictionary, look carefully at the entries at dictionary.com: dictionary.com offers definitions from several dictionaries and cites them carefully!  So should you.  For one thing, it will make you look less lazy and your work less sloppy.  Read all the definitions, and choose the best one for your purposes, and cite it—i.e., make it clear to your reader as to whether it’s Webster’s or American Heritage or Oxford English Dictionary.  You should then CITE the source, combining Hacker’s MLA documentation example 13 (Hacker 353) and 28 (Hacker 358):

 “History.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4^th ed.  2000. 

                14 December 2003  <http://www.dictionary.reference.com>.

 NOTE on MLA Works Cited lists: Use hanging indents!  Double space all entries, but no extra spaces between them!  Follow Hacker’s examples!  Look them up—don’t just guess!

4)      After you’ve quoted from any source, you need to DO something with it, or you should just paraphrase the idea.  In other words, you have to a have a good reason for quoting.  And this is especially true of quoting from a plain-old dictionary source, because quoting a dictionary definition is a time-tested technique developed by stone-age students for padding their papers.  (Which, when they were carving on stone tablets, at least involved a lot of work!)  Analyze the words!  Explain them!  Better still, show how the definition is inadequate, doesn’t do the word justice.  Otherwise . . . well, re-read point 1 on the lazy student stereotype.

> go to engl 101 course information

>  go to lori askeland's home page

(c) Lori Askeland, Wittenberg University 2003; last update 04/22/2005 11:37 AM