EL5000: Thesis Writing and Methodology
Professor Amie Parry
Fall 2010
amie.parry@gmail.com
Course Description:
The objective of this course is to strengthen students’ skills in argumentation and research writing. We will cover two interrelated areas: (1) argumentation and interpretation (structure in academic writing, interpretation techniques, logical argumentation vs. fallacies, definition of terms, anticipating counterarguments); and (2) using secondary sources (avoiding plagiarism, locating sources, note-taking techniques, drafting, strategies for incorporating secondary sources to strengthen, not lose, your own argument, language and sentence structures for lead-ins and analyses of secondary sources, MLA style documentation, annotated bibliography, literature review). These are skills necessary for writing research papers at the graduate level and in writing the MA thesis and thesis proposal.
The first assignments are textbook readings on structure and research methodology for academic essays in the humanities, and we will discuss these assignments by analyzing sample student papers. Each week students will be asked to write a short analysis of the structure and argumentation of a sample paper according to its use of one or more of the techniques introduced in the textbooks. Students will be assigned to go over the readings in class, leading a class discussion in which other students will actively participate.
During the second part of the course, our meetings will be conducted as workshop seminars also led by students. Each week, students will lead discussions of one or two papers written by other students taking this course. Each student will eventually submit at least one paper for this purpose and lead at least one discussion of a classmate’s paper. The papers will be distributed one week ahead of time so that the other students can prepare their written feedback in advance. Although there will be designated discussion leaders, all students will be expected to prepare brief written feedback for each paper and participate in the discussions. These workshop discussions will be based on writing techniques covered in the first part of the semester. The final paper will be a revision of the workshop paper in response to the material covered in this course and feedback received during workshop. Critique will be rigorous but also very constructive (with emphasis on the latter), and students are expected to substantially rewrite their papers (not simply add a paragraph or two, but conduct further research, rethink and rewrite). In addition, each student will write an annotated bibliography to include five entries on articles or book chapters in their field of research. These secondary sources will be incorporated into students’ final, rewritten papers.
The choice of paper for the workshop is up to students. The instructor recommends choosing a paper on a topic in which you have great interest and investment, and preferably one related to your thesis (if you know what that will be already). Keep in mind that without a great deal of interest and investment in the topic, it is almost impossible to write a good research paper. Students can use a paper from a previous class (approximately 10 pages long and incorporating some secondary sources). If you don’t already have a paper that meets all these requirements, you should write one during the first few weeks of class.
Grading:
- Weekly writing/feedback assignments and participation in workshop discussions: 30%
- Annotated bibliography: 20%
- Rewritten final paper (with original paper, revision plan, outline and feedback sheets): 50
Please note: both poor attendance and plagiarism are grounds for failing the course.
Textbooks:
MLA Handbook, current edition, and Course Reader (at gaoguan). Any other required textbooks: TBA.
Schedule of classes:
| W1 |
9-15 |
Course introduction. (Bring your course reader).
Unit I: Sample Papers |
| W2 |
9-22 |
Elements of academic writing: thesis statement, paragraphing, topic sentences, definition of terms, development, anticipating counterarguments. Due: Reading: SG ch.14 (273-296): sample papers 1, 2 (Wang) and 3 (Wong). Writing: a 3-5 page analysis of the sample papers. Answer the following: (1) How does Wang revise his paragraphs from the first draft (paper 1) to the second draft (paper 2)—what does he leave out and what does he put in? Discuss how these changes strengthen the paper (and any other changes that you notice). (2) For paper 3 (Wong), underline the thesis statement in the introduction and any topic sentences in the following paragraphs. Based on what you find, summarize the thesis and the points used to support it throughout the essay. Explain how Wong shows the reader how each point is related to and helps support the thesis. Does Wong anticipate any counterarguments or define important terms? If so, how does this strengthen the paper? |
| W3 |
9-29 |
No class. |
| W4 |
10-6 |
No class. |
| W5 |
10-13 |
Conducting research, note taking, annotated bibliography. Due: Reading: WRP ch. 4, ch. 5; sample notes (Chang); sample annotated bibliographies (Wu, Hong). Writing: your own detailed notes on a new article for your research paper (use Chang’s notes as a model, and if you want to add any of your own thoughts or responses to your notes, make sure to very clearly distinguish your own comments from your summary of the article). |
| W6 |
10-20 |
Incorporating secondary sources: responding to previous critics, lead-ins, documentation, avoiding plagiarism. Due: Reading: SG ch. 15 (297-333); WRP 96, ch. 6 (123-154), sample papers 4 (Wu) and 5 (Yeh). Writing: a 2-3 page analysis of paper 4 or 5: how does the student set up their thesis as a response to larger critical discussions and previous critics’ remarks? How do they refer to other critics’ arguments, and distinguish thier own points from those of previous critics? Analyze a specific example. Be sure to show how the student brings out the significance of their own reading. |
| W7 |
10-27 |
Proposals and SOPs. Due: Reading: WRP pp. 15-18; sample proposal (Hofer); sample SOPs (handouts, not in reader). Writing: what fields is Hofer addressing in her proposal? How does she show her general knowledge of these fields and introduce her own argument as a response to previous scholarship? What tone does she use when referring to other critics’ work, and how does this tone make her proposal persuasive?
|
| W8 |
11-3 |
Annotated bibliography workshop. Due: Writing: your reading notes on one article, with one abstract for your annotated bibliography. Discussion, if time: logical fallacies.
Unit II: Writing Workshops |
| W9 |
11-10 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W10 |
11-17 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W11 |
11-24 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W12 |
12-1 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W13 |
12-8 |
Writing Workshop:
Due: annotated bibliography |
| W14 |
12-15 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W15 |
12-22 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W16 |
12-29 |
Due: revision plan. Make-up class: conferences. |
| W17 |
1-5 |
Due: detailed outline for revised final draft. Make-up class: conferences. |
| W18 |
1-12 |
Papers due: original paper, revised paper, revision plan, outline, and peer feedback sheets.
No late papers will be accepted. |
|
