EL 5000: Thesis Writing and Methodology
Professor Amie Parry
SPRING 2013
Time: Wed 09:00-11:50
Place: C2-102
Office A105;extension 33215
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. Discussions will be rigorous and always constructive. Students are expected to substantially rewrite their papers (not simply add a paragraph or two, but conduct further research, rethink, reorganize 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. It is best to choose 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:
1. Weekly writing/feedback assignments and participation in workshop discussions: 30%
2. Annotated bibliography: 20%
3. 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).
Schedule:
| W1 |
02-20 |
Course introduction. (Bring your course reader). |
| Unit I: Sample Papers |
| For each assigned sample paper, write an approximately 2-page analysis of the the structure of the argument, based on the assigned topic each week. Specifically state how the student has accomplished the relevant writing task. Quote and discuss examples, explaining how they are effective or persuasive. |
| W2 |
02-27 |
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?
Workshop discussion: Wang _________ Wong _________ |
| W3 |
03-06 |
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).
Workshop discussion: _________ _________ |
| W4 |
03-13 |
Incorporating secondary sources: responding to previous critics, lead-ins, documentation, avoiding plagiarism (I). Due: Reading: SG ch. 15 (297-333); WRP 96, ch. 6 (123-154), sample paper 4 (Wu). Writing: a 2-3 page analysis: how does the student set up her thesis as a response to larger critical discussions and previous critics』 remarks? How does she refer to other critics』 arguments, and distinguish her own points from those of previous critics? Analyze a specific example. Be sure to show how Wu brings out the significance of her own reading (in other words, how she shows the reader what contribution she makes to academic work in related fields or on a particular topic).
Workshop discussion: _________ _________ |
| W5 |
03-20 |
Incorporating secondary sources: responding to previous critics, lead-ins, documentation, avoiding plagiarism (II). Due: Reading: SG ch. 15 (297-333); WRP 96, ch. 6 (123-154), sample paper 5 (Yeh). Writing: a 2-3 page analysis: how does the student set up his thesis as a response to larger critical discussions and previous critics』 remarks? How does he refer to other critics』 arguments, and distinguish his own points from those of previous critics? Analyze a specific example. Be sure to show how Yeh brings out the significance of this own reading (in other words, how he shows the reader what contribution he makes to academic work in related fields or on a particular topic).
Workshop discussion: _________ _________ |
| W6 |
03-27 |
Proposals and SOPs. Due: Reading: WRP pp. 15-18; sample proposals (Ho; Hofer); sample SOPs (handouts, not in reader). Writing: (1) How does Ho integrate internet research on her primary text with the other criticism on broader cultural and political topics? How does she present the two types of criticism in a way that helps her introduce her own research issues and questions? (2) 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?
Workshop discussion: Ho _________ Hofer _________ |
| W7 |
04-03 |
Spring Break |
| W8 |
04-10 |
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 |
| If you are not the discussion leader for the week, write an approximately 2-page paper analyzing the structure of the argument for one of the workshop papers. Decide what you think are the most relevant of the research writing techniques we』ve covered so far, and provide feedback accordingly. Be detailed in your discussion, so that the student writer understands exactly what you are referring to and suggesting. Your tone should be constructive and encouraging at all times. If you are discussion leader, write a 3-4 page paper on the paper you are in charge of, and prepare a handout or powerpoint for the class. (If you want to see a model for this assignment, refer to the sample responses in the reader). |
| W9 |
04-17 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W10 |
04-24 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W11 |
05-01 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W12 |
05-08 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W13 |
05-15 |
Review.
Due: Writing: annotated bibliography |
| W14 |
05-22 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W15 |
05-29 |
Writing Workshop: |
| W16 |
06-05 |
Workshops on outlines.
Due: revision plan and detailed outline. |
| W17 |
06-12 |
No class (Dragon Boat Festival) |
| W18 |
06-19 |
Papers due: original paper, revised paper, revision plan, outline, and peer feedback sheets. No late papers will be accepted. |
|
