General Anatomy of a Response Assignment
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
General Anatomy of a Response Assignment
Response 1 Assignment
Due: September 26
Length: 500-750 words (2-3 double spaced pages)
In this second formal writing assignment, you will write a reasoned and objective response to one of the essays we have worked with (NOT TANNEN). This does not mean saying, “This is not my experience, so it is not true.”
In fact, at no time should you reference your own life. Instead, your response should take one of two paths: exploring how the essay has transformed your understanding of the issue and using the ideas as a lens for understanding something OR complicating the argument by offering conflicting evidence, uncovering assumptions, or explaining the limitations of the article.
One is affirming, i.e., generally favorable to an argument or idea, and includes taking an idea/claim and using it to understand something else. If there is something in one of the essays that sparked an “ah-ha!” moment for you, work with that for a moment. For example, I noted that you could use Tannen’s idea of “marked” to think about other things people can’t control, but which mark them in some way – e.g. use of language or disability.
Is there some connection you can make between one of the essay’s claims or main ideas and the world outside the text? Similarly, and also a “lens” type response is to expand on the argument.
That does NOT mean just give more evidence for what he’s already proven. It is rather to take his ideas another step. So for instance, Carr claims tech is changing our thinking and we see this in our reading habits. Do we also see this in our communication habits or use of language?
The other path is more critical – i.e. generally not favorable to an argument or idea, and includes uncovering assumptions in a writer’s thinking or limitations to their argument.
When you brainstorm for your response, you should find weak points in the argument, a part that doesn’t make complete sense or seems wrong for some reason. Such places are the easiest to enter into a critical conversation with the author about the subject of his or her article.
Very few well-reasoned responses are of the simply “yes, this is true” or “no, this is completely false” type. Rather, your response should focus on pointing out things that the author might have missed, questioning an unstated assumption or bias, or developing a point the author makes but spends little time on.
For example, Tannen suggests that men have the option to be unmarked in their lives, and she gives a lot of good examples. However, not all men have the option to be unmarked – some men are black, or indigenous, or disabled, or fill in the blank. While it is true that men often do have the ability to be unmarked, Tannen’s argument doesn’t account for how gender intersects with race and other visible marking factors.
You will need to showcase the distinction between claims and evidence in order to write an analytical response; your response should focus on the claims of the argument. You can’t really argue with good evidence, but you can argue with assumptions and claims.
You will need to have a works cited page at the end of your paper. At this point in the semester, you don’t need to worry overmuch about the precise formatting of your works cited page although this would be an excellent time to practice MLA formatting. If you use internal quotes in your response, you will need to place the page number of the quotation or paraphrase in parenthesis, e.g. (140).
General Anatomy of a Response
Introduction: give larger context for the argument, introduce the text and authors and their main claim. Your thesis is your response. Try using a dependent clause construction to get a good structure.
Example: Although Tannen shows that all women are marked in some way, her suggestion that men always have a choice doesn’t consider other ways people are marked. OR Example: Tannen’s concept of being marked is not only useful for understanding gender norms, it is also really helpful to explain how people’s accents also mark them in public.
Body paragraph 1: a brief summary of the main points of the essay you are responding to
Body paragraph 2-??: Follow your thesis. What do you need to explain to make that an “explained statement’? Do that.
Conclusion: If you have been overly critical, don’t forget to acknowledge how the argument does work even as it has limitations. If you have done a lens, be sure to wrap yourself back around to Tannen’s main argument.
Take a moment to acknowledge the “so what?” question – why does anyone care about this? What is at stake in this discussion?
Criteria for Evaluation:
Identification of the author/title of essay, major point, and significance of topic
Ability to summarize/paraphrase the points/claims of the essay as needed
Ability to respond constructively to one or more points in the essay
Understanding of the difference between claim and evidence
Ability to respond to a claim and link the response to the larger argument (the so what question)
Proper paragraph structure
Use of proper mechanics (grammar, punctuation, syntax)
General Anatomy of a Response Assignment
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow General Anatomy of a Response Assignment
General Anatomy of a Response Assignment