Comments | sabreknight: (без темы)

sabreknight

(Untitled)

Jan 21, 2010 18:58

I had a hell of a time trying to explain how analysis of a text differed from personal reaction to a text to one student today. Apparently it's been way too long since I taught 110 and had to explain it. Anyone have a pithy way of summing it up? The best I've got is, "Tell me what it means, not what it means to you personally," or "You can believe ( Read more... )

Comments 4

macaodghain January 22 2010, 01:09:53 UTC

I think the most basic step (and the one that stymied me back when I first wrote text analysis) would be to have the student explain why the text means what they say it means, or makes them think what it makes them think. For me, my problem was that I always assumed that the reasoning would be obvious, but the minute I started making an effort to say what exactly in the text made whatever point I was arguing... that's when it clicked in my brain, and I had a two-school-year run of good grades on my analysis papers.

It's all about making the connection that they need to explain everything, and show exactly why the statements that they're making in the papers make sense. (In my opinion.)

Hope you find this helpful.

sabreknight January 22 2010, 04:34:48 UTC

That's very helpful. Thanks much.

virtualannette January 22 2010, 03:47:29 UTC

Maybe just simply... "Great, so a personal or emotional reaction to the text is a great starting point. Now, what in the text makes you react that way? What is the author doing in the text that makes you feel that way? Your personal reaction to the text (ie that this text makes you feel x and y) is kind of like your starting point, your "prewriting" if you will. Now dig a step deeper, find what in the text is CAUSING that reaction, and THAT is what you put in your paper. Make a claim not about how the text makes you feel, but about WHAT THE TEXT IS DOING and why it's important"

sabreknight January 22 2010, 04:38:27 UTC

Thanks, VA. I'll definitely use that. I've got one smart guy (older than me, who was a nuclear tech on a Navy sub, which is neat) who took a response paper and argued that "created in the image of God" meant "created to love," but the evidence was all personal reaction and logic rather than from the text. The general process was right, but the thesis and the evidence were a bit too much of a personal reaction, a "this is what the text means for my own life" argument.