Guidelines for Reading Analysis Presentation 1

English 100

Guidelines for Reading Analysis Presentations 1

Each student must complete a written and oral analysis five times. Each presentation is worth 4% of your grade.

Make a note of the article titles and presentation dates that you sign up for below. To receive credit, you must complete the written section of the assignment and participate in the presentation of your analysis. You will be graded primarily on your written analysis (breakdown of scoring below), but outstanding presentations will be rewarded. If you fail to hand in the written analysis when you present – or if you fail to present when you deliver your written work – you will not receive credit. If you forget you signed up, you will not receive credit. There are no makeup exceptions.

You will be presenting your analysis in class along with two to five of your classmates. The class will be counting on you to be on top of the article you are covering, so please be prepared!

Read the article you will be analyzing carefully. If possible, read it twice. On your first reading, just try to identify the main idea(s) and get a feel for the writer’s approach and the flow of the piece. On your second reading, go over the text more carefully; notice how the writer constructs his or her argument. You will probably want to mark up your text and/or take notes.

To prepare your written analysis:

Identify the author’s name and the title of the article. Answer the following questions. Put your answers in outline form (see sample analysis on the reverse side of this sheet).

1.     What is the central claim (or thesis) of the selection? Your answer should be a complete sentence in your own words (not a quote!). Be as specific as possible, but remember that your claim should cover the whole article. (25%)

2.     Is the central claim expressed explicitly or implicitly? The claim is explicit if the writer spells out what it is. The claim is implicit if the writer only implies the claim but does not state it outright. (5%)

3.     What reasons link the evidence to the claim? In other words, why does the evidence support the claim? Reasons may be presented explicitly or implied. (20%)

4.     What evidence does the writer present to support his or her claim? Specify and categorize the evidence (e.g. examples, personal experiences, analogy, authoritative opinion, facts, statistical data, cause-effect reasoning, results of scientific experiments, comparison, interviews, etc. – see sample on back). Do not answer this question with detailed quotes or paraphrases from the article! For additional guidance, see the table of Kinds of Evidence on pp. 91-4 of your textbook Writing Arguments. (25%)

5.     Comment briefly on the persuasiveness of the article by answering one or more of the following questions.  (25%)

·       Is the argument convincing? Does it rely on emotional, ethical, and/or logical appeals?

·       Are there flaws in the reasoning of the argument? Does it rely on questionable sources?

·       Does understanding the argument require knowledge of the historical or cultural context in which it was written?

·       How do the style, organization, and/or tone contribute or detract from the persuasiveness of the argument?

·       What is your personal reaction to the article?

HERE IS A SAMPLE ANALYSIS of “The Myth of ‘Practice Makes Perfect’” by Annie Murphy Paul. Read this to see how a good paper is prepared.

Central claim: Mastery of a skill demands deliberate practice, focusing on improving weak areas, rather than just spending time repeating the activity (Explicit).

Reason: Improvement at a skill only occurs when the practitioner works to notice and eliminate errors through practice.

Evidence:

• Authoritative opinion from cognitive psychologist Gary Marcus argues that deliberate practice is much more effective than unfocused just-for-pleasure practice.
• Marcus cites studies that show that working to improve weaknesses is more likely to result in improvement than just spending more time practicing.
• Authoritative opinion from a 1993 Anders Ericsson paper suggests that although practice focusing on fixing errors may not be the most enjoyable, it is probably the most effective.
• Research on practice sessions of pianists published in the Journal of Research in Music Education indicates that the best pianists put a stronger focus on immediately fixing
• errors so they do not occur again. 

Comment: The argument is fairly persuasive because, as presented, it makes good logical sense (logos = logical appeal) and basically validates my personal experiences. The results of the studies on the musicians’ practices made the argument much more credible (ethos = ethical appeal) and convincing to me. In fact, I would have liked hearing about the studies in more detail. I liked the author’s use of the example of learning to play an instrument because I could relate to it (pathos = emotional appeal) and it made the argument more “real” for me. Perhaps, for the same reason, the article might be less interesting and compelling to someone without any formal musical experience.