I Cringed Just Copying and Pasting it In...

I, intentionally, wrote the first page to a paper that is DREADFUL for my students to read and dissect in-class tomorrow... It's painful to look at, and took me much longer than I thought it would to write because I had to keep eliminating/changing information to muck things up.

My goals:
a) For them to recognize whether or not the paper addresses the prompt.
b) For them to recognize the need to fully develop ideas, and to be able to see where expansion is needed in this particular work.
c) For them to look at the awful use of these quotes, and recognize the need to choose and use to the author's advantage, and then also to re-work how the quotes have been integrated. 
d) For them to acknowledge the need to edit/revise before final submissions.
e) For them to be able to apply their critiques of this piece to their own papers before they turn them in next Thursday!

I aim to approach the paper first by giving it to them to look at and critique, and then opening it up to class discussion about what they're seeing in it, and how it might be improved upon. It's an organizational/grammatical mess, and it doesn't quite live up to the prompt, so there's plenty of stuff for them to comment on before I ask them if they see any similar issues in their own papers. : )

Enjoy.



The prompt: I had written a clearer prompt, but had accidentally left it at home the morning I'd planned to give it to them. In my haste, and total embarrassment, I re-wrote the following prompt before class, and, sense this is the one they received, it's the one you get too!
Background: 
In class, we've been breaking down, both, Harris' text, Re-Writing and Schlosser's text, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. We've looked at what Harris has deemed necessary for each "re-writer" to do, and that is to be both "generous" and "assertive" with one's resources (25). We've done some work as a class closely breaking down texts, and now it's your turn to branch off on your own!
Assignment: 3-5 pages, Times New Roman 12pt font, MLA format
Choose a piece of reading from Schlosser that we haven't covered in class (to be "fair," be sure to read a full subheading), and, using Harris to support your claims, decide whether or not Schlosser, as a successful author, plays by Harris' rules. What are the implications of his actions if he does? If he doesn't?
To do this, you must:

• Paraphrase, summarize, and quote from each of the two texts to provide evidence/support, and cite them properly. Remember to use only quotes that you want to work with; lest they simply take up room on your page, and points off your paper. 

Getting Started:

• Just as we did in class, it may be helpful to start by looking at the references Schlosser uses in your chosen subheading. Make a list of the quotes that he inserts, what sort of quotes they are, who they come from, and look at how he uses them. 
• Choose the quotes/resources that stand out most to you, and work with those.

DREADFUL EXAMPLE PAPER PAGE 1:

Jane Doe

English 107

Prof. Johnson

November 8, 2011

G-R-O-S-S Spells Fast Food Nation!

Eric Schlosser’s award-winning book, Fast Food Nation, isn’t generous, but he is assertive. In chapter 2, Schlosser discusses the evils of advertisement campaigns designed with kids in mind, and Schlosser’s subheading, “mcteachers and coke dudes,” specifically discusses advertising to children on school campuses. In this subheading, Schlosser’s treatment of his sources almost seems more like he’s “coming to terms” with the fast food agenda than he is “forwarding” his own agenda (Harris 15; 37).  

Schlosser started by delving into the history of Dan DeRose, the “president of DD Marketing, Inc., of Pueblo, Colorado” (51). By using such an influential source, Schlosser is able to come off as sounding like he has done good research. He does it again when he uses a quote from “a top [McDonald’s] executive” on page 54. So technically, he’s “authorizing” by “invoke the expertise or status of another writer to support your own thinking” (Harris 39).

Schlossr also uses a studie called “Liquid Candy” that “describes who is not benefiting from the beverage industry’s latest marketing efforts: the nation’s children” (54). By doing this, he is “authorizing” by using a study which “illustring” because that’s “when you look to other texta for examples of a point you want to make” (Harris 39).

One pattern I’ve found in Schlosser’s work is that he doesn’t use “in-text quotes” in a way that makes him seem that he is an author with an agenda; rather he uses them in such a way that makes him seem more like he’s coming to terms with the fast-food industry (Harris 29). For example, he makes sure that the audience will see the quotes, but that they’ll also understand that Schlosser isn’t the one who said them because the quote was “declared a member of the San Francisco Board of Education” (Schlosser 55).  Because Schlosser’s the author, he of course, made the decision to use that quote, and is just as much at fault for it, but seems to be making all of these other people seem to be more assertive than he is. In doing so, he downplays his role, and makes the information