Discussion Boards

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively MARGARET KANTZ

• Kantz, Margaret. "Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively." College English 52.1 (1990): 74-91. Print.

Framing the Reading

Given this chapter's focus on rhetoric, several of its pieces suggest writing and reading aro not just about transmitting and receiving information. Texts don't mean the same thing to pvery reader because, as rhetorical theory shows, readers construct meaning by interacting with texts, putting something of themselves into the text and drawing meaning from the text's context.

Margaret Kantz's work takes us to the next logical step, in discussing how it is that w(' wnte a new text from other existing texts. In Kantz's article we follow the learning expert CI1CCS of a particular student, Shirley. Whereas Shirley had been taught in high school th,ll "I csearch" meant compiling facts and transmitting them to a teacher, she must now lealll 10 lise a variety of conflicting sources to make an original argument on the subject she's I('~(,Mching. Kantz analyzes how Shirley has moved from the realm of reporting "just 111" f.ICls" to the more sophisticated world of arguing about what the facts might be, and sill' -hows readers how many new ideas are involved in that change.

1\ key concept in this change is learning to recognize that facts aren't so much inhet nntly true statements as they are claims-that is, assertions that most of a given audienco lidS agreed are true because for that audience sufficient proof has already been given YOlI, like most people, would probably classify the statement "the Earth is round" AS II "Ide I " Its status as a fact, however, depends on our mutual agreement that" round" is 1111 ,HI(lquate description of the Earth's actual, imperfectly spherical shape. What Kantz wal1l~ ll~ 10see is that what makes the statement a fact is not how "true" the statement is bill til.!1 most people have agreed that it's true and treat it as true. Statements about which WI' luvcu'Lreached this consensus remain claims, statements that people argue about. Kant/\ WOIk here demonstrates why it's so important to read texts-even "ftlc tual" works like textbooks and encyclopedias-as consisting of 11,,11I1~,not facts.

IhiS Idea that textbooks and other "factual" texts aren't in- 1ll'lC'Iltly true but instead simply represent a consensus of opin- IIlII I~ d major conceptual change from the way mOI,1 c,IIIcI(,l1h 1\1('t""(jllt in school before college. It is also" Illlliol 1i1)1I1",,1101l 01 1111'1011,,11theolY. I ike the idea~ that writlllq I'. ,"w"V" 1"'1,1111<11

4)11

III' I ~ I' I 11.1 hll IV 4J't

) I I I <'I1tollllll'II'1i II you Il·tld Mlilldy\ dill(,lltl IllilPly 1.11I11dl111\11 IIIIIIIIIIVI', w lit 1 YOI .. . I I I p" It) tlbOll1 cil' 1;1ctltlpler 1 (p (lit), ,1111111"01" .md flower's ~lndll1lJS(111 lx:~ ~~:Pi:~a of tr\.llb lnult hnw different re('\dl'l<' ((111',1111(1their own meanings fro~ te.' d d pistemic

h ., qualities of bemg situate an e , Ihlollql1 consensus stems from r etonc s h I are limited to subjective, ~1\()wll'Clge.making. Rhetorical theory suggests t at peop e bedded in particular 1111111 knowledge formed through consensus because we are em I' , n issuefrom every angle or perspective simultaneously, lsav- 1111 ,II\pnts-we can never see a .. I I . thO .d a that Kantz is working on in 11111 0111knowledge incomplete and provrsiona.. t IS ISI e

I'Kploi ing the difference bhe.tweenfa~s :ndpr~:~:~r at Central Missouri State University, While Kantz wrote t IS piece . II U' sity

'.hl' conducted the research for it as a graduate student at Carnegie Me on nlv~~ris~ ()'II' of her professors there was Linda Flower and ~ne of her classmates was

h es you might have noticed earlier In this chapter (and, If you pay111101 Ilaas, w ose nam .' . d that texts . . Kantz's Works Cited list). We make this point to rerrun you .

Clll'.l' attention, In b h insid d outside ,III' .ruthored by real people, and these people are often connected ot InSI e an

IIf IIH?lrtexts.

Getting Ready to Read

III'/Ole you read, do at least one of the following activities:

• Think about an argument you've had recently in which people disagreed about till' facts of the issue. How did you resolve the factual dispute? Did the arg,uersever a ree on what the facts were? If not, how was the argument resolved. ,

• ~rite down, in a few quick sentences, how you define these terms: fact. claim,

opinion and argument. t th • Watch ~hreeTV commercials (you might want to record them) and coun ,e

number of facts and the number of claims in each. Then think about wha~s most persuasive in the ads: the facts, the claims, or the combination of the two.

1\" yOll read Kantz's article, consider the following questions: I· ,

d K t know what she knows? What is the basis for her calms.• I low oes an z h t to know or • What is Kantz's research question or problem? What does s e wan ,

what is she trying to solve? .' r • What challenges do the students about whom Kantz writes face In making sense 0

conflicting sources?

•• 11, •• ' •••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .

Although the researched l'~"',\y " .. ,I topic 1I,)s hCC~ll11~lcl~written a~o~It, i,~~~:,~~1I" little studied. 'n II\(' III" ndlli 111111to t 'WI!' bibliography, l 01 e1, , I W

,cClld . t t thnt 1110 ..1 III 1111IIVCI I()() ,Inkk ..ahout rcsctlrchcd CSfl:1Y:-' ,lIli (lr pOIn ou " I I I II' , 'S 'ribc d:1SSI'OOIlI I'"h'ishl.'d il.l profcssiOlll1ll11llll\ld~ III I 11 ,I~I hI U IIllIry tlC,1;; I ".' II

I I "~I' "tlwy S'IY "III "I I 1111 1111 lit .Ii '''IIIII'l' or 't1~t\ \)11 1(~t.lll 'IIIH'( lO~~. 'cw, ., • ' ,I I'" (2) (;iVl'1l h"l I I . CI'll" "VI'" 11111 "till I \\111 1111 I 11 ",,

1Il1t •,llli II 1)10st 110m " ,

411) IIAPHR Hh"'nll«

.•"d p(." )"1' IIndlJlg rh.u H4'Yc,of II .~ til ••dV.IIll'l·d cOll1positlon progrnm-, ""1.111 IlIlllpCl~III()1l progrnm), .•Ild "0"" p.I,K·J's, more lh(.'orctical work IIlI I""t'l I 1ll\lllIlliol1 in wriling "l'~('''fl'' ~('('IlIS needed. We need a theory- . .. h.I.~('d explanation, one grounded III rill' findings of the published re- W< need a theory-based explalldtl()fl "·.lJ'ch on the nature and reasons one grounded in the findings of till' lor. ~)llr students' problems with published research on the netuto elml wriuug persuasive researched pa- reasons for our students' problem« pel's. To understand how to teach .

'

with writing persuasive reseaf'c/)"dstuucnrs to write such papers we c- :11~oneed a better understanding papers. of Ihe demands of synthesis tasks. . ..

As an example for discussing thi 1 . lege sophomore. This student' IS compo ex to~IC, I have used a typical col I (rom my Own memories of b I.Sa comPdoslte derived from published research

I elUg a stu ent and fro d h 'l:lIIg tr ar an open admissions Com . ' 11 m stu ents w om I h,IVI' vare universities. Ihave also d ~ulllty co ege and at both public and Pi I II f I use a lew examples taken f·:1 () W 10m share many of Shi I' . . . rom my Own srudcnr-,

well-motivated. She is a nat' ir ey s ktralts. Shirley, first of all, is intelligent., 11Ii I I d lve spea er of English She h<nowe ge deficits or emotional bl Sl . as no extraordinal), L'aliOI1is valued and her pare t Pdro emd~' 1e comes from a home wherc CUll I . . ' n s 0 rea mg and w . . ktll'lr Jobs. Shirley has certain skills Wh h (long tas s at home and :If how to listen to and tell stories 'd hen s e ebntered first grade, she kllt·w

. , an s e soon ecame fi'sforlCS and at writing narratives D . h pro Clent at readilll' Stich studying skiJls as finding th' unn?d er academic life, Shirley has le3I'n(·,i I Ie maID 1 ea and rememb . fI 1l' I'l' eVant research Shirle d d enng acts, In terms of

( ( S ' ,y can rea an summar"c . , plvey; Winograd) She c, . Ize Source texts accul':1ldy. . . . an se ect matenal that is reI f I III wl'ltlng (Hayes Waterman d R b' evant or ler purpOM' I i01l1l berween the 'available' 'f an .0 1Oson; Langer). She call make connl't' I 10 ormatlOn and her pur f " .I It' Il('('dl. of her readers wh th d" . _pose or Wl'ltll1g, IIlcludinp

I en e au lence IS specified (A I ) 51 '!lllglll.1 connections among 'd (B t as, le can mak(·,leas rown and Day· L .) Sl,IPPIOPI'I:1tl' audience-based f ' angel, 1e can crcalc all II'" I111'111C(f~ctively while co stru~tureh or her paper (Spivey), take notes nnd

" mposll1g er paper (Kenned) d hIII nllll.llion clcarly and smoothl (S' ). . ~,an s e can preselll

1111' Ililginni Sources (Atlas' W· y Pdl)ve S Y h'.wlth.ou~ relYll1g on the phrasing ofII ' Illogra . trley IS . .III I'I\(' student with an average ad' ' 111 my expenence, a typlcnl

AI I h . ca emlC prepara tlonI lOllS Shirley seems to ha h'" lliflit.:ulty with assignments til t .ve e.very,t tng go~g for her, she experien(.'I"a require ler to write .. , fl"l:tll,d sources. In particular Sh' 1 . h' . ongll1a papers based Oil wl'itillg class. Shirley who '1'lkes1rEeyIS,.lav,l~g difficulty in her sophomor('-IL'vd

" I ,. ng lSI llstory dec'l d .

>.111 l' of AgincOllrt (this part of SI '.,' . '. Ice to wnte abollt tilt' d del/('11 hislories Ih:1t desc"( '1 I'll ~ys story IS blogt':1phic:1I). She found holl

I I ", ")ec tIe cJrCUI11Sf:1I1('('" 01 II . I I' fl"ll I. A Ihough the tonic wns f '1' I I( ):111'C 111n 'cw P.lIW~ I I I'" un a 1111 1<11' r It· ~DIIII!'~ I • IIIII,. ~IId(·y l'oll:ltt'd Iht'~" f ' . . I ' ','.I('t·( on 1ll.1f1y01 Ihe

"

,~ :1~I:-; !lIlO WI OWII \ I I .. , 11 I IIlg ( 1'('I'('P:l111dt'f;lil~, hOI'l'()wi l' I I II ,1111111111 III' 1101di~l'IIN'"

I" W 1.)1., It I~ 11111. " I" h, IIt'I '!lIlI( ,'e' , , "'''IIPIl~I'

MAlWA'H I I(ANII II Ipltl I 111,11'111\ Ihl 1«JlIII" "HIIC I'll \1' Iv Iy 411

IIlll'll'IIillg till' 1'0101y, ••1111 11111111'111111\ till' narr.uive structure 01 Ill'!' p.lpl'l 1111 Ih.1I of her SOUI'Ct'~,"lilli' IIII' only comments Shirley could thin], of would Ill' 10 .II\I'(:eor disagree wuh 111'1sources, who had cold her everything ~IH' J..IH·W nhout the Battle of Agincourt, she did not comment on the material; iIlSfL':1d, ..Ill' concentrated on telling the story clearly and more completely than ht't ..1I"n,'l·S had done. She was surprised when her paper received a grade of C , (1'.lgL' I of Shirley'S paper is given as Appendix A.)

Although Shirley is a hypothetical student whose case is based 011 a real event, her difficulties are typical of undergraduates at both private and pub III colleges and universities. In a recent class of Intermediate Composition ill which the students were instructed to create an argument using at least four 1I'\ltl<l1 sources that took differing points of view, one student, who analyzed till' coverage of a recent championship football game, ranked her source ar- Ifdes in order from those whose approach she most approved to those she least IIPPl'Oved. Another student analyzed various approaches taken by the media to 11ll'Kent State shootings in 1970, and was surprised and disappointed to filld rh.u all of the sources seemed slanted, either by the perspective of the report 1'1 III by that of the people interviewed. Both students did not understand wli> IIIvi I' instructor said tbat their papers lacked a genuine argument.

rhe task of writing researched papers that express original arguments pi \' ~I·"ts many difficulties. Besides the obvious problems of citation format .1IIt! IO()l'dination of source materials with the emerging written product, wrifill~ " synl hesis can vary in difficulty according to the number and length of tl1l' '"l1I'CeS, the abstractness or familiarity of the topic, the uses that the wl'ir('1 IIlllst make of the material, the degree and quality of original thought required, .I"d rhe extent to which the sources will supply the structure and purpose of IlH' new paper. It is usually easier to write a paper that uses all of only 0111.' ~h()1'1source on a familiar topic than to write a paper that selects material frolll 11I.IIlY long sources on a topic that one must learn as one reads and writes. It I~('nsier to quote than to paraphrase, and it is easier to build the paraphrnsl's, wllhout comment or with random comments, into a description of what ol1e "llIlId than it is to use them as evidence in an original argument. It is easier 10 me whatever one likes, or everything one finds, than to formally select, cvn III ,11(') :Jod interpret material. It is easier to use the structure and purpose of n ~ollrcc as the basis for one's paper than it is to create a structure oj' an origill:ll pllrpose, A writing-from-sources task can be as simple as collating a body o( Lici~ frOI11a few short texts on a familiar topic into a new text that rcprodll(;('~ fill' structure, tOne, and purpose of the originals, but it can also involve apply I"g abstl'Clcr concepts from one area to an original problem in a diffol:ent :11'('.1, ,I I.,~k that involves learning the relationships among materials as a prlpe!' " t renred that may refer to its SOllrl.'('SwirhOLIt resembling them.

Morcover, a given task (.';111 Ill' illi('1PI'('lt'd :1Srequiring all easy method, ,I II dtlkllllll1elhod, or any Of.l hlllldl\'d illl(,IIII(ldi<1f('nwthous. III this ('Ollf1'\ I, HOWl'r h:l~observed, "TI1l' dilllll'llI \\"V 111 "hid, "flitlelll<; In',m'~l'lIll" ',11111 d.11d' 1'(',ldilll~'II)Wl'il(' f,l,k III Iltl 111,,1 lit ~ 11,1.1 III 11till "('tlly dill('n'lIl 1',Il.rI..,.1I1t1 "I"I\'I\i('~ .1., wi'll .... dilll'II'IIIII1)' 1111/111" ,,, 111'.... (I~fl/l·lli), "'ll Willi'" ~Ylllll1'''~.

.,u (IIAI' II H I HIlt"Otll

1,IlIIIl'y moly 01' Illay IlOI need 10 'IIIIIIi, '.11111111.11111" III' sl'll'<:1 1l1:l1L'l'lnlIroru 111'1 "lIlrll· ...; ~()evaluate the MlUrCL'S(01 lu.iv, .u i 1I1.1l),,111 completeness: to lIl'VI'I01' llrigl 11 (1 I ideas, or to persuade OJ render. l luw wel] she performs any of 11\('.,1' I.".k~ nnd whether she thinks to perf 01'111 thl·...c tasks-depends on how ...ill' IT;llis Ihe texts and on how she interprets the assignment. Shirley's reprCSl'111.1 111m of the task, which in this case was easier than her teacher had in nund depends on the goals that she sets for herself. The goals that she sets dePI'IHi Oil I~cr.nwarcness of the possibilities and her confidence in her writing ski lis.

Peeling unhappy about her grade, Shirley consulted her friend Alice. "lin', who is nn expert, looked at the task in a completely different way and usrd ...1 rutcgics for thinking about it that were quite different from Shirley's.

"Who were your sources?" asked Alice. "Winston Churchill, right? A French couple and a few others. And they didn't agree about the details, such as till' sizes of the armies. Didn't you wonder why?"

"No," said Shirley. "I thought the history books would know the truth. 'J When they disagreed, I figured that they were wrong on those points. I didn't want to have anything in my paper that was wrong."

"Bul Shirley," said Alice, "you could have thought aboLlt why a book L'1I III litled A History of France might present a different view of the battle Ih')l1 a book subtitled A History of British Progress. You could have asked if tlw ElIglis~ and French writers wanted to make a point about the history of thcli CClulltnes and looked to see if the factual differences suggested anything. Yo" (meld even have talked about Shakespeare's Henry V, whid1 r know you'Vt. I\'nd-.nbout how he presents the battle, or about how the King Henry in Ill(' pl.1Y differs from the Henrys in your other books. You would have had ;111 ."Igle, n problem. Dr. Boyer would have loved it."

"Iice'~ representation of the task would have required Shirley to forl11;llly II ...~·Il'ci~lnd evaluate her material and to use it as proof in an original argument. "lin' was suggesting that Shirley invent an original problem and purpose fOI 111'1paper and create an original structure for her argument. AJice's t<lsk i~ I""l.'h IllOre sophisticated than Shirley's. Shirley replied, "That would take 111(' .1 YI';Ii'to do! Besides, Hemy was a real person. 1don't want to make up thing" .illIllIl him."

"Wt'il," said Alice, "You're dealing with facts, so there aren't too many choices. I' " you want to say something original you either have to talk about the SOurcL'S III t.tlk ilbout the material. What could you say about the materiaJ? Your papl'1 lold .Iholll nil tbe reasons King Henry wasn't expected to win the battle. Could YOIIhiwL' argued that he should have lost because he took too many chances?"

"Cec.'," said Shirley, "That's awesome. Iwish I'd thought of it." I I This version of the task would allow Shirley to keep the narrative struCI III'" II

o( Iwl' pnper but would give her an original argument and pm'pose. To Wrill' till' .1 I);Ul11.l·111, Shirley would have only to rephrase th(' c.·ventsof the story to t::tkl' .111 ()1~P()Slll'approach fr(lm that of her English SOlln:l", ('lllphnsizing whnr sht· pl'l u'lvl,d ilS Ilcnry's Illi~takes and inserting C()l1l1l1l'llh1111·,pl.lil1why hi~ dc<.:i~i()l1~ \\'1'1'(' lid~lilk('s-:Ull'll~)' nl'gullW111 to wl'ill'. ~111'111"leI,elNlI, II NIH'wislwd, Wl'it('.1 111111""Hllllltlillritili/nllhl' dWl'r]I'lltillig telill ." Iii 111111,,11"""I'll''''.

MAlu,""1 I KANll II II

/\ ... llli~ anecdoll' III.tll , ,Ii II, I HI\l1I 1(1)1111.111Ill' IIl';III,d III III(ln' III It·., ... II "lIphi,tit:lted wayv .uul "'111'1"',11,,III cI gil." .., "'lIlh ,I~ invcutinj; :111mig!II:" pUI pll"l' nnd evaluating ~lllllll·~. 1.111Ill' .11 hu-vcd m relatively simple vl'fsi<.II."01.1 I .....k. Students have many opllllll' .1'. 10 how they can fulfill even a speed" insk (I f. jeffery). Even children (;111 decide whether to proces~ a text deeply or I~()I, uud purpose in reading affects processing and monitoring of cOl1'lprChel1S1011 (Isrown). Pichert has shown that reading purpose affects judgments about what " unportant or unimportant in a narrative text, and other research t~lIs LIS that .urirudcs toward the author and content of a text affect comprehension (Asch; 111Il~e;Shedd; Goldman), .

One implication of this story is that the instructor gave a weak asslg~me~l II> .uul an ineffective critique of the draft (her only comment referred to Shirley s fool noting technique; d. Appendix A). The avail.able research sugge~ts that II Dr. Boyer had set Shirley a specific rhetorical problem such as having her report on her material to the class and then testing them 011 it, and, if she ~ad l ommcnted on the content of Shirley'S paper during the drafts, Shirley 111Ighl wi-l] have come up with a paper that did more than repeat its source matcrinl (Nt"ison and Hayes). My teaching experience supports this research finding, II Dr. Boyer had told Shirley from the outset that she was expected to ~:ly ""I"crhing original and that she should examine her so~ces ~s she r~ad dW11i IIII' discrepant facts, conflicts, or other interesting matenal, Shtrley, mIght hllV!' IIH·d to write an original argument (Kantz, "Originality"). And If Dr. BOyl'1 h.ld suggested that Shirley use her notes to comment on her sources and l11akl' pl.lllS for using the notes, Shirley might have written a better paper than she clill (Kantz, Relationship). . .

Even if given specific directions to create an original argument, Shirley might I' h.lve had difficulty with the task. Her difficulty could come from any of tbree \ .III~es: I) Many students like Shirley misunderstand sources because they rend tllI'lll as stories. 2) Many students expect their sources to tell the truth; hence, tlll'Y equate persuasive writing in this context with making things up. 3) Many ~llId('nts do not understand that facts are a kind of claim and are often used IWI·~w1.sivelyin so-called objective writing to cr<~ate an impression. ~tudcnts 1I1'1'd10 read source texts as arguments and to thmk about the rhetoncal con- (I'xl'" in which they were written rather than to read them merely as a SCI of I.Il!'> to be learned. Writing an original persuasive argument based 011 sources Il'quires students to apply material to a problem or to Llse it to answer a ques 11011,rather than simply to repeat it or evaJuate it. These three problems deserve .1"'('pnrate discussion. .

Ikcause historical texts often have a chronological structure, students bclcevl' IH tll.l1 historinns tell stories, and th~t renarrating the battle casts thcm flS " hi"to 11.111.Because her sources el11pha..i/,~'dthe completeness of the victory/defeat ;lIld Ih dl'd~ivc importance in rill' hi~tl)l Y of warfnre, Shirley thought that Illtlkilll'. Ihl'M' ~ame points in her p:1pl'l (1IIIIpll·tl'd IIl'I joh.ller job as a rend"r wOl~11111... III II'illll thc story, i.('., ~C) Ih.1I ~"I((lId,1 p.I~".l 1('..,1Oil il (d. Vipollci an<llllllil '" .1I1'.lIIIH'I11Ihnl gClleric l·)(IWII.IIIIIII .etl,. I IL.IlIII1f\Iwh.lVioi'. Vipoll<,1 ,Illti .1111111 wllllid dl'~llilll' 'lhilll'Y\ 1I'lldl"I' I ltlll~ .11111'11I,Ilhl'l' 111:111JlIlI"1 dllvl·IIl.

4J4 HArTER 3 Hlwlol ie

'II IIdl'lltS c0I11I11only misread rexts ,I' 11.111,1111'1''',WIH'1l students refer to n I('XI hook ,IS "the story," they arc telling til, rh.u Ihl'} 11':1(1(or plot and chnr.u u-r, Iq~,lrdk"s of whether their texts are organized us narratives. One reason Shirk) IIIVI'., history is that when she reads it she can combine her story-reading SIr'III 'l:II'~with her studying strategies. Students like Shirley may need to learn to .ipply basic organizing patterns, such as cause-effect and general-to-specific, to IIH'ir texts. If, however, Dr. Boyer asks Shirley to respond to her sources in ,1 W,I) Ihat is not compatible with Shirley's understanding of what such Source, do, Shirley will have trouble doing the assignment. Professors may have to do -omc preparatory teaching about why certain kinds of texts have certain cluu .icteristics and what kinds of problems writers must solve as they design tcxr 101 a particular audience. They may even have to teach a model for the kind III wrrt iuj; they expect.

The writing version of Shirley's problem, which Flower calls "writer-based IV prose," occurs when Shirley organizes what should be an expository analysis a., a narrative, especially when she writes a narrative about how she did hl'l rcvcarch. Students frequently use time-based organizing patterns, regardless 01 IIll' task, even when such patterns conflict with what they are trying to say nnd even when they know how to use more sophisticated strategies. Apparently such common narrative transitional devices such as "the first point" and "tilt, Ill'xt point" offer a reassuringly familiar pattern for organizing unfamiliar 111:1 f~'ria I.The common strategy of beginning paragraphs with such phrases as "my 111'~tsource," meaning that it was the first source that the writer found in Ihe hhrary or the first one read, appears to combine a story-of-my-research strut: I~1I'ewith a knowledge-telling strategy (Bereiter and Scardamalia, Psychology), I~vl'n when students understand that the assignment asks for more than the lill in the-blanks, show-me-you've-read-the-material approach described by I.)dlwegler and Sl1amoon, they cling to narrative structuring devices. A rank mdt'l'illg of OUl'ces, as with Mary's analysis of dle football game coverage with 1111' S(lIll'ces listed in an order of ascending disapproval, represents a step awny 1141111~lllI'ytclling and toward synthesizing because it embodies a persuasivl' l'v,rllI.11 iOIl.

III ,Iddilion to reading texts as stories, students expect factual texts to It,ll 'II 1111'111"I he truth" because they havelearned to see texts statically, as descriptiOI1\ III II'Uths, instead of as arguments. Shirley did not understand that nonfictiol) 1I'\f~ I'XiSI as arguments in rhetorical contexts. "After all," she reasoned, "how "III (11Il' argue about the date of a battle or the sizes of armies?" Churchill, Irmvevcl', described the battle in mucb more detail than Shirley's other S()UrCl'~, ,IPP,I I'l'II1Iy because he wished to persuade his readers to take pride in England'~ 11.lditioll of military achievement. Guizot and Guizot de Witt, on the Othl'l' Itulld, said very little about the battle (beyond describing it as "a 1110n()I()Il()II.~ .lIld 1:lIlll'lllable repel ition of the disasters of CI'I'l'Y ;111<1Poil icr~" 13971) bl'en 11M' tllI'Y ",tw Ihl' I~ritish invasion as a sneaky wily to lolki' aliv<ll1tage of :1 fl'ud '''110111\ Ilw v:lri()l1~ hn1l1l'hcs of Ihc Frcllcll III) ,II IlIltldy, ~hll·It,y,s I-Iory/sllld)' .,klll., 1I11);ill flOt Itnvl' ,tllowt'd Iwl' [(I lI'UtJ'III1' lUll ,It )',1II1ll'1I I'>, 1'~pn.l,dl> IWlollIW 1)1 1I0YI'I did 111111(',I,1l hl'l III 1111.1 11111111111

MIIK(jAlIiI ~I\NII II 11"1 J II r II 11111'.011111 ~ I'!.!IIt.l\IV Iv 415

WllI'lI I have ~I~kl'd ·,III.i'"1 Ittllrtttt I 'IttI'll .uul lind rhrcc or 111111'(' .,Ollill'S 'I 1111It Ih,l[ disagree, I 0111111'1'1IIllIh ,Iskl'd, "'IIIW vnn sources dis,I!!,I'l'(' III riil h-r- I'llt ways? After ,111, 111l'n'''' uulv pili ,llId lOll." Students expect tcxthooks :lnd other .uuhorirativc sources vuhcr 10 tell them the truth (i.e., facts) or to cxprevs ,III opinion with which they may agree or disagree. Mary's treatment of the loot hall coverage reflects this belief, as does Charlie's surprise when he found Ih,lI even his most comprehensive sources on the Kent State killings omitted u'rLlin facts, such as interviews with National Guardsmen. Students' desire for tt IIIh leads them to use a collating approach whenever possible, as Shirley did (i f. Appendix A), because students believe that the truth will include all of the I.lll~ and will reconcile all conflicts. (This belief may be another manifestation 01 the knowledge-telling strategy [Bereiter and Scardarnalia, Psychology 1 in which students write down everything they can think of about a topic.) When lIInflicts cannot be reconciled and the topic does not admit a pro or con stance, "t udcnts may not know what to say. They may omit the material altogether, uuludc it without comment, as Shirley did, or jumble it together without any plan for building an argument.

The skills that Shirley has practiced for most of her academic career- , , linding the main idea and learning content-allow her to agree or disagree. SIll' needs a technique for reading texts in ways that give her something mort 10 ',Iy, :1 technique for constructing more complex representations of texts thai .rllow room for more sophisticated writing goals. She also needs strategies Ior .ru.ilyzing her reading that allow her to build original arguments.

One way to help students like Shirley is to teach the concept of rhetorical situ ) I .uion. A convenient tool for dunking about this concept is Kinneavy's triangular dllll!,r,1m of the rhetorical situation. Kinneavy, analyzing Aristotle's description "I rhetoric, posits that every communicative situation has three parts: a speaker/ wrilcr (the Encoder), an audience (the Decoder), and a topic (Reality) (19), Althollgh all discourse involves all three aspects of communication, a given tYlw of discourse may pertain more to a particular point of tile triangle tl1an to Iltl' olhers, e.g., a diary entry may exist primarily to express the thoughts of thl' Wl'ller (the Encoder); an advertisement may exist primarily to persuade a readl'l (Ihl' Decoder). Following Kinneavy, Iposit particular goals for each corner of tlw 1I1,1Ilgle. Thus, tile primary goal of a writer doing writer-based discoLlrse such II~ :1 diary might be originality and self-expression; primary goals for reader h,l'cd discourse such as advertising might be persuasion; prinlary goals for ropiL h,m'd discourse such as a researched essay might be accuracy, completeness, and 1II,Istery of subject matter. Since all three aspects of the rhetorical situation arl' PII'stllt and active in any communicative situation, a primarily referential lext \llch :lS Churchill's The Bini; o( IJri/ail1ll1f1Y have a persuasive purpose nnd may dl'l)l'lld for some of its cn'dihrlll), 011 l'I';ldl'r,' f'll11iliariry with the author. 'rill' In III "riwlorical reading," 1111'11(I.. t 11.1,1' '1I1d Plower), meanS teachjn~ srlldl'lIls In rl'lId n texi ns n I11l'Ssngl' Will Il) ',111111'11111'III ""111l'hody for:l I'l':1S01l. SIIIIII'}, M.II y, ,lilt! Cl1:IrliL' [1fT pi oh,lhl) 1'1 10 I" I 01 II • I', "I I111'1orien I persu;l:-.iOIl III 111111 IH,Idl'llIil l'OIII,'xl'. 'l'Ill'Y 111.1) III III 1111' I, 11111d III oI!lply Ihi .. Ihillkllig III " 11l11~11()1I"lllltldl'llh\'I,lIl'W,'VIII It l.llIIII' III \111--1(11),

416

l'lu- U)II~I'PI oj rhrtoricnl siIIIIlIHIIII,'h I~ 11I\1)-:lIt11111)thl' nnt un- of sllldl'III~' II'PI'I'~l'lll:1Iions of :1writ ing task. 'l'lu- 0lll'l,III\I' HII,d, ill Shirley's :llld Aliu'\ "I' pro.H..ht·s. 10 the term p:l.per look quue lIilll'I('11I when mapped onto the POIIII'" ~)Il the triangle. If we think of Shirley and Ahll' .IS Encoders, the topic as 1{1'.11 uy, and 1)1:,Boyer as the ~ecoder, we can sec that for Shirley, being an EIK'olll'l means tl'YI,ngto be credible; her relationship to the topic (Reality) involve ,I goal of lISlI1,gaU, of the subject matter; and her relationship to the Decode: lIl~olves an implied goal of telling a complete story to a reader whom Shirk-, thinks of as an examiner-to use the classic phrase from the famous book h, Britton ct ~I.-i,e" a reader who wants to know if Shirley can pass an eX,1111 Oil the subJ,ect of the Battle of Agincourt. For Alice, however, being an Encode. means having a goal of saying something new; the topic (Reality) is a resource 10 be used; and the Decoder is someone who must be persuaded that Aliu'\ idcns have merit, Varying task representations do not change the dimensiOI1" oj thc rhetorical situation: the Encoder, Decoder, and Reality are always preSl'1I1 But t1:e way a writer represents the task to herself does affect the ways rhl" shc thl.nks about those dimensions-and whether she thinks about them at :111.

In the context of a research assignment, rhetorical skills can be used to rl':ld ' Ihc sources as well as to design the paper. Although teachers have prob:lhly .llways ~no~n tbat expert readers use such strategies, the concept of rhetori cal readll1g IS new, to the Jjterature. Haas and Flower have shown that CXIWII rcaders lise rhetor~cal strategies "to account for author's purpose, context, and dfect on the audience", to recreate or infer the rhetorical situation of IIIl' Icxt" (176; d, also Bazerman). These strategies, used in addition to fOl'mulol ing main points and paraphrasing content, helped the readers to understand .1 II'Xr more completely and more quickly than did readers who concentrated t'\ l'IlIsiv~ly on ,cOl~tent, As Haas and Flower point out, teaching students to rl':HI ::IH:torJc,ally ISd,lfficult, They ,suggest that appropriate pedagogy might indlld,' '.III'l'~t Il1Stl'LlctlOn. .' . modelIng, and. , ,encouraging students to become COli

I1'1hlltll,lg and commJtted members of rhetorical communities" (182). One cnrl) ~ll'P Illlgl)! b? to,teac~ students a set of heuristics based on the three aspects 01 IhI' l'OII1IllUl1lcatlve tnangle. Using such questions could help students set gC)'ll~ 1(11 tI,l'ir reading. '

III Ihis version of Kinneavy's triangle, the Encoder is the writer of the SOllrCI' 'f 11'\I, Ihc Decoder is the student reader, and Reality is the subject matter. Readel'f. III.ly wl1sider only one point of the triangle at a time asking such questions 0.... "\XIh~) nre you (i,e" the authOr/Encoder)?" or "What ~re the important featl~n" III Ihls text?" They may consider two aspects of the rhetorical situation ill ,I ~1I~glcquestion,' e.g", "Am r in your intended (primary) audience?"; "Whar do I Ihlllk about, thiS tOPIC?"; "What context affected your ideas and presentation?" Othl'1' q,lIestiol1s would involve all three points of the triangle, e,g" "Whal :11'(' you ~('Iylng to help me with the problem you aSSlime I hnve?" or "What rexllI.11 tll'vlel's have yOll used to manipulate my responsd" A~killg such questions giVI'~ ~tlllk'nlS n W:ly of formulating goals relalill)~ to IHIlI'041' .I~well as content.

I( 'lhil'lcy, for example, had asked a J)t'l'Ot!I'1 1111111IHI"I qll('siion 'slIlil,I' ' "Am I in )10111' imclldt'd :llldil'l1t'e?" .,111'111111111 1111I ""tllIl'd 111,11Chlll'l hill

MAHI,I\IU I KI'NII II tl"I''I IllIh'lIl~thl I )(11111 ,1111111 1"1511. 'Iv.ly 411

.lIld till' Cui:l.ol~ WI'I'I WI11111,',1111 'IWI itic audiences. If she had IIS!..I·",I I)tol'od"1 II; R,·:tliIY question ""l h .1' "\XIh.ll context affected your ideas nud P't'S\'1I t,IIIIIII?"-she might 11111h.iv« Ignored Churchill's remark, "A!I I~~C"'('11.lIlIt" II\l1I1I'I1S, Bovcs, Bcrhcncourt] arc well known to oU,r,gcneratlOn. (40.3). A.. II was, she missed Churchill's signal that he was writmg to survivors of the l-ir ...1World War, who had vainly hoped that it would be a war to end all wars, II xhirlcy had used an Encoder-Decoder-Reality question-such as U~hat are Villi saying to help me with the problem you assum: ,r have?:'-she might haw understood that the authors of her sources were wrtting to different readers for dllkrent reasons, This understanding might have given her something to say. Whl'n I gave Shirley's source texts to freshmen studen,ts, ask:d ,them to usc ,thc m.uerial in an original argument, and taught them this heuristic for rhetorical rcading, I received, for example, papers that warned undergraduatcs about 11.11ional pride as a source of authorial bias in history texts, ,

A factual topic such as the Battle of Agincourt presents speCial prohl,ems 1M h('~'(llIseof the seemingly intransigent nature of facts. Like many p:ople, Shlrlcy 1ll'lievcs that YOllcan either agree or disagree with issues and opmlOllS, but yOLl 1,111only accept the so-caUed facts, She believes that facts are what you learn Imm textbooks, opinions are what you have about clothes, and argum,enrs ,11'\' what you have with your mother when you want to stay out late at l1Ighr . "'hirley is not in a position to disagree with the facts about the battle (e,g" "No, I Ihink the French won"), and a rhetorical analysis may seem at first to offer IIlinil11al rewards (e,g., "According to the Arab, Jewish, and Chinese calendars till' dntc was really .. ,"). , ,

Alice who thinks rhetorically, understands that both facts and oplOlons (11'1' '" ""'l'nriaily the same kind of statement: they are claims, ~I~ce ~derstands Ih.1I tlw only essential difference between a fact and an opll1lOn 1S how they ,Ill Il'(dved by an audience. (This discussion is derived from Toulmin's lDodl'~ (II ,III :lrgument as consisting of claims proved with data and backed by cthll.t1 II.,it11Scalled warrants. According to Toulmin, any aspect of an argument 1lI,1) III' qucstioned by the audience and must then be supported with f~rther aq!,lI IIWIlt.) 1n a rhetorical argument, a fact is a claim that an audience will accep,t as Iwillg true without requiring proof, although they may ask for an ,explanation, 1\11 opinion is a claim that an audience will not accept as true ~Ithout proof, ,I III I which, after the proof is given, the audience may well deCide ~as only n limired truth, i.e" it's true in this case but not in other ~ases. An a~dlence may. ,11,0 decide that even though a fact is unassailable, the lI1terpretatlon or use 01 tlw fact is open to debate, ,

For example, Shirley's sources gf'lve different numbers for the Sll.C, of rhe It) lll'ilish army at Agincollrr; these IIl1mbers, which must have b,ccn estllnnrl' .... Wl'I'Cclaims masquerading ,1~LUI." \ltidl'y did not under~ta~d thiS, She,thollght th,1I disngrcemcnt signifil'd 1'11111,WIlI·II·.I' II pl'ohably s,Igntf1ed rhcto~'lcal pur pn~(', The prol);'lble rcnSl)1I th,11 II", ('111/111~",IVI':l I'dnll~ely large Cl>t,lm;'t~·1(11 thl' F,II~\li~h:ll'llly ::tlld do 111111111111111111111.",,, Ilj tl1l' h'cllch tll'1l1yIS,SO thllt 1111'11'FI'l'tllh n"HIl'I" would Iliid tlll 1\1111II \ II 1111)''·,....H'I 10 ;l~.I.\.pl.1 1~\·WI..I.. (1III1lhtll\ 1'\'I.IIIVI'ly"'"I,tll,' 1111111'1111till 0111 til till' FlIgl" ..h .11 Illy .llld III~

IIlgl1 1"llIllIlIl'lol 1I11'Ioft'lItll ,11111) 111.11\1111\ 11111111111,11111' 01 1"('llIgl,,1I VIIIIII\ Ikf!llv '-11111k') could ll"l';tll' an .ll'gllllH"111 .Ihfllli 11u- B.. uh- of AgllllOlIII, ,111 Ill'nlrd 10 undcrxrnnd ihat,cvt:n ill IIl'l "1\1111\ 1,'"hllllk ...,lhe soculled loll I.."II l!.III1IS t luu mayor may not be supporu-d, d.1I111., 11I,llk' by writers who Will k 111 :t l't'rtnil~ politicnl climate for a particular nudicncc. She may, of course, Ill'V"1 Il\HIl Ihis truth unless Dr. Boyer teaches her rhetorical theory and uses IIII' I'l'sc,nrch paper as a chance for Shirley to practice rhetorical problem-solving,

1'01' mo~t ~f her aca~emic life, Shirley has done school tasks that require h"1 'I 10 fin~ll11al~lideas and Important facts; success in these tasks usually hinges (!II ugrccmg With the teacher about what the text says. Such study skills form ,III essential basis for doing reading-to-write tasks. Obviously a student can only lise sources to build an argument if she can first read the Sources accurnn-l, (c.L Brown. and Palincsar; Luftig; Short and Ryan). However, synthesizing tns"', often require that readers not accept the authors' ideas. Baker and Brown h,IVI' ~()int:d out that people misread texts when they blindly accept an Olurhol\, Ideas IJ1stead of considering a divergent .interpretation. Yet if we want studl.'IlI, 10 learn to build original arguments from texts, we must teach them the sktll, needed to create divergent interpretations. We must teach them to think ab()~11 facts and opinions as claims that are made by writers to particuJar readers 101 particular reasons in particular historical contexts.

Read.ing sourc~s rhetorically gives students a powerful tool for creating ,I I' persuasive analYSIS.Alt~ough no r~search exists as yet to suggest that teachilll\ ~tLlcients t? read rhetoncally wtlllIDprove their writing, I have seen its effl'll ~n successive drafts of students' papers. As mentioned earlier, r11etor.ical read fllg allowed a student to move from simply summarizing and evaluating hl'! "'(lllr~es on local c~verage of the championship football game to constructillj\ n rn tiOna I~ for artIcles that covered tbe fans rather than the game. Rhet()1"1 cllJ analYSIS e~abled another student to move from summarizing his sourCl" 10 undersr:,lI1dmg why each report about the Kent State shootings necessarily ('xpressed a bias of some kjnd.

As. Ihese examples, suggest,. h?wever, rhetorical reading is not a magic" I 11 Il'd1J1lque for producll1g sophIsticated arguments. Even when students rend ",H'I.rsOLJr.cesrhetorically, the~ tend merely to report the results of this annly 'II> III their essays. Such wntmg appears to be a college-level version of till' k"owledge-telling strategy described by Bereiter and Scardamalia (Psychology) ,lilt! ,~)ay be, as the~ suggest, the product of years of exposure to pedagogical pr,lClices that enshnne the acquisition and expression of in.formation witholll n context or purpose.

'10 move students beyond merely reporting the content and rhetorical oricn II l:ltion of th~ir source t~x:s, Ihav~ taught them the concept of the rhetorical gap alld s.ome sunple heuflstlC questions for thinking about gaps. Gaps were fir~1 descrtbed by lser as unsaid material that a reader must supply to infer frOIll ,) text. McCormick expanded the concept to include gaps between lhe lexi and the reader; such gaps could involve di.screpanciL'1. of vnlues, social conVt'!l lions, .language, or any other matter that readers 11111'1lo" ..it!t:r. If we: ,lpply Ihe concept of gaps to Kinneavy's triangle, Wl' 'i'i' 111111 III II'lIdi,,!\, fOI'l'Xill1lpll',

MAlU,AHII KANI' II

,I g,Ip 111,Iyoccin Ill'l \\ 1'111 lilt 111",,1, I lin 1111"1 tOllll'l" wll~'" 1Ill' 11',1111'1 IS not ,I nu-mber 01 1111',111111111', 1111111.1, tI ,11II 1t(·lIl'('. Shirley ft.11 IIlIO such ,I fI,IP, ""ullwr !!,ap can OCllI1 1ll'1\\1"'" lilt' I)n min Reality corners when ,1 It',Hlel tI",11;fL'CSwith or docs 1101 1111111,,,1.11111 tltl' text. A third gap Ct11~OCClIrIWI ween tlli' l'ncodcr-Reality points 01 the triangle if the writer has misrepresented (II' misuudcrstood the material. The benefit of teaching this concept is thai when .1 student thinks about a writer's rhetorical stance, she may ask "Why docs he think that way?" When a student encounters a gap, she may ask, "Whal effect tloe., it have on the success of this communication?" The answers to both qucs nons give students original material for their papers. . . .

Shirley, for example, did not know that Churchill began wrrting The Birth H Il/ Britain during the 1930s, when Hitler was rearming Germany and w!1cn the Hritish governmenr and most of Churchill's readers ardently favored d~.sarl11(1- mcut, Had she understood the rhetorical orientation of the book, which was puhlished eleven years after the end of World War II, she might ha.ve argued tlt,lt Churchill's evocation of past military glories would have been mflamma lory ill the 1930s but was highJy acceptable twenty years later. A gap b.etwee~l tlH' reader and the text (Decoder-Reality) might stimulate a reader to lllvestl- g,lIL' whether or not she is the only person having this problem; a gap be~wecl1. other readers and the sources may motivate an adaptation or explanatl?n o~ lilt. tl1t1terial to a particular audience. Shirley might have adapted the GUlzOts pl'rspcctive on the French civil war fo~ Ame~ican re~ders. A gap b~tweel1 the ,1I"hor and the material (Encoder-Reality) might motivate a refut~tlon. .

To discover gaps, students may need to learn heuristics for settmg rhetOrical I" writing goals. That is, they may need to learn to tJ:ink of the paper, not as a I'l' h,lsh of the available material, but as an opportumty to teach someone, to SOIVI' ~()lI1eOl1C'Sproblem, or to answer someone's question. ~h.e most s~lient ql1esti()l1~ for reading source texts may be "Who are you (the ongmal audience of Decod ('I'll)?"; "What is your ques60n or problem with this to~ic?"; and "How haw I (I he Encoder) used these materi~ls to answer your ques,~lon o~,~~lve y~ur pr,~)~l kill?" More simply, these ques[Jons may be learned as Why, How, and So Wh,lt?" When Shirley learns to read sources as telling not the eternal truth ,but ;\ 1I'II1hto a particular audience and when she learns to think of texts as existl1lg to '!lIve problems, she will find it easier to think of things to say. . '

For exampJe, a sophomore at a private university was struggh.Jl~ With ~n a~- l' "~lll11ent that required her to analyze an issue and express an opl~lOn on It, LIS 11l~ 1WO cor).fljcting source texts, an iJlterview, and personal materIal as sources. U,lJ)g rhetorical reading strategies, this girl discovered a gap betwee.n AIfred M;lrbaise, a high school princ.ipal who advocates mandatory ~rug testing of all hi~h school students, and students like those he would be testmg:

M[lrbnisc, who was fl liclllt'lI:\llI III 111(' IJ,S. Mnrincs over thirty years ngo ... III,II<C~il very obvious rh:lllw 1.,11111111 ,11111 Will11111 Inll'mlc :lOY form or drll~ :lbll~l' III hiN~~·h()ol.For cX:ll1lpll', ill PIlII1V,I,lpll ~I YI'II III' ll.li"I~, "When Slndl'IIIShl'l'OIlH' Illyolvl'd ii, itkl\nl '1l:livil), wll, til! I 1111 \ II tlill II III 1IlII,IIwy art' viol.llillH otiWI ~I 1111,'111 ~ • , • t1WII I 1)1'('01111' Vl'1y, \ I II I til II I 1111d 011111 I 1'Ii1I 1101 lllki ,Ill' tllIIl."

440 <ltAPlln Hhl'llIll(

Ik~IIIISl' IVL"Il,li'I' h,IS nOI IWIII III 0,,1,11111 1", 1(I',lIly ItH'IYYl',W.h'I1I'I'I(, Ilt' dm'., 1101t.lkl' 11110cousidcration 1111' 11'.1~""',II Ir\ 1,"I~ ,II ru.illy uvc d,ug" '1(ld"y Ilw xocinl environment is so drosll~,III)' dllli'lI'lIl dr.11Murbnise cannot IIlId\'1 st.rud .1 kid's morality, and that is why hl' WI ill" 1"0111 NIiCh a fatherly bill clisuuu point of view.

The second paragraph answers the So what? question, i.e., "Why docs it 11111111'1 thaI Marbaise seems by his age and background to be fatherly and distnnt?" Unless the writer/reader thinks to ask this question, she will have difficulty writing a coherent evaluation of Marbaise's argument.

The relative success of some students in finding original things to say about IN their topics can help us to understand the perennial problem of plagiarism S.ol11eplagiarism d~rives, I think, from a weak, nonrhetorical task representa lion. If students believe they are supposed to reproduce source material in IIll'II papers, or if they know they are supposed to say something original but have no rhetorical problem to solve and no knowledge of how to find problem- that they Call discuss in their sources, it becomes difficult for them to avoid plagiarizing. The common student decision to buy a paper when writing IIll' assignment seems a meaningless fill-in-the-blanks activity (d. Schwegler and Shamoon) becomes easily understandable. Because rhetorical reading leads 1o discoveries about the text, students who use it may take more interest in thl'lI research papers.

.L~t us now assume that Shirley understands the importance of creating :111 • onglnal argument, knows how to read analytically, and has found things to ~a} nbout the Battle of Agincourt. Are her troubles over? Will she now create th.1I 1\ paper that she, yearns to write? Probably not. Despite her best intenriol1N, Shirley will probably write another narrative/paraphrase of her sources. Why? Because by now, the assignment asks her to do far more than she can handl(' ill ,1 single draft. Shirley'S task representation is now so rich, her set of goals S(1 many, that she may be unable to juggle tbem all simultaneously. Moreover, till' l"Ill'lOricnl reading technique requires students to discover content worth wril 1111\ nboLiL and a rhetorical purpose for writing; the uncertainty of mal1agil1~ ~lIlh:1 .di!Scovery task when a grade is at stake may be too much for Shirlcy.

l)r1fICl1~ttasks may be difficult in either (or both of) two ways. First, Lhl'y III 1I1,ly I'equlre students to do a familiar subtask, such as reading sources, al a higher level of difficulty, e.g., longer sources, more sources, a more difficult lopic. Second, they may require students to do new subtasks, such as bllild Il1g l10tCSinto an original argument. Such tasks may require task managcmenl 'ikills, especially planning, that students have never developed and do not know how LOattempt. The insecurity that results from trying a complex new rusk III :1 high-st:.lkes situati.on is increased when students are asked to discove.r a prob lell1 worth writing about because such tasks send students out on a trC(lSlll'l' hUllt WiLhno guarantee that the treasure exists, thaI Lhey will recognize it Whl'l1 Ihq lind ie, or thnt when they find itthey willlw :lhll' to build it into a. coh<:rt'llI .ll'gllll1l'lll. The pnpcr on Marbaise quotl'd nhllv(' l"III1I'd ,I grnue of l) beCflll'i(' thl' wl'itn could not lise her ..hetorienl il1"II',hl' I" hulld 1111,llglltlll'nt J)I'l'M'IHI'd

111 ,I IOI:k:t I (>1'111'1.,A It 1111111',11..III' ,llokl'l! till' logil.',tI q ucsl ruu II h()111I It I' 1111 pili ,I lrol1~ til Mnrbmse Pt'''"I1,I, ~IIC' did 11(11lollow through by t.'valu:1l1I1glilt' g,lJ" III h" p~rspectivc th.i: 1I111"hl.lIkd rhc probable success of his P"Ol!,I':1IH.

1\ skillful student 1l~ll1g till' sumrnarize-the-main-idcns approach 1.::111 St'l II her writing goals and even plan (i.e., outline) a paper before she rends till' 'OllI'CCS.The rhetorical reading strategy, by contrast, requires writers ro di~ rover wl:at is worth writing about and to decide how to say it as or after they read Lhclr. source~. Th~ ~trategy requires writers to change their content goals .ind to ~dJust ~helr v:ntmg plans as their understanding of the topic develops. It requires writers, rn Flower's term, to "construct" their purposes for writ Illg as well as the content for their paper (for a description of constructi ve pla.nning, see Flower, Schriver, Carey, Haas, and Hayes). In Flower's words, wrrt~rs who construct a purpose, as opposed to writers who bring a prcdc- tcrm.ln.e? .purpose to a task, "create a web of purposes ... set goals, toss lip possibilities ... create a multidimensional network of information ... a weh ~)_f purpose .. '. a bubbli~lg stew of various mental representations" (53]-32). I he complex indeterminacy of such a task may pose an intimidating chal- lenge to students who have spent their lives summarizing main ideas and reporting facts.

Shirley may respond to the challenge by concentrating her energies on a famil- 4l in.. subtas~, e.g., repeating material about the Battle of Agincourt, at the expense of stfllggl1l1g with an unfamiliar subtask sllch as creating an original argul11cnl. She may even deliberately simplify the task by representing it to herself as calling only for something that she knows how to do, expecting that Dr. Boyer will ::H_ cepe the paper as close enough to the original instructions. My students do thl" frequently. When students decide to write a report of theix reading, they can ,11 least be certain that they will find material to write about. . Beca~lse of the. limits of attentional memory, not to mention those caused Ii)' II lI1expenence, WrIters Call handle only so many task demands at a time. Thll~, paper~ produced by seemingly inadequate task representations may well Iw essentially rough drafts. What looks like a bad paper may well be a preliminnl'y step, a way of meeting certain task demands ill order to create a bas.is for Lhinking about new ones. My students consistently report that they need to marshal. al.1of their ideas and text knowledge and get that material down on the page (i.e., tell their knowledge) before they can think about developing an argument (i.e., transform their knowledge). If Shirley'S problem is that shc ha~ shelved certai~ task demands in favor of others, Dr. Boyer needs only to pOI.nt out what Shirley should do to bring the paper into conformity with the (l~slgnl11ent and offer Shirley a chance to revise.

!.hc problems of cognitive overload and inexperience in handling complex III wntlllg ras~s can create a tremendous hLlI'dle for students because so Illnny of them bcltcve tbat thcy should he able 10 write their paper in a single dra (I. SOl11estudents think thnL i( lI1l'Y ~III1'1 do till' paper in one draft thnt means tl1.11 sOJ11l'rhing is wrong w.ith th~'lll a ...WI 111'1'''1, Ill' wil It IIll' :1ssignment, or wilh lIS IIlI giving the assignment. O(It'n, ";ilt I, ~llIrllllh \\'1I111',llI 10 .heir dr:1(1~with ;)111\1'1'

44)

.uu l dl'~P:ljl, t1l1(lWIIl~uwuy pt'lklll) "",1hi. IIHlgh dl.ilh .uid tlll'lI ~()lIlillg III I" .uul 1>,lylll~Ihal Ihey can't do thl' ,1~~lglllllllit.

The .,1udcnt 's first ora fr about drug te ...tllig told her knowledge a bout 111'1 ~()lIn.:l.'s' opinions on mandatory drug te.,tlllg, l lcr second draft contained tlH' rhetorical analysis quoted above, but presented the material in a scram hied III der and did not build the analysis into an argument, Only in a third draft w.i-, ihi ...student able to make her point:

Not once docs Marbaise consider any of the psychological reasons why kid ... turn away fr0111 reality, He fails to realize that drug testing will not answer their quest ions, ease their frustrations, or respond to their cries for attention, but will merely further alienate himself and other authorities fr0111helping kids deal with their real problems.

This comment represents Terri's answer to the heuristic "So what? Why elm'" the source's position matter?" If we pace our assignments to allow for OUI ~Iudcnts' thoughts to develop, we can do a great deal to build their confidence in their writing (Terri raised her D+ to an A). If we treat the researched ess,l}- ,IS a sequence of assignments instead of as a one-shot paper with a single dill' date, we can teach our students to build on their drafts, to use what they C;111 do easily as a bridge to what we want them to learn to do. In this way, we call improve our students' writing habits, More importantly, however, we can help our students to see themselves as capable writers and as active, able, problem solvers. Most importantly, we can use the sequence of drafts to demand th.u our students demonstrate increasingly sophisticated kinds of analytic and ,.Iw toricn I proficiency,

Rhetorical reading and writing heuristics can help students to represent task ~ III ill rich and interesting ways, They can help students to set up complex gonl -n ructures (Bereiter and Scardamalia, "Conversation"), They offer students "W1Y ways to think about their reading and writing texts. These tools, in other wOI'ds, encourage students to work creatively.

And after all, creativity is what research should be about, if Shirley writl' ... ,I ll'l'.l1ive paper, she has found a constructive solution that is new to her and ",llIl h 01her pcople can use, a solution to a problem that she and other pc()pk ..It,lil', Creativity is an inherently rhetorical quality, if we think of it as thoughl !v,ldlng 10 solutions to problems and of problems as embodied in qucsti()l1~ IIt,ll pl'oplc ask about situations, the researched essay offers infinite posloi hdtll('i-o, Viewed in this way, a creative idea answers a question that the audi ~'IlCC or any single reader wants answered, The question could be, "Why dill I kllry V win the Battle of Agincourt?" or, "How can student readers prOll'l I t1wt1lsclvcs against nationalistic bias when they study history?" or any of :I IhOllsnnd olhcr questions. If we teach our Shirleys to see themselves as sellnl .1l'S who work to find answers to problem questions, and if we rcach thl'tll 10 St·t 1'(';lding alld writing goals for thcmsl'lvl'S Ihilt will nllow them to rhink lOilstt'lIl'livt'ly, we will be doing thc mOSI l'x\iltltl'o we,,1 IllItt IC:1chcrs mil do. 11111'1ul'illg t'I'l,:ltivilY.

MAtHIAtll1 KAHil II tpllll( ,111111"I' IJ)' 1"".11111 ',,,11111 ,1"'1 lfil~I\II'ly 441

Appendix A: Page 1 of Shirl y" p per

'l'he baltic of Agincourt r.mks .IS one of England's greatest military triumphs.

II W,IS the most brilliant victory of the Middle Ages, bar none. ]t was fought

fill October 25, 1414, against the French near the French village of Agincourt.

l lcnry Vhad claimed the crown of France and had invaded France with an army from to

,'slitl1lltcd at anywhere between 10,0001 iH'id 45,000 men', During the seige of Marflcur

clY!4('l1tcryhad taken@ofthem3, his food supplies had been depleted', and the fall

r.u tIH had begun. Inaddition the French had assembled a huge army and were marching

iowurd him. Henry decided to march to Calais, where his ships were to await him",

lit. intended to cross the River Somme at the ford of Blanchetaque", but, falsely

iulorrncd that the ford was guarded', he was forced to follow the flooded Somme up

toward its source. The French army was shadowing him on his right. Remembering

lilt' slaughters ofCrecy and Poictiers, the French constable, Charles d'Albret,

lu-sitated to fights, but when Henry forded the Somme just above Amiens? and was JtI~1

I. Carl Stephinson, Medieval History, p. 529.

J.. ~u izot, Monsieur and Guizot, Madam~ World's Best Histories-France, Vohm 1(' II,

p.21].

i. CyriclE. Robinson, England-A History of British Progress, p. 145.

4. [bid. I WiI1stonChurchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I: The Birt II

of Britain, p. 403.

(I, Ibid.

7. Ibid. M. Robinson, p. 145.

9. Churchill, p. 403.

Works Cited

A.., h, ~il")IIHIII,Sru'/t1/I'.sYI'I!"/og,l\ Nnv '"11 1'1, III II,. 1'1 \ '. l\tllI~. II t.w,h.tlt. I' \'/1('/1NIl/,It,' 1 )/11,11' "," '"~ 11" II, /11111' 1',", ,'.,\. 1',IIwi Ilt't·~(·llll·dIII till' Ailil II

,,1111/111,,"111111111 Itl"I'.llIh A",,, 111111111 III J IltII I II III ..'I