Insignificant Wranglings

Today’s Plan:

• Sicart Review Paper
• Writing Rubric
• Sample Paper Evaluation

Sicart Review Paper

Your first writing assignment will be due before our next class session on Tuesday, January 22nd at midnight. This will give me some opportunity to review the papers Wednesday before class.

What should this paper do? Your overarching task is to explain what Sicart believes constitutes an ethical game. Every paragraph in the paper should focus on a specific element Sicart describes. In total, your paper should explicate 3-5 different elements. My general expectation is that you will draw upon every reading assignment in the Sicart (note that one idea might be developed in several different chapters–your paper should not simply be a summary of every chapter). These paper should not exceed 800 words. I mean it.

Every paragraph should open with a topic sentence. Every paragraph should contain at least one paraphrase or direct quotation from Sicart.

This paper should be formatted in APA format, but it does not require a title page or an abstract. In place of a title page, just put your name, course name, semester, and instructor name at the beginning of the paper MLA-style. It does require a Running Head. The paper should include a References list. It is quite likely that Sicart will be the only reference on the list (I am just checking for global formatting). Information regarding APA formatting is in the Hackers and Sommers Pocket Manual or can be found at the Purdue University OWL.

Let me clarify that you are writing an evaluation of Sicart. Your purpose is to explain his theory of ethical games to someone who has not read his book. I am *not* asking you to evaluate Sicart’s theory. When you are writing academic reviews, I shouldn’t necessarily be able to tell whether you agree with the review or not. You present the information, and leave it to the reader to make her own judgement (this is obviously different from argumentative writing, where you defend a particular position). This writing has an argument only insofar as it argues for an interpretation of Sicart’s work.

Below I articulate three important elements of writing that I will use to evaluate your first paper: developing a specific thesis, properly contextualizing and analyzing evidence, and maintaining logical development.

That said, every piece of academic writing should offer a “thesis” in the introduction. I tend to hate this word, because it comes with so much baggage. For me, a strong thesis lays out AS SPECIFICALLY AS POSSIBLE what information a paper will present. It is a kind of idea map. Let me show you a few potential thesis statements:

• I explain Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment
• I explain Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment, noting his key terms and summarizing his suggestions for new teachers
• I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment might create problems for teachers who prioritize grammar as the central concern of writing instruction

All those examples are bad. Don’t do that. Do this:

• I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment emphasizes the importance of familiarizing students with assessment rubrics, often through practice norming sessions
• I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment calls for teachers to separate grading and assessment from the act of providing feedback. When students encounter feedback alongside grades, they often receive that feedback as a justification for a (bad) grade rather than as an attempt to guide and develop their abilities. Inoue makes clear that providing distance between grades and feedback increases the likelihood that students engage and implement feedback

Here’s the deal y’all: WRITE YOUR THESIS LAST. Trust me, I’ll know if you write the introduction before you write the paper. Pro-tip: when you are done with your rough draft compare the thesis in your intro to the conclusion. You won’t know what a paper is actually going to say until you write it!

Pro-tip #2: academic and professional writing are not mysteries. This isn’t Scooby-Doo. Don’t keep me in suspense. Make sure all the important things you find in the course of a paper appear in the first few sentences, paragraphs, or pages (depending on the length of the paper). Front load, front load, front load.

Okay, on to point #2–working with sources. From the rubric:

• Is the evidence in each paragraph sufficient to support claims?
• Does the writer’s transitions provide enough context to help a reader? A description of the methods to understand the value of a statistic, for instance, or enough explication of a quote’s significance? Do I feel like I know where the evidence comes from or is it suddenly thrust at me?
• Connect the evidence to the claim of the paragraph? Put the evidence in conversation with other paragraphs?
• Is it clear where a source stops thinking and the writer’s own thoughts begin? Is there an “I” that differentiates the writer from her sources/”they”? Is the writer adding something to the quote, or just leaving it there?

Plagiarism. It isn’t stealing words, it is stealing thoughts, ideas. Be sure to make a parenthetical reference when you use a idea from Sicart.

Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, writing: “To play is to inhabit a wiggle space of possibility in which we can express ourselves–our values, beliefs, and politics” (p. 9). Play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives. Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle rooom. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.

Next paragraph begins with some kind of transition. Then topic sentence. then context some evidence.

Even if I took the quote out, I need a reference:

Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, noting how play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives (pp. 8-9). Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle room. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.

Ok, third thing. Logical Development. What does a period do? Some sample sentences.

Sample Paper Evaluation

Let’s put the rubric to work.

Homework

Complete the Sicart paper.