Tip #1

Once you’ve written the paraphrase, check it against the original. If you have borrowed any phrases or words, put those in quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. You should also avoid using the same syntax of the original source. In other words, don’t structure your sentences the same way the original author does.

Tip #2

Always cite a paraphrase. We are using MLA format. In MLA, the standard in-text citation consists of the author’s last name followed by the page number from which the cited material comes. It would look like this:

Using popular culture and a variety of other topics as fodder for writing classes is good for students (Friedman 80).

The above example uses no quotes, but it must still be cited because the idea itself must be given credit. I gave Friedman credit for that paraphrase because I took her original sentence, thought about it, and then expressed it in my own language to show that I understand her point.

I could also use an attribution tag to introduce the paraphrase; in fact, using an attribution tag is almost always the best way to introduce a source. An attribution tag is simply a phrase that gives credit to the author. It looks like this:

According to Friedman, using popular culture and a variety of other topics as fodder for writing classes is good for students (80).

Notice that when you use the author’s name in the paraphrase, you don’t have to include her name in the in-text citation. Please note, as well, that the period for the sentence is placed after the in-text citation; that is the standard for MLA citation.

Tip #3

You must understand from the beginning of this course that failure to use in-text citation when you summarize, paraphrase, or quote means that you have plagiarized. Don’t ever forget to cite your sources.

Tip #4

One final note about paraphrasing: avoid the trap of using synonyms to replace words in the original. That is an ineffective way of paraphrasing because it does not lead to understanding; in fact, it often creates confusion for readers.

Summarizing Tips

Tip #1

Unlike a paraphrase, a summary should be shorter than the original, but it should also avoid excessive quotations and aim for authentic rephrasing. The best way to summarize something is to read it several times until you feel that you understand it, and then put it aside as you write the summarize (sound familiar?).

Tip #2

Once you’ve written the summary, check it against the original. If you have borrowed any phrases or words, put those in quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. You should also avoid using the same syntax of the original source. In other words, don’t structure your sentences the same way the original author does. Further, you must be certain that you haven’t left out anything ESSENTIAL to the meaning of what you are summarizing.

Tip #3

Always cite a summary. We are using MLA format. In MLA, the standard in-text citation consists of the author’s last name followed by the page number from which the cited material comes. It would look like this:

Students attending college today deserve a taste of that intellectual daring and freedom that their teachers experienced in the 70s and 80s (Friedman 83).

The above example uses no quotes, but it must still be cited because the idea itself must be given credit. I gave Friedman credit for that summary because I took her original paragraph, thought about it, and then expressed it in my own language to show that I understand her point.

Tip #4

I could also use an attribution tag to introduce the summary; in fact, using an attribution tag is almost always the best way to introduce a source (this is covered in the video from YouTube). An attribution tag is simply a phrase that gives credit to the author. It looks like this:

Friedman believes that students attending college today deserve a taste of that intellectual daring and freedom that their teachers experienced in the 70s and 80s (83).

Notice that when you use the author’s name in the summary, you don’t have to include her name in the in-text citation. Please note, as well, that the period for the sentence is placed after the in-text citation; that is the standard for MLA citation.

You must understand from the beginning of this course that failure to use in-text citation when you summarize, paraphrase, or quote means that you have plagiarized. Don’t ever forget to cite your sources.

Tip #5

IMPORTANT NOTE: A summary should be as objective as possible; do not analyze the author’s opinion. Simply state as clearly and fairly as you can what the author has written. Keep your personal opinion out of a summary!

Guidelines for writing a SUMMARY with IN-TEXT CITATIONS
Christine Bauer-Ramazani

The purpose of a summary is to give the reader, in a about 1/3 of the original length of an article/lecture, a clear, objective picture of the original lecture or text. Most importantly, the summary restates only the main points of a text or a lecture without giving examples or details, such as dates, numbers or statistics.

Skills practiced: note-taking, paraphrasing (using your own words and sentence structure), condensing
Examples of acceptable paraphrases and unacceptable paraphrases (= plagiarism): Plagiarism: What It is and How to Recognize and Avoid It (Links to an external site.)

Before writing the summary:

1. For a text, read, mark, and annotate the original. (For a lecture, work with the notes you took.)
   • highlight the topic sentence
   • highlight key points/key words/phrases
   • highlight the concluding sentence
   • outline each paragraph in the margin
2. Take notes on the following:
   • the source (author–first/last name, title, date of publication, volume number, place of publication, publisher, URL, etc.)
   • the main idea of the original (paraphrased)
   • the major supporting points (in outline form)
   • major supporting explanations (e.g. reasons/causes or effects)

Writing your summary–Steps:

1. Organize your notes into an outline which includes main ideas and supporting points but no examples or details (dates, numbers, statistics).
2. Write an introductory paragraph that begins with a frame, including an in-text citation of the source and the author as well as a reporting verb to introduce the main idea. The reporting verb is generally in present tense.
   • ARTICLE:

In his/her article (or lecture) “________________________,” _____________________ (year)
(title, first letter capitalized) (author/lecturer’s last name)

argues/claims/reports/contends/maintains/states that ____________________________.
(main idea/argument; S + V + C)

Example: In his article “Michael Dell turns the PC world inside out,” Andrew E. Serwer (1997) describes how Michael Dell founded Dell Computers and claims that Dell’s low-cost, direct-sales strategy and high quality standards account for Dell’s enormous success.

• BOOK:

In his book The Pearl, John Steinbeck (1945) illustrates the fight between good and evil in humankind.

• INTERVIEW:

In my interview with him/her (date), __________________(first name, last name) stated that ….

Reporting Verbs:

STRONG ARGUMENT==>NEUTRAL==>COUNTERARGUMENT==>SUGGESTION==>CRITICISM

argue	state	refute the claim	suggest	criticize
claim	report	argue against	recommend
contend	explain
maintain	discuss
insist	illustrate
posit	observe

Other examples of frames:

• According to ___________________ (year), ________________________________________.
  (author’s last name) (main idea; S + V + C)
• ___________’s article on ______________ (year) discusses the ____________________.
  (author’s last name) (topic) (main idea; Noun Phrase)
• ___________ (year), in his/her article, “________________” argues that ________________.
  author’s last name) (title of article) (main idea; S + V + C)
• According to “Title of the Article” (year), ____________________________________________.
  (main idea; S+V+C)
• _____________ has a major impact on ________ (author’s last name, year).
  (topic/NP) (NP)

1. The main idea or argument needs to be included in this first sentence. Then mention the major aspects/factors/reasons that are discussed in the article/lecture. Give a full reference for this citation at the end of the summary (see #6. below).
   1. For a one-paragraph summary, discuss each supporting point in a separate sentence. Give 1-2 explanations for each supporting point, summarizing the information from the original.
   2. For a multi-paragraph summary, discuss each supporting point in a separate paragraph. Introduce it in the first sentence (topic sentence).

Example: The first major area in which women have become a powerful force is politics.

1. Support your topic sentence with the necessary reasons or arguments raised by the author/lecturer but omit all references to details, such as dates or statistics.
2. Use discourse markers that reflect the organization and controlling idea of the original, for example cause-effect, comparison-contrast, classification, process, chronological order, persuasive argument, etc.
3. In a longer summary, remind your reader that you are paraphrasing by using “reminder phrases,” such as
   • The author goes on to say that …
   • The article (author) further states that …
   • (Author’s last name) also states/maintains/argues that …
   • (Author’s last name) also believes that …
   • (Author’s last name) concludes that
4. Restate the article’s/lecturer’s conclusion in one sentence.
5. Give a full reference for the citation (see the example below for the in-text citations in #2). For citing electronic sources, please see Citation of Electronic Resources

Quoting Tips

Tip #1

Most students, in my experience, rely too heavily on direct quotes. A direct quote is a word, phrase, sentence, or passage taken word-for-word from the original source. I’ve noticed that students tend to skim sources, pluck quotes, drop them into a paragraph, and then move on to the next source. This is not an effective or meaningful way to interact with your sources. The majority of your interaction with sources should consist of summary, paraphrase, and ANALYSIS. Quotes, however, can and should be used. Here are some guidelines for knowing when to use direct quotations:

• Use direct quotations if the language is strikingly poetic or beautiful.
• Use direct quotations if the original author’s argument is phrased in exquisitely clear logic.
• Use direct quotations if the original language is particularly scientific or technical

Of course, there may be other reasons to directly quote, but you should always KNOW WHY you are using a direct quote instead of paraphrasing or summarizing. You should never use a quote simply to fill space, nor should you quote only because you don’t UNDERSTAND what the writer is saying. Anytime you find yourself including a direct quote, turn those three points above into questions: Is this quote poetic or beautiful? Will I ruin the author’s logic in this quote if I paraphrase it? Is this language so technical or scientific that it’s almost impossible to put it in my own words?

Tip #2

Always cite a quotation. We are using MLA format. In MLA, the standard in-text citation consists of the author’s last name followed by the page number from which the cited material comes. It would look like this:

After examining several arguments for and against using popular culture with students in the first-year writing program, Friedman concludes, “We can teach them, in the spirit of Henry Giroux, to read vampires and other forms of popular culture against the grain, to push them to think about the economic and ideological systems that shape their lives” (83).

Tip #3

If I had not used an attribution tag (“Friedman concludes”), I would have had to put the author’s name in parentheses with the page number:

After examining several arguments for and against using popular culture with students in the first-year writing program, one writer concludes, “We can teach them, in the spirit of Henry Giroux, to read vampires and other forms of popular culture against the grain, to push them to think about the economic and ideological systems that shape their lives” (Friedman 83).

Please note that the period for the sentence is placed after the in-text citation; that is the standard for MLA citation.

You must understand from the beginning of this course that failure to use in-text citation when you summarize, paraphrase, or quote means that you have plagiarized. Don’t ever forget to cite your sources.

Tip #4

You should integrate direct quotes logically and grammatically into a paragraph.

• Connect the quote to what comes before it in your paragraph
• Provide some context for where the quote comes from (notice how I wrote, “After examining several arguments for and against…”)
• Follow the quote with analysis or commentary

A dropped quote (or floating quote, as some call it) is a common error that students make when writing papers. It looks like this:

“We can teach them, in the spirit of Henry Giroux, to read vampires and other forms of popular culture against the grain, to push them to think about the economic and ideological systems that shape their lives” (Friedman 83).

Don’t do this! In MLA format, and in most other formats, this is a major error because it doesn’t do any of the three things listed above. You must integrate quotes into sentences and into the overall meaning of a paragraph.

For the past two weeks, you have been involved in a detailed conversation with Friedman (and, last week, with your classmates) about the ideas Friedman discusses in her article, “This Way for Vampires Teaching First-Year Composition in Challenging Times.pdf.” During that time, you have summarized Friedman’s article (in whole and in part!), you have paraphrased sections, and you have responded to it with ideas of your own. That process builds strong foundations for papers.

The final step in the process is to write a paper in which you thoughtfully respond to Friedman. Your response should consist of a few things, generally speaking:

• A summary of Friedman’s article
• A thesis that describes your own argument about using popular culture (or anything other than writing itself) as a subject in the writing classroom AND how it relates to Friedman’s
• A step-by-step development of your thesis in relation to and incorporating examples of Friedman’s article

It helps to see this paper as an account of your “conversation” with Friedman. Your thesis, then, is the conclusion you reached after carefully reading Friedman’s article; the paper is the map of how you got there.

For instance, you might argue that even though Friedman makes a good case for using popular culture in the first-year writing classroom, the case for focusing only on language in those classes is stronger. Then, following the map of this particular thesis, your paper would have to explain Friedman’s case, and at the same time, establish the case against Friedman by refuting her argument and asserting your own.

Or maybe you agree with Friedman. Your thesis might state that Friedman’s case for using popular culture in the first-year writing classroom makes more sense than ignoring popular culture. By agreeing, though, you don’t dodge the effort of analysis. You must bring in your own reasoning to corroborate Friedman’s argument; you should have plenty of material from your notes over the last two weeks to help you in this regard. Avoid simply summarizing. Show why you agree.

Maybe you agree with some things and disagree with others. In this case, you might state in your thesis that while Friedman is correct about _____________, she is mistaken about ____________. In this paper, you would follow the same pattern of explaining Friedman’s views as well as your own.

It’s crucial that you incorporate paraphrases, summary, and quotes in this paper.

LENGTH: ONE PAGE OUTLINE (NOTHING LONGER WILL BE ALLOWED)

Introduction (do not write the full intro here; this is an outline; you should include only the minimum needed)

• introduce author and title of article (one sentence)
• provide a summary of the article (one sentence)
• state your thesis (last sentence of introduction)

Paragraph #1

• topic sentence that develops thesis
• example from Friedman (paraphrase, quote, summary–make sure you cite it); don’t rely too heavily on direct quotes; if you are using a summary or paraphrase, include only a key word or phrase here (one sentence)
• analysis (one sentence: use phrases or key words–you only get one page for your outline)

Paragraph #2

• topic sentence that develops thesis
• example from Friedman (paraphrase, quote, summary–make sure you cite it); don’t rely too heavily on direct quotes; if you are using a summary or paraphrase, include only a key word or phrase here (one sentence)
• analysis (one sentence: use phrases or key words–you only get one page for your outline)

Paragraph #3

• topic sentence that develops thesis
• example from Friedman (paraphrase, quote, summary–make sure you cite it); don’t rely too heavily on direct quotes; if you are using a summary or paraphrase, include only a key word or phrase here (one sentence)
• analysis (one sentence: use phrases or key words–you only get one page for your outline)

(Add as many paragraphs as you need)

Conclusion

• reiterate your thesis and the steps you took to support it (one sentence)
• leave readers with a memorable insight (one sentence)

You will be required to write a full essay. It will be up to you to use this outline as a guide for that essay.

ASSIGNMENT

In a well-developed essay, explain Friedman’s views on teaching first-year writing while developing your own reasoned response. Your paper should consist of three major things:

• A summary of Friedman’s article
• A thesis that describes your own argument about using popular culture (or anything other than writing itself) as a subject in the writing classroom AND how it relates to Friedman’s
• A step-by-step development of your thesis in relation to and incorporating examples of Friedman’s article

Use your outline. Don’t forget to cite Friedman any time you quote, paraphrase, or summarize her.

This Way for Vampires: Teaching First-Year Composition in “Challenging Times”

Abstract In this essay, I respond to composition scholar Linda Adler-Kassner’s (2012) “no vampires” dictum: her stand against content (other than writing studies) in firstyear composition courses. I argue that in “challenging times,” when students are pressured to take a pragmatic, career-oriented approach to college, it is important for them to choose content, especially in a required course. It may be one of the few times in the course of a goal-focused, pre-professional college career when students can explore topics that interest them, while still learning writing skills. Further, I draw from Harris (2004) and Moskovitz and Petit (2007) to argue that first-year writing programs are more vital when they can bring together instructors from various disciplinary backgrounds for the common goal of teaching first-year writing. Finally, I contend that in “challenging times,” we are in special need of vampires or other subject matter that enables students to engage in intellectual play.

Keywords first-year composition, student engagement, popular culture, writing pedagogy, vampires

It is in playing and only in playing that the individual…is able to be creative and to use the whole personality, and it is only in being creative that the individual discovers the self. –D.W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality.

Introduction: Defining “Challenging Times” In her 2012 address at the annual conference of the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), keynote speaker Linda Adler-Kassner analyzes the reasons why these are “challenging times” for educators and how, as writing teachers and writing program administrators, we might respond. Adler-Kassner’s story begins with the 2006 Spelling Report, which criticized educators for failing to prepare students for college and careers. She goes on to reveal how a far-reaching network of organizations has developed to respond to these claims: organizations that seek to determine what “preparation” means, and how we should define “adequate” preparation. She exposes a covert educational-industrial complex, with conservative think tanks in league with educational testing companies, working together in an effort to control the kinds of learning available in high schools and colleges. That is one dimension of what Adler-Kassner means by “challenging times.” Times are also challenging for educators, she contends, because current discourses surrounding education constrain students’ approach to learning. AdlerKassner (2012) opens her talk with a graduation speech delivered by President Obama in which he encouraged students to regard their education as the best tool they have for achieving the American dream. President Obama drew on a widespread discourse about education, also expressed in the Spellings Report, that college is a means of social mobility and essentially provides preparation for becoming productive members of the 21st century economy. In a period of economic crisis, when students are especially anxious about finding jobs after college, the “social mobility” narrative takes on greater force. To respond productively to challenging times, Adler-Kassner (2012) argues, we must act from a clear set of principles about what Writing Studies is, and what it should do. One key principle is: “no vampires” (p. 132) “Vampires” is shorthand for content other than writing itself in first-year writing courses. Later in the talk, she went on to make explicit her opposition to content other than Writing Studies in writing courses: Writing classes, especially first-year classes, must absolutely and always be grounded in Writing Studies, must always be about the study of writing. They should not…engage students in writing about vampires—nor about political issues, nor about recent controversies, nor about other things that are not about writing. (p. 132) The reasoning behind the “no vampires” dictum is complex: when college is assumed to be about acquiring a credential for work, then what matters are the skills you build—content no longer matters. In writing classes, for instance, students can acquire the skills of critical thinking, effective written communication, and reading. However, Adler-Kassner points out, when our courses are conceived in terms of skills, and content is sidelined, the discipline of writing studies disappears. If we teach any content—vampires, zombies, politics, the environment—we are sidelining the discipline. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of approaches to first-year composition (FYC) and, as Beaufort (2012) has observed, no widespread agreement among writing studies scholars about the best way to structure a FYC course: Views in writing studies regarding subject matter for first-year composition courses are controversial. There is no consensus on what is appropriate subject matter in academic writing courses, nor is there any overarching heuristic to guide writing teachers in their choice of subject matter or course themes (i.e. readings and writing topics) for writing courses. (p. 4) Adler-Kassner’s talk at CWPA reflected, I believe, some anxiety about this lack of consensus in our field. This anxiety is reflected, too, in the slightly mocking air of the “no vampires” dictum—in fact, the phrase evoked appreciative laughter in the banquet room when I heard the talk delivered. Adler-Kassner openly acknowledged that one of her goals was to consolidate the identity of writing studies as a field, even as practice and theory within it becomes increasingly diverse. In addressing the problems raised above, it might be helpful to introduce the notion of what I call “theme-based” programs. Rather than selecting readings from a shared textbook (which really means that students encounter multiple themes), theme-based programs enable students to begin to develop expertise in a particular field or topic.1 In first-year writing programs such as ours at George Washington University, instructors from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds teach seminars with topics of interest to first-year students. The course themes range from: a seminar on the Holocaust, in which students do research at the national Holocaust Memorial Museum; to service learning courses, in which students volunteer for local nonprofits and write for these organizations; to a course on video games; to my own on classic Hollywood films. In their syllabi, instructors must justify their choice of topic as appropriate for a writing course, and they must follow the guidelines in a course template: http://www. gwu.edu/~uwp/new/1020template.html.2 Aside from these guidelines, instructors have considerable freedom to choose topics, as one goal of the program administrators is to appeal to a broad spectrum of student tastes. Like many faculty members in our program, I share Harris’s (2006) conception of the work of FYC as introducing students to intellectual writing: the kind of writing about texts and ideas that might appear in The New Yorker, Harper’s, or The Atlantic (p. 10). We don’t have a course specifically on vampires right now, but we have had courses on horror movies. An outstanding student in one of my courses wrote a paper on the history of zombie films—it’s probably only a matter of time before vampires make an appearance. Should we banish vampires from FYC classes? What should be our response, as writing teachers and program administrators, to “challenging times?” It’s clear that the current economic crisis is shaping our students’ experience of college in a negative way, and Adler-Kassner has offered a compelling analysis of how current discourses about education constrain us as teachers. However, I would like to question AdlerKassner’s contention that we should respond to “challenging times” by focusing our classes exclusively on writing studies. I want to reply to Adler-Kassner’s “no vampires” dictum from the perspective of someone who has taught in theme-based writing programs for more than ten years and who feels strongly about their value. I would argue that especially in challenging times, when students are pressured to take a pragmatic, career-oriented approach to college, it’s important for them to be able to choose content, especially in a required course. It may be one of the few times in the course of a goalfocused, pre-professional college career when students can explore something that interests them for its own sake—for reasons of intellectual curiosity, rather than because it is a step towards acquiring a necessary skill or credential. Teaching in Response to “Challenging Times” If writing teachers are to have a clearly defined position, Adler-Kassner (2012) argues, we must “develop and act from principles about the meaning of what writing studies and composition is as a discipline.” (p. 130. Italics in the original). Her primary principle, as I noted earlier, is that our classes “must absolutely and always be grounded in the Writing Studies, must always be about the study of writing. They should not…engage students in writing about vampires—nor about political issues, nor about recent controversies, nor about other things that are not about writing” (p.132). This certainly makes sense if our aim is to consolidate ourselves as a discipline, to develop a unified collective response to the erosion of liberal education. But should this be our goal? First, I’d like to take up the question from the perspective of teachers. In “Thinking Like a Program,” Joseph Harris (2004) observes that we think of professors in the disciplines—our allies/rivals in English for example—as enjoying status and privileges such as tenure track lines, institutional support for research, and reasonable course loads. Composition programs, by contrast, are often staffed by graduate students or underprepared adjuncts; these lower-status faculty members are swamped by student work and have no time to do the research that might enable them to advance up the academic ladder. It makes sense, then, for those of us who work in writing programs to desire the status of a discipline, since that seems to bring better working conditions and better lives. However, Harris also points out that the disciplinary apparatus we have developed (journals, conferences, graduate programs) has not actually improved working conditions for most composition instructors. Harris (2004) proposes, and I agree, that we should not focus our efforts on solidifying composition’s status as a discipline, but instead we should conceive of writing programs as sites of multi-disciplinary collaboration. He makes the radical claim that “scholars trained in English or composition studies have no unique skill in teaching students the moves and strategies of academic writing; rather, I have come to believe that close, generous, and assertive work with texts is a defining characteristic of intellectual work across a wide range of disciplines”(p. 360). Harris argues that faculty members from across the disciplines may be equally qualified to teach writing, provided they can instruct students in rigorous work with texts and in the “moves and strategies of academic writing.” Moskowitz and Petit (2007) have made a powerful argument for the “diverse disciplines” model, and for the idea that writing programs/pedagogy benefit when writing “insiders” and “outsiders” from other fields work together. This is important for the vitality of individual programs and for the field as a whole. Adler-Kassner’s “no vampires” dictum stipulates that writing courses should present only writing studies content: this model of first-year writing would mean that composition scholars certainly would have an advantage over “outsiders” from other fields. It might even mean that only those trained in composition studies could teach first-year writing. The reality is that most programs are not staffed exclusively by scholars in composition and rhetoric—most programs are already multi-disciplinary to some extent, some more deliberately than others. And that reality is good: a multidisciplinary writing program, which brings together faculty with expertise in different types of reading and writing, can become a rich site of exchange. Drawing from Harris, then, I would argue that “no vampires” is not the best approach for composition teache