When asked about the prompts, the professor recognized that some prompts asked for “reading comprehension” (i.e., they asked students to look for and recount discrete pieces of information from the source text), while others required “higher-level” responses (i.e., greater analysis and argumentation) (Professor interview, November 2013). He stated, however, that he Afatinib wants the students to take the “reading comprehension” type of questions and do something extra with them by, for example, synthesizing information in order to make a point that was not in the source text, making a judgment based on the source reading, “imposing order” on the text (e.g., “The most pressing problem that China has is…”), drawing connections with other readings, or discussing the potential biases or limitations of the source text and author. In this way, “the students can make the material their own” (Professor interview, November 2013). This is similar to Martin et al.’s (2010) point that a challenge of argumentative history writing is for students to move beyond telling stories, and to work towards making interpretations of the past. We found that although these types of ‘extra’ analysis were mentioned in the grading rubric (“making links between different historical events or different historical sources” and “sensitivity to biases, limitations, etc. of sources” within the Synthesis and Analysis category), they were not explained explicitly in the assignment description. The professor stated that if a student gets a high grade, then rhizoids will individually advise the student to, next time, go beyond the source text in order to get a higher grade. This was reflected in the students’ writing as well; only the most advanced students were consistently able to respond to a prompt that encouraged recount about a secondary source by writing an argumentative, analytical essay.
↧