Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [43]
What Faculty Seek in Student Writing
Metacognition
The word metacognition means thinking about thinking. The first step in improving as a writer is to press yourself to become more aware of your own thinking, not just what you think—your “database” of customary convictions—but how you think. Interestingly, most of us don’t pay much attention to how we think. It just happens. Or does it?
An obstacle in learning to think well is that we are accustomed to being rewarded for having answers. This was the view advanced by one of America’s greatest metacognitive philosophers, John Dewey, in his book How We Think (1933, rev. ed.). Dewey:
located the origin of thinking in uncertainty and doubt;
worked to understand understanding—the meaning-making process; and
defined thinking as “systematic reflection and inquiry.”
In this context, let’s now return to the five analytical moves in more detail. These will add to the repertoire of observation and interpretation strategies you learned in Chapter 2—enhancing your ability to engage in what Dewey calls “systematic reflection.”
MOVE 1: SUSPEND JUDGMENT
The first of these five moves, suspending judgment, is really more a pre-condition than an actual activity. We include it as an analytical move, however, because suspending judgment takes an act of will, and we need then to consciously substitute other ways of thinking.
As we suggested in our critique of the Judgment Reflex in Chapter 2, the tendency to judge everything—to respond with likes and dislikes, with agreeing and disagreeing—shuts down our ability to see and to think. Just listen in on the next three conversations around you to be reminded of the pervasiveness of this phenomenon.
Consciously leading with the word interesting (as in “What I find most interesting about this is …”) tends to deflect the judgment response into a more exploratory state of mind, one motivated by curiosity. As a general rule, you should seek to understand the subject you are analyzing before deciding how you feel about it. (See the discussion of interesting, revealing, and strange under Notice and Focus in Chapter 2.)
MOVE 2: DEFINE SIGNIFICANT PARTS AND HOW THEY’RE RELATED
Whether you are analyzing an awkward social situation, an economic problem, a painting, a substance in a chemistry lab, or your chances of succeeding in a job interview, the process of analysis is the same:
Divide the subject into its defining parts, its main elements or ingredients.
Consider how these parts are related, both to each other and to the subject as a whole.
One common denominator of all effective analytical writing is that it pays close attention to detail. We analyze because our global responses—to a play, for example, or to a speech or a social problem—are too general. Let’s say you hear a local environmentalist give a public lecture on pollution. Afterward, you tell your friend, “I heard this great talk.” This kind of generic response one could offer about almost anything. Such “one-size-fits-all” comments don’t tell us much, except that you liked what you heard.
In order to say more, you’d need to become more analytical: you’d shift your attention to different elements of the talk and how they fit together. You might note that the talk began with a slide show of polluted creeks and that the speaker explained how different kinds of drain lines—sewer lines and storm water lines—are connected, so that when there are not enough water treatment plants in an area, a storm can cause the drains to overflow capacity and force officials to use “direct release,” thus easing the pressure on the facility but fouling the