Hierarchial POV

In analysing this text I concur with you both that the spelling errors and lack of substantial evidence in the analysis are merely the result of a lack of effort a student puts into a first year assignment and the pupil shouldn’t be judged too harshly for these. Most of the spelling problems I’d guess are due to an absent-minded approach to the ‘change’ button in the spell check e.g. wheat, there. Such problems could be overcome early if the pupil merely read the text out loud.

Such an activity may also reveal a global problem in the form of hierarchical structure, as the paragraphs tend to read like lists rather then structured arguments. More like ticking the boxes then having any serious thought applied to them. I’m using Willis L. Pitkin, Jr’s definition of operation of discourse[1] to analyse multiple base clauses in the texts such as

“Young children are active explorers and thinkers. They identify easily with events and people in literature. They can relate to what they hear or read through their own experiences (Jacobs 1978). The Hoard of the Gibbelins was a Victorian Tale”

The use of conjunctive verbs in this passage would of made the text flow easier rather then the staggered (almost gunshot) approach of short succinct sentences. The first sentence sets up the topic well for the following two lines but the third line should clearly be subordinate to the second. The forth sentence sounds like it should be a different paragraph and seems tagged on. Despite some mistakes in the story and analysis, I do think praise should be given for the pupil’s clarity of expression. But I think his sentence structure could improve if he had a hierarchical plan and was able to write a more linear argument.

A good idea for a plan would be Richard L Lacan’s idea of a Linear Rhetoric which “views discourse as a succession of steps taken in a temporal sequence (section by section, paragraph by paragraph)”[2] As the writer is still learning to write at a university level I would recommend them to decide propositions and conclusions in advance of writing so they can create a linear argument through the text. As the writer also seems to be full of good ideas I’d also recommend perhaps the technique of making two plans for two separate arguments in assignments and then putting them together in combination.

[1] Willis L. Pitkin, , ‘Hierarchies and the discourse hierarchy’ in J Stor.org (http://www.jstor.org/view/00100994/ap020292/02a00030/0?currentResult=00100994%2bap020292%2b02a00030%2b0%2cA61E&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3DHierarchical%2Bwriting> Accessed 10th May 2006)
[2] Richard L Lacan, ‘Toward a Linear Rhetoric of the Essay’ in J Stor.org, (,< http://www.jstor.org/view/0010096x/ap020094/02a00030/0?currentResult=0010096x%2bap020094%2b02a00030%2b0%2cE6&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3DHierarchical%2Bwriting> Accessed 5th May 2006) p.141