Building you Ideas

Introduction and Definitions:
In this lesson plan you will learn to make truly effective revisions on arguments. Effective revisions do not involve checking for grammar and spelling errors that you may have made. To make truly effective revisions you are altering and adding to your original ideas. Your job is to build upon what you already have. The point is to make your arguments stronger and clearer. The smaller grammar and spelling errors will come later, for now ignore those.

How to effectively revise your ideas:
Start by re-reading your literary work. When looking over what you have written keep in mind your thesis or hypothesis, this will help you keep on track. If the ideas you present in the rest of your paper don’t match your hypothesis or thesis then change is needed. Ways that this can be found in your paper are when ideas are not complete, do not transition well, or are completely out of place. To help keep the topic of each paragraph visible to yourself write down a single sentence that summarizes it. Once you have done this read each sentence in order. Do the ideas of these sentences transition well from one to another or could they be reorganized to be more effective? Once you are more organized look at each paragraph individually. When looking at each paragraph you need to be sure that the argument within the paragraph is clear and as concise as possible. This is where you might cut some work. But after the cutting comes the creating. You don’t want to add any fluff to your paper but every idea should be fully developed. If there are any open ended ideas be sure to finish exploring them and relating them back to your thesis. Once this is done do it again. Note: Reading out loud is a good technique so your ear can help you catch mistakes.

Example:
In my own work I have had issues with both organization and open ended ideas that I forgot to explore. Below are two papers with a before and after revision. Neither have a lot of markings on them for sentence correction but each focus on an aspect of effective revision. The first paper has an open ended idea that doesn’t fit with the rest of the paper. The second example shows ineffective organization by presenting two arguments in one paragraph.

First example: Before: To expand on Postman’s views it is not only the physical technology but the virtual and online communities that are destroying human interaction and social abilities. As technology changes so does mankind, and with a greater use of online communities like Facebook and Myspace, people are losing the comfortableness and the overall ability to communicate properly. Because the newer generations have grown so attached to this new technology they are more comfortable typing on a keyboard rather than having a real face to face interaction with another person.
After: As Postman argues technology destroys culture, we ask what culture is. Culture is the way in which people live. Culture involves tradition, language, religion, different forms of art and other behaviors within a society. To expand on Postman’s views, it is not only the physical technology but the virtual and online communities that are destroying culture, language, interactions and the ability to be social. With the greater use of online communities like Facebook and MySpace, people are losing the ability to communicate properly. As the younger generations grow so attached to this new technology, they are becoming more comfortable typing on a keyboard rather than having a real face-to-face interaction.

In this paper I take Neil Postman’s views about how technology destroys culture and I apply these ideas to online communities. I tend to focus on the destruction of language and human interaction. In the introduction paragraph above I mention human interaction and social ability (the highlighted part) but immediately start a new idea afterwards. In my revised work, my ideas are not really changing but I make them clearer. I give a little more description and transition by including the idea of language. I also explain more of Postman’s original ideas and how my own are built off of them.

Second example: Before: But the wolf is not the evil that the ranchers make it out to be. In fact the Mexican Grey Wolf is known as a keystone species to its enviroment. A keystone species is a species that has a larger effect on its enviroment, meaning it has an effect on other species as well as the land in determining their numbers and health. With the reintroduction of wolf there is of course going to be two sides, one for and one against its return. Ranchers in surrounding area of where the wolf is being reintroduced are especially against the wolf’s return since with each new set of paws the threat against their livestock grows.
After: With the reintroduction of wolf there is of course going to be two sides, one for and one against its return. Ranchers in surrounding area of where the wolf is being reintroduced are especially against the wolf’s return since with each new set of paws the threat against their livestock grows. While ranchers dislike the wolf, for every cattle that the wolf does end up killing, the owners are paid by the organization as long as it can be proved that the cow was killed by a wolf…
But the wolf is not the evil that the ranchers make it out to be. In fact the Mexican Grey Wolf is known as a keystone species to its enviroment. A keystone species is a species that has a larger effect on its enviroment, meaning it has an effect on other species as well as the land in determining their numbers and health. When the wolf hunts it keeps both the larger herd population in check, like elk, as well as the rodent population. That’s right, a big part of a wolfs diet is smaller mammals and berries…

This article was written about the reintroduction of the Mexican Grey Wolf. In the revision I realized that my orginal first paragraph had two major flaws. First I was combining two ideas that didn’t really fit together. Talking about ranchers and wolves in a single paragraph not only made my argument less clear it also weakend it. The other major flaw was the ordering of ideas. When presenting two sides to an argument it is best to have your argument come second as a kind of rebutle. So in my revision I split it in to two paragraphs, in which I could add more material on each subject. I also started by talking about the ranchers hating the wolf and followed it up by how much we actually need the wolf because of its importance.

Assignment:
For you assignment, write a paragraph arguing for or against human expansion to Mars. Next you will edit your work. Since it is sometimes easier to edit work that you haven’t seen in a while lets speed up the process and trade with your neighbor. Read over each paragraph one at a time. Read outloud and make notes to discuss after reading. When reading each other’s papers be sure to focus on the main ideas your peer presents. How can they make this idea stronger and more persuasive? Is it well organized? Are their thoughts clear and complete? Remember this is not a time for the little stuff so don’t worry about it, focus on the main ideas!