My research question: How can I help my students become more proficient and productive writers?
Review of Literature
While there are probably thousands of sources that a teacher could use to help her or his students develop as researchers and writers, the articles “The Art of the Police Report” and “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” offer particularly instructive moments for effective writing. What sets these articles apart is their attention to the importance of clear writing and to constructing a logical argument. Further, each source argues for the importance of trying to stay as impartial as possible when researching and writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
While the above criterion focus on , Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In addition to a sense of purpose, skillful research writing also requires that an author use logical arguments that support claims that the author makes. In “Finding the Good Argument,” Rebecca Jones argues for a collaborative argument style that attempts to persuade without relying on traditional, violent metaphors (157). She offers three rhetorical models to aid students in recognizing and creating productive (as well as non-productive) arguments: classical rhetoric, Stephen Toumlin’s claims/warrants model, and pragma-dialectics.
The first model, based on classical rhetoric, offers the view that strong arguing is important for developing citizens who actively participate in their public lives. It is important to remember that, in the classical model, logic does not mean facts or truth (163) and that it is possible to be logical and dishonest in the same argument. Essentially, the three most important components of classical, Aristotelian logic include the following components: 1) attention to the structure of the argument, either deductive (moving from general to specific) or inductive (moving from specifics to general); 2) appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos; and 3) audience awareness.
In developing his model of argument, Stephen Toumlin does not disagree with the important elements of classical rhetoric as outlined in the above paragraph. Toumlin basically posits the ideas that arguing is more complex and context-specific, and therefore he developed a model that he claims is more complex and attentive to specific, rhetorical situations. The model that he developed moves through six steps: claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers (169). Toumlin’s model provides the structure, conditions, and language that one might use to construct a coherent argument.
Our final rhetorical model under consideration is pragma-dialectics, an approach that considers the ethical dimensions of one’s argument. The concern in this model is to avoid using logical fallacies so as to ensure that the rhetor is fair, logical, and is staying on topic (172). The ten rules that Jones adapts from pragma-dialectics attempt to ensure that rhetors focus on the merits of an argument instead of their opposing rhetor (173), that rhetors engage the same topic within the argument at hand (174), and that the logic a rhetor uses must be “logically valid or must capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises” (176).
The above suggestions may seem like a lot to keep in mind while composing a research paper. This is because they are. But trust me, with practice and patience, the above steps become second nature and become a set of practical tools that are easily at your disposal. However, you might not want to just take my word for it, so I interviewed several of my colleagues on the value of the above approaches for helping students achieve success as writers.
Methods
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. The daily reports cops produce use neutral language when for instance describing a crime scene or complaint. A juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence, which can be related to writing critiquing. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on , Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is an agenda is crucial to have a clear and concise piece of productive writing.
In “The Art of the Police Report” from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts (par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what writing instructors give their students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors.
ReplyDeleteCollett claims that while the above criterion focuses on the voice of the officer, the text offers certain clues for the audience, this may appear as attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett connects the dots for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett discusses the daily reports cops must write and the importance of using neutral language (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). It is crucial not to taint the reports with bias, as if they were to be used in court as a valid statement of what occurred. The style of writing is comparable to research writing in the sense that it is recorded without personal opinion conflicting the report, and the fact that the writer must introduce their reasoning for delving into this topic. However, in both occasions, it is difficult to hold off from all biases, considering we naturally have them. Collett discusses different ways that the police must write to the point and avoid coming off as opinionated, as we must do in our own writing, despite that some aspects of the occurrence stand out to us. By simply changing one word or using certain descriptive language, we go from being neutral to opionated and vice-versa. Collet's point is that any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
ReplyDeleteIn her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops overall goal is to use neutral language in their daily reports when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This is very similar to one who is writing for jurors because the argument is appears more valid if it is neutral. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” to the jurors (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteAs previously discussed, the voice or text of an officer can give significant clues regarding their opinion. At first, this may seem to be a problem to remain neutral in . However, in police reports, slippery words such as adverbs are taught not to use, as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be insightful, especially for those who were not witnesses. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good piece of writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that most cops hate writing police reports more than any other mundane tasks such as court appearances. (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports that use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Police report writing is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students therefore college students share the negative sentiment towards writing as cops do. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
ReplyDeleteIn the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that cops dislike writing police reports more than shootouts or court appearances (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports consisting of overly descriptive, neutral language. Writing professors often give such advice to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors because a juror would only find a police officer’s testimony valid if the evidence was untainted. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduce himself and offer his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteThe above criterion focus on the voice of the officer sometimes standing out and revealing clues for the audience. This may seem to conflict with the officer’s required neutrality. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they allow for bias (par. 16). However, Collett argues that the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, police report, or piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that cops hate writing police more than shootouts or even a more mundane court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment many college students might share. Collett notes that all cops must use neutral language when writing required daily reports, advice similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors; if a juror is confident a police officer has not tainted the evidence, she would find the officer’s testimony valid. To have credibility, an officer must, “introduce himself and offer his credentials for telling this tale,” (par. 10) exactly as a author must do in research writing.
ReplyDeleteEven with neutral language, Collett claims that sometimes voice of the officer shows. In writing that that attempts to remain neutral, this may at first appear to be a problem. In police academy, Los Angeles officers learn to write precisely and to the point, avoiding slippery words like adverbs, as they potentially offer interpretation instead of facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues for descriptive words, as details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
Ellen Collett’s article Utne Reader connects to my study in several ways. Ellen Collett writes that the mundane task of writing police reports is something that most cops detest more than more deathly events like shootouts (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. The guidance that police receive from their mentor is the same kind of advice that we writing instructors often give to students. This connects to research writing because we, as writing instructors, do not consider the writing valid unless it is not tainted with bias, the same as jurors would evaluate the writing of a cop.
ReplyDeleteCollett addresses the slippery issue of preciseness versus illuminating details. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy to be precise and to the point and to remain neutral in the illustrated situation (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can give more insight into the story. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good police report and any good piece of persuasive writing must always have its own sense of purpose, which is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops greatly abhor (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops must write unbiased daily reports that describe a crime scene or complaint. This advice makes particular sense if we regard our audiences as jurors. They would find a police officer’s testimony valid if the juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe author argues that the voice of the officer may provide the reader with clues. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be concise to prevent the officer from offering his interpretation of the event (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be helpful for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” These two statements differ greatly. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students, the students often feel as if a paper is the most mundane aspect of research. Another connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduce himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteCollett claims that the officer’s voice sometimes shows through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event (par. 16). However, Collett argues that these details can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s provides an excellent example:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning.” (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the police report is something most cops hate (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. All cops are asked to write daily reports with neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint, similar to what students are asked to do. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors, who would find a police officer’s testimony valid only if they are confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on, Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral. Los Angeles police officers learn that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However Collett disagrees, claiming that the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing an event. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they offer interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of
In the article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint much like what is given to students by professors. Another connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteAs previously discussed, Collett claims do focus on the idea that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. For example, the Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. For, adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues this, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Starting by “introducing himself and offering his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10) Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports with an overall goal to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. This makes sense as the audience is the jury, which should believe an officers testimony so long as the evidence is not tainted.
ReplyDeleteTrying to remain neutral in such situation can be difficult. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
Corey Walkovitz
ReplyDeleteIn her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. For example, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence.
While the above criterion focus on, Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning.
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops overall goal is to use neutral language. Such advice is similar to what writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. A juror finds a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the evidence isn’t bias. “One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on , Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police academy teaches that writing should always be precise and to the point, words that offer personal interpretation of events shouldn’t be used.(par. 16). However as as Collett argues, details of a story can be illuminating:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Collet emphasizes that a sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
Utne Reader, by Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or mundane events like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors; a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as the officer has not tainted the evidence. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on Collett claim that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. As police officers learn in police academy, slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30) Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than ordinary police work (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett says all cops write daily reports and the goal is to use neutral language. Such advice is similar to what writing instructors give to students. This advice makes sense if we consider our audiences jurors. A juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid as long as that juror knows the officer hasn’t tainted the evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhile this criterion focuses on the voice of the officer, sometimes it can show through in the text. This is a problem for neutral writing. Police officers learn in academy to be precise. Adverbs should not be used because they are the officer’s interpretation instead of the facts (par. 16). Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story are illuminating.
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have an agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on , Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. However, Collett argues that the audience does need to know the details of the crime scene to come to a decision.
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate even more than shootouts (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to be fair, that is, not “taint” the evidence of a case or incident. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on , Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene.
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her Utney Reader article, Ellen Collett states that writing police reports is something that most cops hate more than mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Cops must write daily reports and are advised to use neutral language when describing a crime scene. This sound writing advice makes sense if we think of our audiences as jurors who find our testimony valid, so long as we haven’t tainted the evidence.
ReplyDeleteCops learn in police academy that writing should always be precise. Adverbs and other potentially misleading words should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of the facts (par. 16). However, the voice of the officer shows through the text in their distinctive writing style. Collett argues that the details of a story can be illuminating for those who did not witness the crime scene:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Any good police report or piece of persuasive writing must always have a crucial sense of purpose.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Utne Reader, Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteAt first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that a sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that writing a police reports is something that most cops hate even more than shootouts (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes, the use of language included in cops daily reports, must remain neutral when describing a crime scene or complaint. Similar advice is given to students from their instructors. This advice makes sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. A juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. Another connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteAt first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett discusses the brutal mundaness of police report writing (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Cops must write daily reports using neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint, which is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors, finding a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteWhile the above criterion focus on , Collett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point, free of slippery words and interpretation, and comprised solely by fact (par. 16). However, Collett argues that, contrary to police belief, the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for the common arbiter. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
There are many sources teachers use to help their students become better writers. The articles “The Art of the Police Report” and “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” offer useful advices for effective writing. The articles are unique because of their attention to the importance of clear writing and to constructing a logical argument. Further, each source argues for the importance of trying to stay as impartial as possible when researching and writing.
ReplyDeleteIn her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the goal is to write neutrally when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what writing instructors often give to students. This advice is useful if we allude to jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. One final connection to research writing is the need for an officer to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
Collett claims that sometimes the voice of the author shows through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. It seems to be a problem when writing is supposed to be neutral. Los Angeles police officers learn that writing should always be precise and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any piece of writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops write daily reports they aim to use neutral language. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. Also, the officers often present themselves with a badge, improving upon their ethos. (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteCollett claims, that the voice of the officer sometimes show through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers learn in police academy that writing should always be precise and to the point. Adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate even more than shootouts or a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4). All police officer must write daily reports which the overall goal is to use neutral language to describe a crime scene or complaint. Similarly, we writing instructors often give students this advice: we tell them to think of the audiences as jurors who would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as the officer has not tainted the evidence. The officer also needs to “introduces himself and offers his credentials for telling this tale” (par. 10).
ReplyDeleteThought, the voice of the officer sometimes does getting reveal through the text as certain clues peak out for the audience to see. This seems to be a problem for writing which has to remain neutral. Los Angeles police officers learn writing should always be precise and to the point. Adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, this may not always be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collet quotes illustrates her point perfectly:
In the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
In her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4), a sentiment that many college students might share. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence. Police academies teach that writing should always be precise and to the point and neutral to avoid reflecting personal interpretation of an event, instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, especially for those who did not witness the crime scene. Collett’s argument is worth quoting in full as she connects the dots clearly for her reader:
ReplyDeleteIn the witness section of the report, Brown might say, “Victim’s
mother gave no statement.” Martinez would tell us, “Mother refused to cooperate.” This carries a totally different emphasis and meaning. Martinez doesn’t speculate if she’s protecting her husband at the expense of her child. He doesn’t need to. What kind of mother refuses to speak when her baby is bleeding from three orifices? (par. 30)
Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.
While there are probably thousands of sources that a teacher could use to help their students develop as researchers and writers, the articles “The Art of the Police Report” and “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” offer particularly instructive moments for effective writing. What sets these articles apart is their attention to the importance of clear writing and to constructing a logical argument. Further, each source argues for the importance of trying to stay as impartial as possible when researching and writing.
ReplyDeleteIn her article from the Utne Reader, Ellen Collett writes that the writing of police reports is something that most cops hate more than shootouts or even more mundane occasions like a court appearance (“The Art of the Police Report” par. 4),. Collett writes that all cops must write daily reports and that the overall goal is to use neutral language when describing a crime scene or complaint. Such advice is similar to what we writing instructors often give to students. This advice makes particular sense if we think of our audiences as jurors. In other words, a juror would find a police officer’s testimony valid so long as that juror is confident that the officer has not tainted the evidence.
At first, this may seem to be a problem for writing that is attempting to remain neutral in such a situation. Los Angeles police officers are trained to write precisely and to the point. Slippery words such as adverbs should not be used as they potentially offer the officer’s interpretation of the event instead of just the facts (par. 16). However, Collett argues that this may not be the case as the details of a story can be illuminating, for those who didn’t witness the crime scene. Her point is that any good story, any good police report, and piece of persuasive writing must always have its own agenda. A sense of purpose is crucial for productive writing.