Introduction Style One-A
If you're in one of my cultural studies (i.e. non-history courses), see below
This section is for those in one of my history courses
I have created a how-to video for this intro style that you can find here (temporarily down).
I usually give these types of assignments in my lower-division courses. They will usually look something like this:
Or this:
Let's look at this as if you were taking one of my history courses (for the first example above):
[1] After finding three articles on the gadget, I believe they were worthwhile inventions that improved the lives of ordinary Americans; however, the gadget was not a particularly long-lived invention, giving way to the technologically superior egget within thirty years. [2] Business guru James McClain (1985) believed the gadget arrived at a time in America when widgets and whuzzits had a significant market share but did not satisfy all their users' needs. [3] Gadget inventor Adam Abrahams also noticed this disparity and in a 1978 interview stated that “in 1918, widgets and whuzzits had an eighty percent market share, but I knew the American public wanted a product that would solve all their problems.” [3a] Both of these individuals stressed the time saved by Americans after adopting the gadget and how they used that time to improve social relationships among family and friends. [4] However, during my research, I found a compelling argument by industry expert Allison Akoni (2011) who believed that the egget so “clearly obsoleted [everything else that] the American public quickly fell out of love with the once-revolutionary gadget” (25). [5] Studying the rise and fall of the gadget demonstrates the power of newer technologies and their ability to supersede popular products that once came before.
Let's look at this from the second example's point of view:
[1] After examining the evidence given by historian Lisa Collins and the gadget's inventor, Adam Abrahams, it is clear that the gadget was worthwhile since it bettered the lives of so many for almost thirty years (1978). [2] After its introduction in 1918, Abrahams' gadget was accepted by the public quickly thanks to its ability to save them time and labor. [2a] Soon after it quickly dominated the market. [3] Collins argued in 1998 that although the gadget made a positive impact, gadgets harmed laborers' health in the long-term since it required them to manipulate it with their hands rather than their feet. [3a] Collins' believed that workers "simply swapped one problem for another when they adopted the gadget" (43). [4] Although Collins' argument is sound, she forgets that the gadget also helped laborers create hospitals more quickly, which allowed them to enjoy a higher quality of life. [5] These contrasting arguments demonstrate that, although imperfect, a new invention is better measured holistically when determining its abilities to positively affect the lives of those who utilized it.
In this type of assignment, sentences [1] and [4] are similar, however. Sentence [1] gives your reader a summary of who you believe is right and [4] provides your reader the evidence (specifically) that made you assert [1].
That's all there is to it! It really is like painting by numbers. Most writing of this type might seem a bit bland since we're not really worried about being creative (e.g. Cormac McCarthy) and we're really trying to get our point across without frills.
Also, since this is the first time I'm introducing these people to my paper, I have to give their first and last names. From this point on, I only use their last name.
This section is for those in one of my history courses
I have created a how-to video for this intro style that you can find here (temporarily down).
I usually give these types of assignments in my lower-division courses. They will usually look something like this:
- Find at least three authoritative articles that discuss the development of the widget and determine: 1) if the gadget was a worthwhile invention; 2) if it changed the lives of most Americans (somehow); and 3) why the gadget failed to hold on to its market share.
Or this:
- Of these two authors, which of the two: 1) argues that the gadget was worthwhile; 2) argues that it wasn't worthwhile; and 3) which one convinces you more, given the evidence?
Let's look at this as if you were taking one of my history courses (for the first example above):
[1] After finding three articles on the gadget, I believe they were worthwhile inventions that improved the lives of ordinary Americans; however, the gadget was not a particularly long-lived invention, giving way to the technologically superior egget within thirty years. [2] Business guru James McClain (1985) believed the gadget arrived at a time in America when widgets and whuzzits had a significant market share but did not satisfy all their users' needs. [3] Gadget inventor Adam Abrahams also noticed this disparity and in a 1978 interview stated that “in 1918, widgets and whuzzits had an eighty percent market share, but I knew the American public wanted a product that would solve all their problems.” [3a] Both of these individuals stressed the time saved by Americans after adopting the gadget and how they used that time to improve social relationships among family and friends. [4] However, during my research, I found a compelling argument by industry expert Allison Akoni (2011) who believed that the egget so “clearly obsoleted [everything else that] the American public quickly fell out of love with the once-revolutionary gadget” (25). [5] Studying the rise and fall of the gadget demonstrates the power of newer technologies and their ability to supersede popular products that once came before.
Let's look at this from the second example's point of view:
[1] After examining the evidence given by historian Lisa Collins and the gadget's inventor, Adam Abrahams, it is clear that the gadget was worthwhile since it bettered the lives of so many for almost thirty years (1978). [2] After its introduction in 1918, Abrahams' gadget was accepted by the public quickly thanks to its ability to save them time and labor. [2a] Soon after it quickly dominated the market. [3] Collins argued in 1998 that although the gadget made a positive impact, gadgets harmed laborers' health in the long-term since it required them to manipulate it with their hands rather than their feet. [3a] Collins' believed that workers "simply swapped one problem for another when they adopted the gadget" (43). [4] Although Collins' argument is sound, she forgets that the gadget also helped laborers create hospitals more quickly, which allowed them to enjoy a higher quality of life. [5] These contrasting arguments demonstrate that, although imperfect, a new invention is better measured holistically when determining its abilities to positively affect the lives of those who utilized it.
In this type of assignment, sentences [1] and [4] are similar, however. Sentence [1] gives your reader a summary of who you believe is right and [4] provides your reader the evidence (specifically) that made you assert [1].
That's all there is to it! It really is like painting by numbers. Most writing of this type might seem a bit bland since we're not really worried about being creative (e.g. Cormac McCarthy) and we're really trying to get our point across without frills.
Also, since this is the first time I'm introducing these people to my paper, I have to give their first and last names. From this point on, I only use their last name.
This section is for those students who are in one of my cultural studies courses
I have created a how-to video for this introduction style if you are in one of my culture/current events classes, which you can find here. See below (don't rely solely on this video).
Also, here is a textual description if you want to copy it and review it before, during, or after the video.
How the paragraph itself is structured:
[1] Here's what's going to be argued in this paper. [2, maybe 2a, b] A summary of the main argument of source #1 (tell me the author's name, a briefly sum up their argument). [3, maybe 3a, b] A summary of the main argument of source #2 (tell me the author's name, a briefly sum up their argument. [4, maybe 4a, b] A summary of the main argument of source #3 (tell me the author's name, a briefly sum up their argument). [5, maybe 5a, b] Tell your reader a basic "so what? / significance" about why your paper matters to those studying history (or current events--whatever the case may be).
In other words, you don't have to be a great or even good writer, it's more about filling in the sentences with your own. As you get more comfortable with the format, you can try to expand on it, but, for now, you only have to get good at "writing by numbers," so to speak.
Sentence [1] is the most important since it has to summarize--in one sentence--everything you're going to argue in your entire paper.
Let's look at this in context (this is a paper for a culture class--see above for a history example):
[1] After finding three articles on the widget, I believe widgets were worthwhile inventions that changed the lives of ordinary Americans; however, the widget will not be a particularly long-lived invention and will disappear within a decade. [2] As business guru James McClain (1985) points out, widgets came about at a time in America when gadgets and whuzzits had a significant market share, but neglected large portions of the buying public. [3] Widget inventor Adam Abrahams also noticed this disparity and in a 1978 interview stated that “in 1918, gadgets and whuzzits had an eighty percent market share, but I knew the American public wanted a product that would solve all their problems.” [3a] Both of these individuals stressed the time saved by Americans after adopting the widget and how they used that time to improve social relationships among family and friends. [4] However, during my research, I found a compelling argument by industry expert Allison Akoni (2011) who believes that new computer technology will soon make up for the widget’s shortcomings and will save consumers even more time. [4a] She believes that this computer technology has “already obsoleted the widget and will fully erode its consumer base within a decade.” [5] I agree with Akoni’s analysis of the computer’s future impact on the widget, but McClain and Abrahams made a strong case for the historical importance of the widget and why it is an important fixture in the American home today.
That's all there is to it! It really is like painting by numbers. Most writing of this type might seem a bit bland since we're not really worried about being creative (e.g. Cormac McCarthy) and we're really trying to get our point across without frills.
Also, since this is the first time I'm introducing these people to my paper, I have to give their first and last names. From this point on, I only use their last name.
- Find at least three current, authoritative articles that discuss the development of the widget and determine: 1) that the widget was a worthwhile invention; 2) that it changed the lives of most Americans; and 3) that the widget will have a long lifespan.
Also, here is a textual description if you want to copy it and review it before, during, or after the video.
How the paragraph itself is structured:
[1] Here's what's going to be argued in this paper. [2, maybe 2a, b] A summary of the main argument of source #1 (tell me the author's name, a briefly sum up their argument). [3, maybe 3a, b] A summary of the main argument of source #2 (tell me the author's name, a briefly sum up their argument. [4, maybe 4a, b] A summary of the main argument of source #3 (tell me the author's name, a briefly sum up their argument). [5, maybe 5a, b] Tell your reader a basic "so what? / significance" about why your paper matters to those studying history (or current events--whatever the case may be).
In other words, you don't have to be a great or even good writer, it's more about filling in the sentences with your own. As you get more comfortable with the format, you can try to expand on it, but, for now, you only have to get good at "writing by numbers," so to speak.
Sentence [1] is the most important since it has to summarize--in one sentence--everything you're going to argue in your entire paper.
Let's look at this in context (this is a paper for a culture class--see above for a history example):
[1] After finding three articles on the widget, I believe widgets were worthwhile inventions that changed the lives of ordinary Americans; however, the widget will not be a particularly long-lived invention and will disappear within a decade. [2] As business guru James McClain (1985) points out, widgets came about at a time in America when gadgets and whuzzits had a significant market share, but neglected large portions of the buying public. [3] Widget inventor Adam Abrahams also noticed this disparity and in a 1978 interview stated that “in 1918, gadgets and whuzzits had an eighty percent market share, but I knew the American public wanted a product that would solve all their problems.” [3a] Both of these individuals stressed the time saved by Americans after adopting the widget and how they used that time to improve social relationships among family and friends. [4] However, during my research, I found a compelling argument by industry expert Allison Akoni (2011) who believes that new computer technology will soon make up for the widget’s shortcomings and will save consumers even more time. [4a] She believes that this computer technology has “already obsoleted the widget and will fully erode its consumer base within a decade.” [5] I agree with Akoni’s analysis of the computer’s future impact on the widget, but McClain and Abrahams made a strong case for the historical importance of the widget and why it is an important fixture in the American home today.
That's all there is to it! It really is like painting by numbers. Most writing of this type might seem a bit bland since we're not really worried about being creative (e.g. Cormac McCarthy) and we're really trying to get our point across without frills.
Also, since this is the first time I'm introducing these people to my paper, I have to give their first and last names. From this point on, I only use their last name.