Missouri Western State College
School of Liberal Arts & Sciences
English
400: Adolescent Literature (LAS Focus: Writing)
Spring,
2004
Class time
and place: 4:00 - 6:30
pm W in 210 Eder Hall (SS/C)
Dr. Cadden’s
Office: 222-F Eder Hall
(SS/C)
Office Hours: 11:00 am - 12:30 pm T/Th; 1:30 - 3:30
pm W; and by appointment.
Office Phone:
271-4576
E-mail:
cadden@missouriwestern.edu
Web Page:
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/lg/faculty/cadden.html (At
which copy of this syllabus can be found.)
Course Description:
ENG 400 is an
introduction to the genre of literature for the young adult ("YA" or
"Adolescent" literature) that appeals to YA from middle school to
high school and beyond. In this course
we will discuss the specific nature of YA literature as a genre different from
both “adult” and children’s literature by both degree and kind.
As both an LAS
Writing Focus course and an upper-division English course for majors, ENG 400
will involve writing in different forms.
I will be drawing on your ability to summarize, analyze, critique and
use language in clear and sophisticated ways.
Be prepared for a course that will involve a great deal of both reading
and writing.
Prerequisite: Junior standing.
This course is required in the BSE program and serves as an elective for the
childhood studies minor; however, this class does not count as an English
literature elective for English majors.
Required Reading:
Chbosky,
Stephen. The Perks of Being a
Wallflower.
Cisneros,
Sandra. The House on Mango Street.
Engdahl, Sylvia. Enchantress from The
Stars.
Hesse, Karen. Out of the Dust.
Klause, Annette. The Silver Kiss.
Lowry, Lois. A Summer to Die.
---.
The Giver.
Nilsen, Alleen Pace and Kenneth L.
Donelson. Literature for Today’s
Young Adults. 5th Ed.
Evaluation:
Participation:
10%
Midterm Exam: 20%
Final Exam: 20%
Researched
Essay: 25%
Discussion
list: 25%
Attendance:
The MWSC Policy Guide states that “each
instructor will determine and make known to the class the requirement for
attendance” (45). If you don’t come to
class you will obviously jeopardize your class participation grade. I will not quantify how much presence equals
what grade. I will be judging your
total participation performance, not just presence. I can also tell you that the exams draw heavily from class
work. Also, since you are responsible
for all announcements in class, you run the risk of missing important
information regarding requirements; I will not accept absence as an excuse for
ignorance. In short, if you’re not
here, you’re going to suffer through other assignments directly and
indirectly.
Academic Dishonesty: All cases in which
students pass off others’ work as their own will be referred to the Dean of
Student Affairs. Students also run the risk of failing the assignment as well
as the course, depending on the magnitude and nature of the offense. If you are unsure about how you are using
sources, please check with me.
Late and Missing Work:
I reserve the right to refuse any late work.
Revision Policy:
All written work may be revised any time up until the revision due date
(please see calendar). I require that
all revisions be accompanied by the original graded paper that contains my
comments.
Policy on Students with Disabilities:
Any student in this course who has a disability which requires different
contexts for either evaluation or expression should contact me in the first few
weeks of the course so that those needs can be considered.
Calendar (Subject to Constant
and Inexplicable Change):
Jan. 21: Introduction to the course and
critical approaches; issues of YA literature (Small; Gallo; Hunt; Campbell;
N&D Ch. 1); explanation of assignments and WebCT.
Jan. 28: The House on Mango Street;
N&D 52-53, 241, 296.
Feb. 4: Out of the Dust; N&D
Ch. 8. (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ALAN/fall98/brown.html),
Feb. 11: Poetry for
and by young adults: sharing and discussing what’s out there; N&D 297-302.
Feb. 18: The Perks of Being a Wallflower; N&D Ch.
4.
Feb. 25: Artemis Fowl; N&D Ch.
7.
Mar. 3: Enchantress from the Stars;
N&D Ch. 7.
Mar. 10: Midterm Exam.
Mar. 24:
Lois Lowry: The Giver and A Summer to Die; discussion of
Lowry’s work across age and genre.
Mar. 31: Censorship; Visit by Ms. Mindy
Matter; N&D Ch. 12.
Apr. 7: The Silver Kiss; N&D
167-72, 187-93; midterm grades due.
Apr. 14: Picture books for a Young Adult
Audience (http://www.uiowa.edu/~crl/bibliographies/picbooks.htm);
Essays Due for those who wish to be eligible to revise.
Apr. 28: YA Film: John Hughes and Beyond
(http://www.riverblue.com/hughes/films.html).
Current trends and parallels to print fiction; course evaluations;
N&D Ch. 3’s Appendix D; Essays Due.
Final Exam: Tuesday, May 11: 2:00 pm - 3:50 pm.
ENG
400: Adolescent Literature Dr.
Cadden
WebCT
Postings & Discussions
Worth: 25%
A
big part of this semester's course will be devoted to weekly WebCT discussions
and postings. These postings will
enable us to pursue threads, issues, and ideas that class time will not
permit. The postings will also give us
more valuable experience in written discourse beyond the essay and exam
forms. The purpose of these postings is
to get you generating ideas and tackling issues from a number of sources.
You will submit,
each week, at least one substantial posting (~300 words, or the equivalent to
one single-spaced page of text). This
posting, which preferably is offered up in the early part of the week, will be
in response to novels, class discussion, articles we'll be reading, others'
postings, and/or any relevant experiences.
They may be used, in turn, to develop ideas for your essay, future
postings (you may end up developing a series of responses on a single issue),
or class discussion.
If you end up
offering up more than one response each week—or in any particular week, they
all may not be of significant length; sometimes they may be brief
qualifications or questions for others.
I will take what I consider your "best" posting that week--the
one in which you do what I describe below--to assess for a grade. A week will be measured from Monday to
Sunday (so, they are due by midnight on Sunday); I'll assess weekly postings on
Monday for the previous week. Week #1
ends on Sunday, January 25; Week #14, the last post, is due Sunday, May 2. There will be no post during Spring Break.
I ask that you
do at least one of a number of things in any given posting as practice in
critical thinking: advance a point/argument that is in reaction to a point made
in class or in another person’s weekly; speculate on a phenomenon--a tension
between categories or ways of thinking (for example, reading for pleasure vs.
reading to understand or to know something); offer an observation beyond the
obvious or beyond rehashing class-time observations and comment on that
observation’s implications. You will
avoid merely sharing what you “like” or “dislike” about something unless it
leads somewhere, though we often begin with what we like or dislike, we
shouldn't end there. Always consider
the "so what?" question.
I wish to stress
the difference between critique and attack, between analytic confrontation on a
point and a personal confrontation. In
short, we should settle for neither purely unconsidered gut responses nor
whining about others’ responses to your positions; here is your opportunity to
hone your analysis, not engage in an extended, written equivalent of “Oh yeah, Mr. Smarty trousers?!!, Well. . .
.” Any point on any relevant
subject is fine as long as it refrains from mere complaint. In other words, no bellyaching'.
Please remember
that you are responsible for knowing what has been said. If, in week seven, you are interested in
sharing your thoughts on censorship, you are responsible for knowing what has
been said by others in their postings on that subject.
In light of the
above, subject titles should reflect, as well as possible, the subject of the
discussion. Save creative titles for the
interior of the document; folks will be trying to use the subject postings to
tell what has been discussed already, so be accurate. You should try to be specific in your allusions and citations to
other postings, articles, class days, and people. It only serves you better in the point you are making if we know
to whom and to what you're referring.
I think you will
find that these will become easier and more interesting as the semester goes on
and as postings accumulate! I look
forward to the conversations!
You’ll note that
on the WebCT discussion board page that there are other categories of response
other than the week’s posting. You may
submit suggestions and observations to us about the course anonymously if you like—what’s
bothering you, pleasing you, concerning you?
You may also use the “Unrelated Chat” category to discuss matters of
interest to you all, course related or not, that you’d like to share. I do ask that you do not use that space to
critique other courses or instructors since it’s inappropriate for me to have
access to that sort of thing. You may
also share ideas and ask questions about essays in that discussion area. Lastly, there is a site for you to paste
your essays. We may decide, however,
that we’d rather send attachments to each other. That’s fine.
ENG
400: Adolescent Literature Dr.
Cadden
Researched
Essay
You will have a
term paper due by the end of the semester that will be worth 25% of your final
grade. The topic is open, though it
must be relevant to adolescent literature in some important way—not simply to
literature in general, or children’s literature, or teaching literature. This may seem obvious, but sometimes
the obvious must be stated. Any paper
submitted by class time on April 14 will be eligible for revision. I will return it to you no later than the
following class period of April 21. If
you are not interested in revision you may submit the paper any time between April
14 and our last class meeting on April 28.
You should submit one copy of your paper to me as a Microsoft Word
attachment (for grading) and post one copy on the course discussion board under
“Essays and Essay Ideas.”
You should
discuss primary material we’ve read as a group, but you may also draw in other
titles about which you’re familiar. Any
course material is fair game as a subject.
WebCT and class time discussions are good resources for ideas. If your paper subject is about adolescent
literature but not about any one or few books in particular, you should use our
common readings as your examples whenever appropriate.
Secondary,
researched support is required. In
addition to using academic journals or books as resources, consider also
including WebCT posts, films, web information, interviews, and class
discussions as quotable material. The
goal here is to find anything that helps you make your point(s) in the most
convincing manner possible. You will
include a works cited page in MLA form listing both primary and secondary
materials cited in the paper.
MLA Citation information provided by
Diana Hacker and Bedford/St.Martins Press:
Hacker, Diana. Research and Documentation Online. Bedford/St. Martins. 20
Dec. 2003. <http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/humanities/sample.html>
The key here, as
with any writing exercise, is to develop a focused argument appropriate to the
scope of the assignment. You should shoot for a page range from between ten
and fifteen pages.
I will be happy
to discuss ideas and drafts (in part or whole) at any time. Come by to throw ideas at me and get ideas
from me about resources or other primary materials relevant to your
project. You should consider me
available for brainstorming and helping you to refine your idea. Please use the WebCT discussion board
“Essays and Essay Ideas” to share ideas with your peers and get feedback on
topics.
Grading Criteria for Writing in Dr. Cadden’s
English Courses:
A: 90-100 pts.
B: 80-89 pts.
C: 70-79 pts.
D: 60-69 pts.
F: 59 pts. and
below
The high end of each range (~7-10) should
be considered “plus”; for example, 88 is in the B+ range.
The
middle of each range (~4-6) should be considered a solid letter grade; for
example, 75 is a solid C.
The low end of each range (~0-3) should
be considered “minus”; for example, 92 is in the A- range.
“A”:
General
Qualitative Description:
Excellent, Superior, Outstanding.
Conception: Your idea should contain some new,
perhaps surprising, element, some angle that is uncommonly thoughtful and
insightful. You are not rehearsing other people's ideas, and you are going
beyond an average reading. You expose and challenge the explicit and implicit
assumptions of the text. If you are incorporating research, you will have
WORKED your sources--using what supports your argument, and acknowledging and
dealing with what challenges it.
Organization: Your organization should be flawless
and should match your content. You should anticipate, address, and work through
opposition to your argument and build a strong case for your own. You should employ evidence with regularity
and in appropriate circumstances. If you are incorporating research, you will
spend some time positioning your argument in the context of the larger
conversation.
Style: Your presentation should be artful. You
have obviously paid attention to the way your language sounds as well as what
it says. You have found a way to make
your presentation style match the content of your paper (other than a groovy
font style!), perhaps through a sustained metaphor, or a particularly apt
example that you carry through and refer to in the entire paper.
Grammar and
Mechanics: Your paper
should be absolutely clean and free of grammatical and mechanical errors of a
rudimentary nature, though you may have a few problems with complex functions
of grammar. You should never avoid
complex language in order to avoid errors, in other words.
“B”:
General
Qualitative Description: Above average, Good, Commendable.
Conception: Your idea will be better than average,
but you may have overlooked or not
acknowledged or interrogated the assumptions that inform
it. The claim/idea is ambitious and,
for that reason, may have gotten away from you. You will be rewarded for being ambitious even if you fall a bit
short.
Organization: Your organization will be strong, but
the signaling might still be a bit
Awkward; you may
find yourself using a lot of directional phrases because your argument doesn't
flow naturally. (Ex. "As I said earlier..." "Firstly, secondly,
thirdly...") Here too the
organization will match the content rather than being formulaic.
Style: It's clean, readable, there's a
consistent sense of voice, and there aren't any places
where a reader
has to go back and reread a sentence just to understand its structure.
Grammar/Mechanics: Very few (almost no) errors of a
rudimentary nature.
“
C”:
General
Qualitative Description: Competent, Average, Fine.
Conception: Your idea for your paper should reflect
that you have read, thought about, and paid attention to the way we have talked
in class about similar issues. Your main point should be clearly stated and
defended with appropriate evidence. You should remain focused on your topic
throughout your paper, and you should have thoroughly examined the aspects of
your topic from your perspective. Your ideas should be internally
consistent. There won’t be anything
terribly surprising, daring, or unusual here.
Organization: Your paper should have a logical,
clearly identifiable organization. Each
paragraph should
address only one aspect of your topic, and when you change aspects, you start a
new paragraph. Transitions between
paragraphs should be competently handled. Your strategy, that is, how you
manage the interweaving of your idea and your organization, should be standard
and straightforward. For instance, if
you follow a traditional pattern of an introduction that includes a flagged
thesis statement ("in this paper I will..."), then proceed with
evidence and close with a restatement of the initial problem. That's a
standard, straightforward organization--a C strategy.
Style: Your style should be clear and
readable.
Grammar and
Mechanics: Your paper
should not contain many distracting errors in grammar or mechanics. Minimally, you should have run a spell-check
program, and you should know the difference between a complete sentence, a
fragment, and a run-on.
“D”:
General
Qualitative Description: Incompetent, Inadequate, Below Average.
Conception:
Your idea will be immediately obvious to a casual reader--a no-brainer—yet it
will be presented as news. It will
likely also be not quite clear what it is that you are really saying. Split focus on more than one thesis or issue
is likely.
Organization: Perhaps you split your focus (which
means you start out talking about one thing and shift to another) which means
that you are covering several or many issues in short paragraphs. You jump from one idea to the next with no
logical strategy or transitions. If there is no plan, or if you don't stick to
the plan, this is faulty organization.
It may be evident that there wasn’t ever really a structural strategy at
all.
Style: Unclear language, usually. This may also be a matter of using the wrong
words for your ideas. Simply put, the
language is in bad shape.
Grammar/Mechanics: Consistent problems in sentence
structure with little sign of proof-reading.
“F”:
General
Qualitative Description:
Unacceptable.
(The most common
cause of an F is a failure to adequately address the assignment. For instance,
if I specify that this assignment is to be researched, or if it is to address a
certain topic in a certain way, you have to at least complete the assignment.)
Conception: No clear idea governs the words on the
page.
Organization: No plan is evident, much less achieved.
Style: Incomprehensible most or all of the
time.
Grammar/Mechanics: Consistent problems with rudimentary
mechanical matters.
*******************
The
four major areas of concern discussed above (conception, organization, style,
and mechanics) will be considered separately, when that is possible. I may find that it is difficult or even
impossible to assess conception if the style and mechanics are at the “F” or
“D” levels. It may well be the case
that your organization is a real problem while conception, style, and mechanics
are all quite good. The ultimate
assessment, then, will be the combined consideration of all four areas. Any challenges to my assessments need to
employ the above issues in those challenges.
I
cannot assess effort. Note that I do not say that I will not assess effort; nobody can assess effort unless, perhaps,
he or she is there watching you work. I
assume that you all work very hard on
your writing. I can only assess the
final product.
I
do not give grades based on your perceived needs. If you need a “B” in the course to keep your GPA up for a
scholarship, loans, or admittance into a program, then be sure you perform at a
“B” level.
I
do not give grades on the basis of your sense of identity or personal academic
history. I assess each piece of work on
its own merits. Just because you
consider yourself an “A” student does not mean that you will do “A” work each
time; just because you consider yourself a “C” student doesn’t mean that you
won’t do “A” work. Try to separate your
performance from your identity.