Project Two Reflection
Project Description
The purpose of project two was to make an original claim in response to The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. The authors argue that colleges are doing a disservice to students by overprotecting them. The goal of the essay was to come up with an original claim rather than just simply agreeing or disagreeing with it. It also required analyzing the source, using critical reading skills, organizing the essay in an effective manner, and citing the source properly. Another point of the project was to approach writing as a recursive process. Students had to plan their essay, write a draft, peer edit, and revise.
Annotations
For the annotations, we had to annotate The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. This set of annotations was different because the entire class was commenting on the same document. Additionally, we had to respond to other students’ comments. My annotations included asking questions, expressing my disagreement, sharing a new perspective to their argument, and engaging in a productive conversation with my peers. A good example of my annotations is when I responded to a section about colleges ruining students. “I don’t think making more socially-responsible students is coaxing them to think in distorted ways. It is instead teaching them how to be a more respectful and kind human being“. This annotation was a good example because it showed how I could take their point and reply with my opinion. Another noteworthy example would be a reply that I left on another student’s comment. I said, “I absolutely agree with this. There are some things that are just completely wrong and need to be fixed. Accountability is necessary for certain offenses.”. The comment I was replying to was demonstrating her disagreement towards the author’s claim. I supported her argument and provided my own thoughts.
Homework Assignments
Another crucial aspect of project two were the homework assignments. Each assignment is meant to develop your understanding of the content and to help you with the writing process. If I had to score myself on the homework assignments on a five-point scale, I would give myself a five. All my assignments were substantial because I wrote a lot, put in a lot of effort, and thoroughly answered the prompts. I spent countless hours working on each assignment and trying to complete it to the best of my ability. A noteworthy assignment was entry eight. This assignment required me to identify examples of Lukianoff and Haidt using the agree, disagree, and agree but disagree method. I also had to try out these methods myself using the article. This assignment was beneficial because it allowed me to try out templates from They Say/ I Say and to practice getting better at this skill. Homework entry ten was also beneficial to me as it required me to plan out my revision. I had to reflect on my peer review, my own personal analysis of my essay, and then come up with things I wanted to revise.
Homework Entry 8:
Part 1:
Lukianoff and Haidt agree with a statement from an article in Inside Higher Ed, where several professors explained the problems with trigger warnings. “A trigger warning, they wrote, ‘serves as a guarantee that students will not experience unexpected discomfort and implies that if they do, a contract has been broken’ (Lukian and Haidt). This quote was then used to integrate Lukianoff and Haidt’s own ideas. They go one to talk about how students might expect trigger warnings for most topics and that educators might have to stop teaching anything that could be “uncomfortable”. The use of the quote supported Lukianoff and Haidt ideas that trigger warnings were shielding students from things they don’t need to be. The authors also demonstrated the agree but disagree method when talking about former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the International Monetary Fund’s managing director, Christine Lagarde. Both Rice and Largarde faced criticism from things of their past. Lukianoff starts off by acknowledging the other side and then sharing their disagreements. “Members of an academic community should of course be free to raise questions about Rice’s role in the Iraq War or to look skeptically at the IMF’s policies. But should dislike of part of a person’s record disqualify her altogether from sharing her perspectives?” (Lukianoff and Haidt). The authors admit that people should be free to raise possible questions but that should not mean that Rice and Largarde no longer have to ride to share their own perspectives. They also mention that over criticizing them can do more harm than good, because they could have been valuable role models for young people. Rice was the first black Secretary of State and Legarde was the first female finance minister of a G8 country and head of the IMF. Lukianoff and Haidt argue that could have been an inspiration to young women but were instead punished for parts of their pasts. Lukianoff and Haidt disagree with the ideas of Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn. “Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting ‘your feelings guide your interpretation of reality’”. (Lukianoff and Haidt). They respond to that quote by saying that feelings are not good representations of the truth. Right after inserting the quote, they directly disagreed by saying “But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong” (Lukianoff and Haidt). They took the argument from the quote and provided a different perspective to it. From there, they were able to go into their next point of how therapy involves training to not let your emotions represent the truth or importance. Lukianoff and Haidt flipped the quote around to fit their argument instead.
Part 2:
In The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, I agree with their argument about violence not being the proper response to speech. The authors say, “When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response” (Lukianoff and Haidt). I agree that violent responses are not the answer, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe that it is the best solution. I believe that education is a much more efficient solution to speech. Responding violently and aggressively is not going to accomplish much. Simply educating the person on the issue of what they said is much more effective than attacking them. In the article, Lukianoff and Haidt bring up the effect on social media in the classroom. They argue that it is changing the dynamic between educators and students. “But social media has also fundamentally shifted the balance of power in relationships between students and faculty; the latter increasingly fear what students might do to their reputations and careers by stirring up online mobs against them” (Lukianoff and Haidt). Although I agree with Lukianoff and Haidt to a point, I cannot accept that social media is always wrong in this situation. Social media can definitely take things out of proportion and make smaller issues seem significantly bigger. However, it also allows students who normally would not have a voice be able to speak up against wrong doings. In some scenarios social media can provide justifiable awareness and action against real issues. Social media is not always the answer to every minor inconvenience but it can be useful for actual problems. A focal point of Lukianoff and Haidt’s argument is the issue with trigger warnings. They argue that students with PTSD should not run away from their problems. They propose that these students should be experiencing their traumas in a classroom setting. “A discussion of violence is unlikely to be followed by actual violence, so it is a good way to help students change the associations that are causing them discomfort” (Lukianoff and Haidt). The authors claim that experiencing a discussion of violence in a classroom rests on the questionable assumption that everybody’s level of trauma is the same. For some students, talking about triggering subjects while around their peers will only make them feel worse. People with PTSD should not be forced to be in an environment where they are reminded of their trauma. Instead, they should be able to learn at their own pace and in a way that feels safe to them. I also disagree that a classroom is a good way to help students change their associations that are causing them discomfort. A public environment mixed with triggering topics could cause intense stress and anxiety. It should ultimately be the students decision to face their traumas, because only they know how they feel. The educational environment that they are in should not be forcing them to face things that they are not ready to experience yet.
Homework Entry 10:
After reading my peer review, I noticed that all of my comments were positive. A recurring theme of my comments was that she liked my ability to state my “I Say” in response to the “They Say” from the article. Some other comments include agreeing with my points or expressing how they live specific phrases. As nice as it was to get positive feedback, it would be nice to get some constructive criticism. I appreciate the pleasant comments but I want to be able to improve my essay. I do not have many comments to go off of, so I need to break down my essay myself. Thankfully I have the graded comments from my first draft which I can incorporate into my essay. The comment from that is to look at the end of the introduction and to refine my “I Say”. I absolutely agree with these comments. A big part of my revision plan is to make my introduction more complete. Similarly, I would also like to add to my conclusion and make it feel more finished. As my graded comments said, I would like to expand on parts of my argument. One specific place is when I talk about students not getting warnings in the real world. My “I say” is only two sentences and I think I can articulate it more clearly. Another example is when I mention the limit on a teacher’s curriculum. I plan to make this argument stronger by adding more of an “I say” to it.
Attendance, Focus, and Engagement
Attendance, focus, and active engagement are necessary in order to thrive in a class. I attended all but one class due to extreme circumstances. However, I made up that absence by making a discussion post and replying to my peers. On an attendance rubric, I would say I was proficient since I technically had no absences. When it comes to engagement and focus, I would also say I was proficient. In discussions, I consistently speak and participate. Additionally, I am a very active member of my small group and ran a very long class discussion. Plus, I answer questions in class whenever I can.
Rough Draft and Peer Review
During the prewriting stage, I completed every assignment. A vital homework assignment for me was entry nine. We had to write out how exactly we disagreed with Lukianoff and Haidt. Originally, I was going to use this assignment to help me with my essay. After writing it, I realized that I was more passionate about just trigger warnings and decided to focus my essay specifically on that instead. This assignment is what led me to choose the topic of my essay. As previously mentioned, homework entry ten was very helpful because it allowed me to develop a thorough revision plan. I was able to use that plan to guide me through my revision process. My peer reviews were helpful to me as well. Most of the comments were positive which did not allow for much revision, but it was nice to know that I was on the right track. I also left substantial peer review comments on my group members’ essays. I left helpful suggestions, compliments, and a lengthy end comment to help them. Peer reviewing is very helpful because it gives you a glimpse of how others are interpreting the prompt. You can also learn from their mistakes and successes. Peer review is very important because you cannot often see the mistakes in your own paper and a fresh perspective can be beneficial.
Homework Entry 9:
My own personal opinions differ from those of Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in The Coddling of the American Mind. The overall message of the article is that colleges in America are overprotecting and doing a disservice to students. Lukianoff and Haidt’s claim overlooks the positive aspects of creating a safe place for students. Maintaining an environment where everyone feels safe and respected is necessary for academic success. Plus a safe environment encourages the formation of socially-responsible students. Contrary to the claim by Lukianoff and Haidt saying that it is coaxing them to think in distorted ways, it is instead teaching them how to be more respectful and kind human beings. Additionally, Lukianoff and Haidt’s view that trigger warnings prevent students from facing their problems does not account for the fact that everybody’s trauma is different. Some students may have faced significant trauma in their life, and they might not be ready to face it yet. It should not be forced upon them if it could cause serious stress and anxiety to them. Students know their situation the best and it should be up to them to decide how to handle it. In the article, the authors also address the concept of microaggressions. I disagree with Lukianoff and Haidt’s view that microaggressions often have no ill intent and should not be offensive. Microaggressions are comments that can make students feel uncomfortable and unsafe. I can acknowledge that some microaggressions are accidental and are a product of being uneducated, but that does not mean that they should be allowed. Backhanded comments or insulting quips should have no place on a college campus, or anywhere else for that matter.
Course Learning Outcome Self-Assessment
The course learning outcomes were:
1.) Demonstrate the ability to approach writing as a recursive process that requires
substantial revision of drafts for content, organization, and clarity (global
revision), as well as editing and proofreading (local revision).
2.) Be able to critique your own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision
early in the writing process and local revision later in the process.
In project one, I began to look at writing as more of a recursive process. I had never really followed an exact process like this before so it was all very new. Throughout project two, I feel as if I have gotten stronger at following this process. I am a very organized person and a detailed routine is very beneficial for me. All of these recursive steps are very helpful in order to create a polished final product. The prewriting assignments, first draft, peer review, and revision all are there to help make a great final draft. An example of using this process in project two would be the improvement between my first and second draft. In my original introduction, I left the end of the paragraph unfinished and weak. After revising, I included a more complete ending. I believe that I was also able to effectively critique my work and the work of others. An example of my peer reviewing skills is from the end comment on another’s paper. This example shows that I can read a piece of text and think critically about the parts of it.
Rough Draft Introduction Last Sentence
“Another common concern is the effect trigger warnings have on the curriculum teachers can teach.”
Final Draft Introduction Last Sentence
“Despite the potential negative effects, trigger warnings do more good than harm for students.”
Peer Review Example
“The first priority issue would be to add more context to the last sentence of the third body paragraph. It sets up as if it is going to talk about that more and then the paragraph ends. It is a good point but it just needs to be expanded on, and then wrapped up with a concluding sentence.”
Overall Reflection
My writing goals for project two were to have effective quotes, develop a strong “I say”, not be redundant, and have a nice flow between sentences. I spent a lot of time rereading the article and thinking critically about how the quotes impact my argument. I did not just choose quotes that shared some similar keywords but rather quotes that had strong meanings. In order to develop a strong “I say”, I tried using the templates from They Say/ I Say. Those templates gave me ideas on how to uniquely phrase my argument that I could adapt to fit my ideas. It made it so I did not have to say things like “I disagree” every single time. I also tried not to be redundant, so I read my sentences out loud in order to tell if I was being repetitive or not. It is often very helpful for me to verbally say the sentence because I cannot tell just by reading it sometimes. The practice of reading sentences out loud is also very helpful to check the flow of the paper. It lets you identify if sentences are too blocky and do not read well. The use of all of these strategies helped me achieve my goals and overall made my project two go better.
Similarly to project one, the creation of ideas went the best for me. I had an easy time coming up with my points and letting the words flow out. Trigger warnings are a topic that I am passionate about and so it made it easier for me to write. Plus, I tend to do well with active reading and breaking down another person’s argument. The assignment that was easiest for me was the annotations. I found the article interesting and I enjoyed leaving my own understanding of the article for others to read. I really liked doing the annotations on a shared document this time. It is fun to discuss and comment on other people’s take on the article.
In project two, I could also use more practice on revision. I had less comments to help me revise this time which meant I had to find things to revise myself. It is important to do a self analysis on your paper but getting comments from others are very helpful. Revision is definitely something I could improve on because I often feel stuck. I tend not to know what to change and are afraid that I will mess up my paper more.
Compared to project one, I think I preferred project two more. It was on a topic that I was much more interested in. I also enjoyed all the freedom that I had with it. For example, the article included so much information that I was specifically able to narrow it down to just trigger warnings. Plus, I have always enjoyed writing argumentative papers. I did a really good job staying up to date on my assignments and even being ahead. I gave myself plenty of time to do my best work and I want to continue this practice throughout future projects. My other goals for next time would be to still get more confident in the revision process and continue to follow the recursive process.
