Acting on Feedback

1. Acting on Feedback How to use essay feedback constructively

2. Purpose of feedback • Feedback and comments on essays should explain areas where improvement could be made • It is important to understand the comments that tutors often make • Rectifying these areas can lead to significant improvements in future assignments

3. Understanding feedback • Comments should cover a number of areas. • Substantive issues are the most important. • Argument and analysis • Quality of resources • Structure • Formatting concerns, grammar, and word count are secondary, but still important.

4. Need for more.. • Elaborate • Explain further • Expand • Analyse • Substantiate But what do these mean?

5. Interpreting comments… Let’s look at what these comments mean using the topic: “Democracy is the preferable system of governance”.

6. Elaborate / Expand • This means that you have likely asserted a point without taking it to its logical end. • For example: “Democracy is preferable to non-democratic forms of governance since democracy encourages active citizenship.” • This point is incomplete • Unclear 1) why active citizenship is important, and 2) how democracy facilitates this.

7. “Democracy is the preferable system of governance”. Rather: “Deliberative democracy ensures that there are on-going platforms for citizen participation. This may include referenda, open hearings and public consultation by parliament, and various constitutional rights such as the right to assembly and the right to protest. Deliberative democracy therefore provides a political environment that encourages active citizenship. Active citizenship is an important component of governance since acts as a counter-balance to the power held by official government posts. This helps to minimise abuse of these posts, as well as helps to ensure that citizens are directly and indirectly affecting the outcomes of debates that concerns them.”

8. Explain further / Substantiate your claims • You may have written your point, but you have not sufficiently substantiated the assertion that you have made. • For example, “democracy is the ideal system of governance”. • You have not explained why it is ideal.

9. “Democracy is the preferable system of governance”. Rather: “Democracy is the ideal system of governance because it allows for free and fair elections. This means that citizens have the opportunity to participate in electing who governs their country. This may help make leaders more accountable to the public since they know that their jobs are at stake if they do not perform well.”

10. Analyse • You may have only repeated (paraphrased) other authors’ arguments without showing that that you have thought about the argument being made and how it is relevant for the topic. • For example, “Smith provides a weak definition of ‘democracy’. He defines democracy as ‘free and fair elections’. However, Watkins provides a stronger definition of democracy and this is more useful. Watkins defines ‘democracy’ as ‘free and fair elections’ as well as a change in the ruling political party, whilst retaining a stable political environment.” • This example shows that the student has simply regurgitated two definitions from readings that they have done, and they have failed to provide any analytical insight. Consequently, they have failed to link it to the essay topic.

11. “Democracy is the preferable system of governance”. Rather: “Watkins’ definition of democracy is preferable to Smith’s. Watkins agrees with Smith that ‘democracy’ must include ‘free and fair elections’. However, Watkins also argues that a system of governance can only be considered a ‘democracy’ once there has been a peaceful handover of power between different political parties. This means that there is a stricter condition set for what is considered a ‘democracy’ that requires that out-going political parties accept their electoral defeat and handover power without destabilising the country. The definition of ‘democracy’ is crucial when considering the statement “democracy is the preferable system of governance" since there ‘democracy’ is a deeply contested concept. Both Watkins and Smith’s definitions can be considered “weak” definitions. While Watkins’ provides a stricter definition, his version still overlooks important components of democratic living, such as public participation.”

12. Need for less… • Too descriptive • No argument • Too lengthy • Not to the point • Omit • Confused/Unclear

13. Too descriptive / No argument • There are two components to consider. • Have you analysed? • Secondly, are you making an argument? • You need to minimise contextual information to that which is essential for understanding the topic and your argument. • E.g. When discussing the causes of the Rwandan genocide, it is important not to spend too much time describing the events of the genocide – i.e. all the different massacres. • Your focus needs to be on answering the question: what the causes of the genocide were. 

14. Too lengthy / Not to the point • You need only include information that serves the purpose of supporting your thesis statement. • You should try to do this as directly and concisely as possible. • Ask yourself: “why am I telling the reader this?” • Write as simply and succinctly as possble.

15. Not answering the question • Before writing your paper or exam you need to take some time to ensure that you have clearly understood the question that has been set. • Next, you must make sure that your thesis statement is arguing a point that answers the question or responds to the statement. • You must be able to show how your argument relates to the topic in a clear way.

16. Not answering the questioncont. • “What, according to MahmoodMamdani, was the main cause of mass participation in the Rwandan genocide? Is this convincing?” • If you fail to identify what Mamdani asserted as the main cause, you have not answered the first part of the question. • If you do not explain why or why not it is a convincing argument, you have ignored the second part of the question. • If you fail to clearly show why or why notMamdani’s argument is convincing in light of other literature, you have not answered the second part of the question. • The reader needs to clearly see what Mamdani has argued and what you think about his argument, and why you have arrived at this conclusion.

17. Omit / Not knowing when to introduce information • You may not introduce new information in a conclusion. • You should not include unnecessary information. • Remember, you must be able to answer the question: “Why are you telling me this?”

18. Confused / Unclear • PLANNING! • Consider a mind-map • Think carefully about how the point you are trying to make relates to the question asked. • Edit your work.

19. Argumentation Structure and flow Valid and sound arguments Common logical fallacies

20. Argumentation – structure and flow • Pay attention to the flow of your argument • Do the points logically follow? • Arguments consist of premises and conclusions. • Premises are statements that support the conclusion. • Basic structure of an argument: • Premise 1 • Premise 2 • Premise 3 • Therefore, conclusion (=1-3)

21. Logical arguments • Arguments are convincing if they are valid and sound. • A valid argument is that is logical, but not necessarily true. • All men are tall. • Socrates is a man. • Therefore, Socrates is tall. • This argument logically follows, but the first premise is false. The argument is logically weak.

22. Logical arguments cont. • An argument is sound if the premises are true and logically strong. • All men are mortal. • Socrates is a man. • Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is the desirable type of argument that you should be presenting in your papers.

23. Avoid Logical Fallacies • There are a number of common fallacies (invalid arguments). • We will consider: • Ad hominem • False dichotomy • Confusion of correlation and cause • For a comprehensive list see: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

24. Ad hominem • An attack on a person’s character or personal traits to discredit their argument. • This is problematic because it may not actually engage with the substantive issues raised in the argument. • E.g. “Mamdani’s argument is unconvincing because he does not have a PhD from Princeton.”

25. False Dichotomy • Two alternatives are presented as the only options, when there are actually more. • Also known as “black-or-white”. • E.g. “Hutu Rwandans participated in the genocide either because they wanted resources or because they hated Tutsi Rwandans.” • We know that there are many different factors that contributed towards why Rwandans participated in the genocide.

26. Confusion of Correlation and Cause • Causality is determined when an effect can definitively be said to be a result of a particular phenomenon. • E.g. Your toe is sore because you stubbed it. • Effect = pain. • Cause = stubbing. • Thus, it is clear that the effect is a consequence of the cause.

27. Correlation • In the social science, we often are considering correlations, and not causality. • Correlation means that there is some sort of relationship between two or more factors, but it is not necessarily clear which direction this relationship runs. • E.g. Strong democracies may be correlated with wealth and education, but it does not follow that wealth and education cause democracy. There may be other factors that are overlooked in this study, such as homogeneity.

28. Structure • Weak introduction • Avoid mechanical writing. • Try contextualising the discussion that will follow with a single sentence. • Thesis statement • This needs to be a more explicit statement of intended argument and findings.

29. Structure cont. • Avoid making readers think: “So what?” • Ensure that your paragraphs follow one another coherently. • Conclude paragraphs by relating them to your thesis statement and/or question. • Weak conclusion • Not merely a summary. • Final opportunity to starkly state the conclusion your paper arrived at. • No new information, but can consider possible consequences of your findings.

30. Quality of research • Unreliable source • Peer-reviewed • Date of publication • Seminal works • Insufficient Research • Important to read authors on both sides of an argument. • Quantity and quality matter – analysis and presentation matter!

31. Quality of research cont. • Misinterpretation • Often the result of poor skim reading. • E.g. If Mamdani’s presentation of alternative causes of the Rwandan genocide in isolation, one may think that Mamdani stresses scarcity of land as a prominent cause. Only by reading the whole article is it clear that this is not the case. • Misrepresentation • This can be a consequence of misinterpretation or a case of dishonesty.

32. In conclusion… • It is crucial that you: • Read through the comments left by your tutor; • Jot down some responses to those comments – whether you disagree with them (and why) or simply because you don’t understand. • Consult with your tutor!!

33. This presentation is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution2.5 South Africa License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/za/ Or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.