Analytical Writing

色々大事なことが書かれている

一部このページに抜き出したけど、全てではない

Analytical writing is required in academic writing to show relationships between pieces of information. It is used to compare and contrast, assess or evaluate (for example, a number of approaches, theories, methodologies or outcomes). It has a structure based on the ordering of main ideas in relation to each other and uses evidence from various sources.

Analytical writing typically:

creates relationships between individual pieces of information by identifying main points and grouping information under these main points or conceptual categories.

creates its structure by ordering the main points or concepts in relation to one another.

often puts the identified concepts, at the beginning of the sentence, in theme position.

uses comparative and contrastive language to express the relationships between different pieces of information, for example, comparative and contrastive conjunctions, adverbs and adjectives.

uses evidence from multiple sources to support assertions which are made.

Analytical writing allows you more scope than descriptive writing to show your voice, that is, your interpretation of the source material.

However, your readers cannot detect your academic/analytical voice because you:

have not stated a clear position and developed arguments to support it.

問題が明確に指示してなくても、「claim」をしっかり明示すべき

have not made explicit judgments about the material you are presenting.

materialを載せるだけは教科書、それをevaluateしないといけない

have not tried to persuade your readers – you are still basically just informing them.

What are the signs of a good History essay?

It has a clear and firmly expressed argument in the introduction and conclusion

It expands upon, justifies and defends that argument throughout the essay body

defendが肝

It has good structure, ie. logical and effective organisation of ideas and topics, that suggests thinking and planning

5分でちゃんとoutlineを用意する

It supports its arguments and statements with evidence (ie. quotations, historians' ideas, statistics, reference to documents)

It uses clear language that conveys meaning ... it doesn't try to 'sound too clever', becoming unclear or vague in the process

It analyses by considering the significance of certain events and why they occurred, rather than just describing them

It references its evidence and includes a bibliography of all sources used in research

I once heard a History lecturer explain the process of essay writing thus:

"Writing a History essay is like building a house. Before you build a house you need all the tools and ingredients, so collect them all first. Every house needs a blueprint; this is your essay plan, which you will devise first. The framework of the house is the structure of the essay ... the paragraphs, the topic sentences. All houses need a solid base and the base of your essay is your research; make sure it is solid and you can build upon it. The bricks give the house strength, the strength of your essay will come from evidence. Houses aren't built in five minutes, and neither should essays. Build an essay, don't just sit down and start writing it while hoping for the best."

The information presented on the pages below will hopefully allow you to develop a closer understanding of the mechanics of writing good History essays. It is sometimes long and quite detailed, but that reflects the complexity involved in writing History essays.

WRITING A PARAGRAPH

The trap many students fall into is thinking that the paragraphs in their History essays should be like the paragraphs in novels, magazines or (worse) newspapers, i.e. short snippets of information. This is not the case... in a History essay paragraphs are, in essence, mini-essays themselves: they introduce a point, they expand and explain the point, discuss its significance, support their ideas with evidence, then link back to the question and their main argument. A paragraph is almost like a self-contained mini-essay.

The difference between description and analysis

This skill is the main difference between poor or average History students, and good or great History students. Generally speaking, it is the difference between explaining what happened and the higher-order skill of explaining why it happened and evaluating its significance.

In most cases, it is easy to read a book or watch a documentary and explain what happened at a particular event: the Boston Tea Party, the storming of the Bastille or the 'Bloody Sunday' shootings in St Petersburg. Similarly, it's easy to write about the vagaries or quirks of individuals (eg. Thomas Jefferson and his 'affection' for female slaves, Marat's skin diseases or Rasputin's personal hygiene). And it's often more 'fun' to write about these things as though they are a story we are re-telling (particularly if they involve the violent, the ghastly or the just plain weird, as some do).

At this level of History, however, we are less interested in the what and the how and more in the why. The study of cause, effect and outcome are what concern us. We want to know why things happened, what caused them, what consequences came from them, what their significance or importance was, what links they had to other key events, ideas or leaders. We are in the business of critical evaluation, not storytelling.

So, consider the following points when striving for analysis and evaluation over description:

When describing or explaining an event, person or policy (eg. the Reinsurance Treaty, fall of the Bastille or Rasputin) use one sentence.

Then, consider what caused or motivated this event, person or policy

Then, consider what effects or outcomes did this event, person or policy stimulate

Now, what links did it have to other events, people, groups or policies? Look for connections.

これはcontextを示すこと

Then look for perspectives on and different interpretations of this event. Explain them, investigate their merit.

Howeverにcounterする

Finally, can we explain its significance or 'meaning'? How important was it, by comparison to other factors?

Using evidence

There are many reasons behind the requirement to include evidence in your coursework and assessment tasks:

without it, your work will almost certainly lack complexity, depth, detail, substance and validity

it demonstrates that you have read and researched the topic, and have sound historical skills

it supports your arguments and helps them appear solid, convincing and justifiable

it distinguishes a solid piece of research from ideas that are just plagiarized or paraphrased from elsewhere

use of evidence is a vital skill for studies at tertiary level, in almost all disciplines, and many professions and vocations

From a teacher's perspective, there is nothing worse than reading an essay that shows strong knowledge of events but fails to support or justify that knowledge with evidence.

OK then, so when should I use evidence?

There are no guidelines on the best time to use evidence in an essay (although you should never introduce new material into an essay conclusion). The views of other historians' may be incorporated in intros and conclusions when they correspond or clash with your own, so you can contradict them or offer them as an alternative (this can often be an effective technique).

なるほど

So how do I incorporate evidence into my essays?

The first step is to prepare to use evidence by having a range of facts, events, quotes, examples, figures etc. Taking notes, highlighting phrases in texts and hand-outs, and collecting and collating these quotes is an important part of the process before essays and exams. You should go into these tasks with a range of evidence you can draw upon and use in your writing. Organising evidence into themes or sub-topics will make them easier to access. (For instance: Social, Political, Cultural, Minorities, Economic etc etc)

Signpost your evidence and analysis. It is very useful for both you and the reader to use phrases like: An example of this is… this was evident in…. as was seen when/in…..however… another key point... etc etc. See more signposting words here. These signposts signal to the reader that an important point is coming up. Examiners and teachers like signposts because they provide structure to an argument.

やっぱ分かりやすくやったことをアピールするの大事

THE 7 KEY SKILLS FOR WRITING A SUCCESSFUL HISTORY ESSAY

Understanding the wording of a question

ちゃんと問題をハイライト・指差し確認すべき

command term, "one/two wars" "different regions"

これやらかしそうだなー、怖い

Planning the essay

Writing a strong introduction

Avoiding irrelevance

Avoiding a narrative based answer

Using your own knowledge analytically and combining it with awareness of historical debate.

Writing a strong conclusion

(Source: “History for the IB Diploma: Imperial Russia, Revolutions and the Emergence of the Soviet State 1853-1924”, by Sally Waller)

Always RTBQ and ATBQ. (Read the question and Answer the question)

Here are some ways to think about your question:

What is the problem it suggests?

What is the ‘angle’, the issue, which makes it interesting?

What is my first reaction to the question: yes, no, maybe?

Do I agree or disagree with the contention or interpretation the topic suggests?

What ideas and issues can I explore by answering this question?

Is there a simple answer, or might it be more complex than it looks?

What kinds of information is the question asking me to use?

What themes can I explore?

これら大事そう

ESSAY WRITING WITH TEAC

There are many essay writing frameworks out there. I am sure you know the old hamburger image and the TEEL structure, but I find that these models do not convey the sophistication and analytical depth that is needed for a good paragraph / essay for IB History. So I came up with my own. I am calling it TEAC:

Topic sentence, Theme, Thesis

Evidence, Evaluation, Example and Explanation

Analysis and Assessment

Conclusion

Some further explanation:

A clear first sentence should convey what the key point (thesis) is of this paragraph. Also, a thematic approach is far stronger than a simple narrative account. Categorising events in themes like political, military, economic, social, long term, short term, strengths, weaknesses, causes, effects, ideology etc etc will produce a much more sophisticated and analytic essay than just telling the story.

Evidence, Evaluation, Example and Explanation should contain stats, quotes, years, events, people. Great sentence starters are: An example of this is, it can be seen that, this is illustrated by, as shown by, for example, as historian XYZ stated etc. This is where you show you know your stuff.

Analysis and Assessment. Every IB History essay will require you to make a judgement. Just spitting out everything you know is not enough (avoid simple narratives), you have to place your knowledge into context and analyse why it was significant, what was more or less important, assess its effect or reasons why.

Note that E and A are intertwined.

Conclusion: Always stay on track in addressing the essay statement. Conclude each paragraph with something that links to either your topic sentence or the essay statement itself. You can reuse some of the key words from the essay statement (but not verbatim, that is too simplistic). Also, take note of the command term of the question; do what you are "commanded" to do.

-Analyze

-Compare & contrast

-Discuss

-Evaluate

-Examine

-To what extent

SOME GOOD LINKS