Whilst i understand that it isnt your job to teach your student how to write, i've alwys found the following essay structure (which was taught to me in English Literature in Year 11 & 12 at school) is at the very least a great place to start. If you arent looking for a solution to this problem, move onto the next post now
.
Introduction:
- A General opening statement about the topic
- Rephrasing the question; whilst ensuring that you still answer the question, but rephrasing you can then place special emphasis on areas that you feel confident about - it has the added bonus of being able to communicate with the examiner what question you are answering etc.
Do not fall into the trap of not answering the specified question!
- Define the key part(s) of the question - this is especially pertinent in Economics where clear definitions are important.
- Forshadow the main topics of discussion - these will form the ideas for your body paragraphs.
- Thesis statement; the "argument" which you are trying to prove/disprove etc.
Paragraph 1
- Introductory sentence similar to intro
- Argument (what is the point you are trying to make, the item foreshadowed in the Introduction)
- Explanation (if its not immediately clear, but with Economics this is important)
- Evidence; perhaps the most important area is to
prove what you are talking about using references from the text (in Lit) or from textbooks, original sources or data, etc etc.
- Linking sentence back to the
Thesis; this is important as it makes it clear how the area where you are looking at is actually relevent to answering/supporting et al your essay's argument. It makes the essay flow nicely and acts as a backup to ensure that whatever you are saying is relevent (examiners hate people who prattle on and write everything they know in the hope that something in there answers the question).
Para 2 through to how many points you have follow the same structure.
Conclusion
- re-state the question that you answered, ideally altered a little in order to show development through the essay (ie, if your argument was "All roses are red" and you have 6 points that say this is true, but one point that gives doubt, then say "Roses are mostly red" etc.
- a Summary of your main points (similar to the foreshadow from intro)
- A personal thought or observation is usually a nice way to finish.
Interestingly, at uni in a legal unit i was introduced to a different way of "essay" writing. It was called a "Four Step Process" and went as follows;
Step 1:
Identify the area of law - usually just the one or two sentences required to clarify from the question.
Step 2:
Outline
all the theory for the relevent section of law. Ie, if it was Negligence then you'd have to look at Duty of Care, Standard of Care (and one other that i've forgotten! how naughty of me), plus all their sub-sections and examples of case law which apply (like IRC v Hincy as an example of the Literal rule of Statutory interpretation).
Step 3:
Apply the Theory to the Question. (Usually the question would give a story to which you would need to apply step 2 to. Most of the time a large majority of the story was satasfied by the theory, but there would be areas that werent as clear and these points are important).
Step 4:
Reach a conclusion - speculate as to the likelihood of the success or otherwise of the defendent etc in the areas where there is unclarity from step 3.
For example, a story that i remember from an exam two years ago went along the lines of the following. There is a statute; "Use of Mobile Phones Act 2004" (fictional) which states that no-one is to "talk on a mobile phone whilst driving a motor vehicle". The story says that a chap who is riding his bicycle is listening to girlfriend prattle on is arrested for breaching this act.
Step 1 would identify the area of law as statutory interpretation
Step 2 would say that there are three types of statutory interpretation; Literal, golden rule and liberal interpretation. Plus cases, proof etc.
Step 3 would be fun. You would be able to talk about the literal interpretation would be (ie, he isnt
talking on his phone, he is merely
listening) and thus should not have been arrested, or apply Golden Rule (clearly the statute (given its name)
meant that talking was the same as listening and then should be arrested, or the Liberal interpretation could be that having possesion of the phone would be a breach etc. Then you'd go on to argue whether a bicycle was a motor vehicle or not.
Step 4: Give a reccomendation. I said that the chap was highly likely (in a legal context you cant be certain untill after it has gone to court etc) to be in breach of the statute as by using golden rule interpretation he is using his mobile phone, and that bicycles are considered to be motor vehicles (i was alone in my class for arguing that, most people said it wouldnt as they though bicycles were not motor vehicles. i'm pretty sure that they are in a legal context). Anyway, story over.
In the real world, though, i've found a combination of the two for my Economics classes to me most useful. The 4 step process lends itself to report writing (to an extent, obviously), and the true English Lit essay style is too strict for use in economics, so i've found that a hybrid is the most useful. But that's another story.
Yahwe, best of luck for helping your student.