The Curious Case of the Repeating Essay Errors (And How We’re Trying to Crack It)
Picture this: you’re deep into grading a stack of student essays. Coffee’s lukewarm, the desk lamp casts a familiar glow, and you’re navigating arguments about climate policy, literary symbolism, or historical cause-and-effect. Then, suddenly, you pause. That reasoning… it feels strangely familiar. A few essays later, there it is again. And again. Like a persistent echo in student writing, the same fundamental logic mistakes keep resurfacing across different topics, different classes, even different academic years.
This wasn’t just a feeling; it became an undeniable pattern. Week after week, semester after semester, certain logical stumbles seemed almost hardwired into the essay-writing process for many learners. It wasn’t about typos or grammar slips; it was about the very architecture of their argumentation. The core structure holding their ideas together had recurring, predictable weak spots.
So, what are these persistent gremlins? Let’s unpack the top contenders that kept showing up:
1. The “Because I Said So” Fallacy (Missing Evidence Links): This manifests as a claim followed by… well, nothing substantial. A student might assert, “Social media is destroying genuine communication.” Okay, a strong stance! But then, the next sentence jumps to consequences or solutions without ever explaining why or how it’s destroying communication. Where’s the bridge? Where’s the specific example, the statistic, the expert observation linking the cause to the effect? It’s like claiming a bridge is unsafe without pointing to the cracks. The reader is left asking, “Based on what?” The connection between the stated idea and the supporting proof (or the lack thereof) was a glaring omission.
2. The “Everything is Everything” Fallacy (False Equivalence & Oversimplification): This one involves lumping vastly different things together as if they were identical, or boiling complex issues down to a single, neat (but inaccurate) cause. Imagine reading: “Both strict parenting and neglectful parenting damage children. Therefore, all parenting styles are harmful.” This ignores the vast spectrum between those extremes and the nuances of different approaches. Similarly, “The economic recession happened because Company X laid off workers” ignores the intricate web of global markets, interest rates, and consumer spending. Students often struggled to acknowledge complexity, opting instead for overly simplistic comparisons or single-cause explanations that couldn’t bear the weight of reality. They’d treat vastly different scenarios as identical, or ignore crucial contextual factors.
3. The “Running in Circles” Fallacy (Circular Reasoning & Weak Analysis): This mistake involves restating the claim as its own proof, or offering analysis that merely paraphrases the evidence instead of interpreting it. For example: “Shakespeare’s use of darkness symbolizes evil because darkness represents evil in the play.” This simply repeats the initial observation without digging into how it functions, why Shakespeare chose it, or what deeper meaning it reveals about character or theme. Or, after quoting a source, the student writes: “This quote shows that the author believes climate change is urgent.” Well, yes, but what specifically in the quote conveys that urgency? How does the language used create that impression? The analysis lacked depth, often circling back to the surface-level point without adding new insight or truly engaging with the material. Evidence was presented, but the crucial step of explaining how it proved the point or what it signified was frequently skipped or handled superficially.
Seeing these patterns wasn’t just frustrating; it was illuminating. It highlighted a gap not necessarily in subject knowledge, but in foundational critical thinking and argument construction. Students often knew what they wanted to say but stumbled on the how – the logical rigor needed to convince a reader.
This realization sparked a question: Is this pattern universal? And what tools can genuinely help?
To move beyond anecdotal observation, I’m launching a focused initiative: seeking 50 students to participate in a targeted logic skills test and feedback program.
Here’s the plan:
1. Diagnostic Test: Participants will complete a concise, practical assessment designed to surface these specific logic pitfalls. It won’t be about memorized facts, but about applying reasoning to short scenarios and argument snippets – mimicking real essay challenges.
2. Structured Feedback: Instead of just a score, each student will receive detailed, personalized feedback pinpointing their specific strengths and weaknesses regarding the logic patterns mentioned (evidence linking, avoiding oversimplification, analytical depth). This feedback will focus on why a particular reasoning approach was problematic and how to strengthen it.
3. Targeted Mini-Lessons: Based on common weaknesses identified across the group, participants will receive access to short, focused video lessons or interactive exercises directly addressing those recurring logic issues (e.g., “Building Causation Bridges,” “Navigating Complexity Without Oversimplifying,” “From Paraphrase to Profound Analysis”).
4. Follow-up & Reflection: After engaging with the materials, students will have a chance to apply their understanding to a small revision task or reflection prompt, consolidating the learning.
Why 50 Students? This number provides a solid sample size to identify clear trends beyond individual quirks. It allows us to see how frequently these specific mistakes appear together, if some are more prevalent than others, and whether certain patterns correlate with essay performance or specific subjects. It also makes the personalized feedback component manageable and meaningful.
What We Hope to Learn:
Prevalence: Just how common are these specific logic errors across a diverse student group?
Patterns: Do students struggling with one type (e.g., missing evidence links) also tend to struggle with others (e.g., circular analysis)? Are certain errors more dominant?
Intervention Impact: Does focused, actionable feedback, combined with specific resources addressing these exact pitfalls, lead to measurable improvement in logical reasoning applied to writing tasks?
Tool Validation: Does this diagnostic and feedback model effectively identify needs and provide useful guidance?
This isn’t about catching students out; it’s about pinpointing a shared challenge and developing better ways to equip them with essential reasoning skills. The goal is to transform that frustrating sense of déjà vu (“There it is again!”) into a roadmap for building stronger, more persuasive, and logically sound arguments.
By understanding the root of these repeating logic stumbles, we can move towards teaching strategies and resources that directly target them. If you’re a student interested in sharpening your critical thinking and essay logic (and receiving detailed feedback to help), contributing to this understanding could be incredibly valuable – for you, and for future learners navigating the complexities of academic writing. The patterns are clear; now it’s time to find the most effective ways to break them.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Curious Case of the Repeating Essay Errors (And How We’re Trying to Crack It)