The CEA Forum - Summer/Fall 2005 - Using Political Cartoons as the Basis for a Freshman Comp Research Paper

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS

A reflective academic essay analyzing why a freshman English 102 research assignment using political cartoons largely failed across five classes over two quarters. The author describes the intended method—students would describe cartoons, explain political context, and analyze cartoonists’ bias—then documents student resistance and the resulting poor reception. Key causes include overwhelming choice structures, underestimating the difficulty of describing cartoons’ compressed meaning, and misjudging how topical cartoons require precise event-context matching.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Using Political Cartoons as the Basis for a Freshman Comp Research Paper

Course assignment design and intended method

Student reactions and overall failure

Misconceptions leading to unsuccessful outcomes

Too many choices

Difficulty describing cartoons

Underestimating cartoon topicality

The CEA Forum Summer/Fall 2005: 34.2 USING POLITICAL CARTOONS AS THE BASIS FOR A FRESHMAN COMP RESEARCH PAPER: DELINEATING THE REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF YET ANOTHER CLEVER IDEA Martin Kich At the Lake Campus of Wright State University, students are required to complete two courses in English composition. In the second, English 102, the focal assignment is an eight-to ten-page research essay, typically with either an argumentative slant or a topic that requires some sort of interpretive analysis. When the department selected an anthology of political essays as the reader for this course, I was uncomfortable with the choice, for both personal and pedagogical reasons. Although I have a great many political opinions, they are, in combination, rather—no, very—idiosyncratic. I balk, even, at describing myself as a libertarian. So, although I very much enjoy talking about politics with family, friends, and colleagues, I knew that I would have difficulty doing so in a class of freshman composition students who would expect some sort of readily recognizable coherence in my opinions. And most of them would probably take considerable pride in describing themselves as Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals—all with capital letters. But I had been amassing collections of political cartoons and of newspaper editorials on political topics; and, after some brainstorming, I believed that I had conceived an imaginative research topic: the students would focus on some of the 300 or so cartoons that had to do with Clinton's various policies and problems, and, working from the premise that it was now the year 2025, they would explain the cartoons to people who were“now” only passingly familiar with the Clinton presidency—if they had any knowledge of its particulars at all. The treatment would require them to do three things: (1) describe each cartoon,(2) explain its political context, and (3) analyze the cartoonist's or cartoonists' bias. They could choose the number of cartoons, the number and variety of topics addressed, and the number of cartoonists represented. These choices would then determine the choices available to them in terms of the essay's structure, pacing, and scope of development. And the humor inherent in the material, in combination with the need to analyze the cartoonists' biases would force students to consider tone very carefully. Moreover, the timeliness of the topic (along with the binders of editorials that I had gathered and sorted) would minimize the limitations of our small library's sometimes eclectic collection. (This was just before much material became available in full-text through OhioLINK and just before we had full Internet access in all of our computer labs. And both of these circumstances would seem, in theory, to make the topic all the more workable and attractive.) Every time I have described this topic and approach to another teacher, the response has been extremely enthusiastic, even admiring. Unfortunately, with the exception of several non-traditional students, the majority of the students in five English 102 classes over two quarters pretty much hated the topic. To put it as bluntly as they no doubt did, and may still be doing, it sucked and sucked big time. This essay will explain why—as far as I have been able to determine—this topic was such an abysmal failure, despite my careful conception of it and my stubborn enthusiasm about its possibilities. (Even after it had not worked the first quarter, I felt that it was too good an idea not to work—that all it needed was a little tinkering. About two weeks into the second quarter, I realized that the tinkering had not been enough—that I was stuck with a loser for another eight weeks and, worse, that my students were catching on to that fact almost as quickly as I was. ) The reasons for the failure of this research topic include, I think, the following misconceptions and/or misperceptions on my part, which may, taken tog

FAQs

What was the intended structure of the research essay assignment?

Students were required to describe each cartoon, explain its political context, and analyze the cartoonist’s or cartoonists’ bias. They could choose which cartoons and what topics to cover, and those choices shaped essay structure, pacing, and scope.

Why did the assignment fail according to the author?

The author concludes it failed due to misconceptions and misperceptions, especially giving students too many choices, underestimating the difficulty of describing cartoons, and misjudging how the topical nature of political cartoons affects students’ ability to match details to specific issues or events.

How did choice overload affect students’ writing process?

Students interpreted the many options as confusing and non-sequential, leading to uncertainty about what choices they had already made or discarded. The author suggests limiting choices and guiding students step-by-step to improve clarity.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS