Yesenia Garnica

Michael Lasley
English 1A
17th October 2016
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
In Its Time For Class: Toward a More Complex Pedagogy of Narrative, Amy E.
Robillard discusses the importance of teaching narrative writing to students rather than just
focusing on analytical writing. This change should be made in order to accommodate for the
views of working-class students who are ignored under the assumption that all college students
share the same middle-class background. Robillard also continuously focuses on the differences
in the perceptions of time between working and middle class students which affect the ways in
which students learn, develop character, and perceive their world and own future.
Joseph Bizup advocates for a change in the way primary sources, secondary sources, and
tertiary sources are referred to in his article, BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching
Research Based Writing. Instead of using these terms, he proposes that teachers should instruct
their students in using the B.E.A.M. structure, which stands for background, exhibit, argument,
and method. This structure works better because it forces students to reflect on and engage with
the research and writing they are doing. Background sources are used to introduce facts and
topics to the reader and dont includes citations because the author implies that the reader already
knows what they are referencing. Exhibit sources are used to support the authors arguments and
can be evidence but that is not always the case. These sources are meant for interpretation.
Argument sources are used to evoke a response and opinion from the reader and the author
usually takes a stance on these sources. Method sources are used to explain terms that the author
is using in order to guide the reader.Using Bizups B.E.A.M. structure, I will analyze Robillards
essay, while focusing on the manner in which the structure strengthens her argument.First, I will
briefly touch upon some of the rhetorical strategies that Robillard utilizes, such as tone. I will

also focus on Robillards use of anecdotes and other sources that serve as the momentum to
guide the reader through her argument in a clear, strong manner.
Throughout her essay, Robillard continuously uses personal anecdotes in order to support
her argument and demonstrates the strength of personal narratives in writing. She breaks the
fourth wall, for example, after her first anecdote when she says,Beginning this essay with a
personal narrative is not unusual; we see these sorts of beginnings all the time in scholarly
articles in College English and CCC, and were usually drawn to the piece...we assume theres a
reason for it(Robillard 75). By explaining her purpose in using a personal anecdote and
comparing it to other writings in order to introduce her argument, she is reaching out to her
audience beyond the restrictions of analytical essays. This strategy is effective because it forces
the reader to reflect on the cases in which they have encountered this, as well as self reflect on
their own reaction to the anecdote. The use of these narratives set a casual but assertive tone. The
use of this tone allows the reader to feel more invested in her essay. Furthermore, she switches
from informal language to formal language after writing a personal anecdote. This may be to
emphasize Robillards point in which she states that abstract writing,as in analytical writing, and
concrete writing, as in narratives, need to work together to be effective. This refers to the
intertwining of personal narrative writing with analytical writing which is prominent throughout
her essay. An example of this is when she states, It is to say that the value of instruction in
personal writing goes unmentioned,unrecognized,unstated by the program. For now(77). The
inclusion of for now at the end of that paragraph draws suspense in the reader, which is not an
emotion that is supposed to be evoked normally in a scholarly paper. It works well, however,
because it compliments the rest of her paper. She also chooses to start each section with a
personal narrative or an argument from another author. Robillard does this in order to build on

her own claim and to engage the reader, since the reader anticipates the direction the author is
going with the anecdote. Moving away from these rhetorical choices, I will focus on the way in
which B.E.A.M. can be applied to her essay
Referring to the B.E.A.M. structure, Robillard uses background sources when she
assumes that the audience is already aware of what personal narratives and analytical writing
consists of, so she does not cite or explain this directly. At the beginning of the article, she starts
with a personal narrative instead of providing history or references to other authors who discuss
similar arguments. This is because she uses the personal anecdote to tie into her argument and
demonstrate a point in her argument that she is trying to make. Using personal anecdotes serve as
a stronger beginning to her essay because it engages the reader and makes them want to keep
reading, which is not what would happen with a historical reference. Similarly, she doesnt
explain the image of college students because she assumes that the audience already imagines
students as coming from the middle class. Robillard continuously refers to working class
students and compares them to middle class students, yet she doesnt explain what those classes
mean. Falling under background sources, she assumes that it is common knowledge to all.
In terms of exhibits sources, Robillard includes the use of personal anecdotes and some
of the work from other researchers. She uses the arguments of other writers in order to back up
her own argument by interpreting their arguments. She interprets them in order to acknowledge
other arguments, while contradicting some of them. For example, Robillard disagrees with
Joseph Harris when he says, rather than focusing on narratives of our working class pasts, we
should concern ourselves with how workers define their present interests and
commitments(78). Robillard disagrees with this and suggests that it is important to recognize
the past because it develops ones class consciousness.Having class consciousness allows

working class students to take control of their education and to be able to reflect on their past in
order to think about the future. Using others arguments serve as exhibits in order to add to her
own argument and gain credibility, while also dealing with counterarguments. By utilizing the
statement of a notable author, she is acknowledging other sources and then refuting or agreeing
with it. In this case, she refutes it. She gains credibility by doing this because she is not only
including evidence that supports her argument but is rather looking at other possibilities and
arguments, making her claim well rounded and thought out.
The argument aspect of BEAM is explained in the second page of her essay in which she
outlines the rest of her essay to the audience. She states,
In what follows, I tell portions of my own story, illustrating in part the history of one
working class student struggling to make sense of middle class affiliations with academic
discourse and middle class understandings of time. Additionally, I will propose that, as
writing teachers, we make more explicit in our classrooms the ways that narrative and the
more privileged genres of analysis and argument intermediate one another. (Robillard 77)
Robillard is clear in her purpose for the essay and explicitly states what she will be arguing. By
outlining her essay, the reader knows what to anticipate and can clearly follow along with her
essay. When she includes a personal anecdote, for example, the reader can determine what
purpose the anecdote serves in terms of her overall argument. She also includes quotes from
other credible sources in order to strengthen and support her own claim. The other sources
provide a foundation for her own argument.For example, she includes a quote from Richard
Sennett who is the author of The Corrosion of Character. She uses his quote in which he states,
The conditions of time in the new capitalism have created a conflict between character and
experience, the experience of disjointed time threatening the ability of people to form their

characters into sustained narratives(31)(Robillard 76). She is able to use this statement in order
to support her claim that working students have more trouble forming their character because of
their disjointed sense of time, which is the reason narratives are so important to write. By using
this quote in her essay, she adds to her credibility since a notable writer also had the same idea
she had. Moreover, her own argument is seen throughout the essay, usually after she uses a
personal narrative.
As the method sources of her essay, Robillard uses specific terms and defines them
throughout her essay while connecting their relevance to her central argument. She explains the
terms privilege genre of writing in order to explain to readers that she means analysis as a
form of writing. She doesnt explain it clearly but its implicit. Her audience are other scholars,
so while she does somewhat explain the term, it is expected that other professors and writers
already know what she is referring to. She also defines class consciousness because she is
attempting to redefine class consciousness as a part of her argument.She does this by
highlighting the importance of narratives when creating character, which includes class
consciousness.For example, she states that,Devaluing narrative, then, can deny certain students
the opportunity to develop a class consciousness, thereby all but ensuring their uncritical
identification with the middle class(Robillard 76).She uses her definition of class consciousness
to justify the incorporation of narratives in students writings and thereby strengthening her
argument.Moreover,since narratives are the foundation of her claim, she defines the term
narratives through her various examples.
Robillard also refers to time constantly in her essay. She states that [she wants] to
establish that there are different ways of conceiving time and these different ways of conceiving
time are class-based (Robillard 75). Robillard is redefining time in a way, since she is

emphasizing the importance of class in relation to time. She defines and emphasizes the
importance of time by using personal narratives. For example, when she talks about how she was
always early to everything, she uses that story to talk about the relation of time to working class
students and the effect it has on class consciousness. By defining these terms, she is guiding the
reader in how she wants to use the terms and the direction she is going with them.
Bizups B.E.A.M. structure can be applied to Robillards essay in a manner that allows
her argument to be expressed to the reader in a clear manner, while incorporating the use of
personal narratives and providing a casual tone to connect with the readers. Her choice of
rhetorical strategies complement her argument, since she constantly uses personal anecdotes in
her essay. By relying on personal anecdotes, Robillard strengthens her argument by portraying
the value of narratives.Through the application of B.E.A.M., it is recognizable that Robillard
utilizes other arguments in order to support her own while also refuting counterarguments.
Overall, Robillard delivers her argument strategically as seen through the lens of the B.E.A.M.
structure and other rhetorical devices.

Works Cited
Bizup, Joseph. "BEAM: A rhetorical vocabulary for teaching research-based writing." Rhetoric
Review 27.1 (2008): 72-86.
Robillard, Amy E. "It's time for class: Toward a more complex pedagogy of narrative." College
English 66.1 (2003): 74-92.