7 posts/7 responses
At the start of the semester you will be assigned to Group 1 or Group 2. Then each week you will either compose a blog post responding to one aspect of the assigned readings, or you will respond to two of your peers’ posts, engaging them in discussion about their ideas. For instance, for week 2, Group 1 will compose the blog post (due Tuesday) and Group 2 will compose responses (due Thursday).
Why are we doing this?
To really gain a sense of yourself as a rhetor, and to feel gains in your ability to understand how persuasion is working on you and on others, you must develop a habit of thinking about persuasion in the terms offered in Pullman’s book (and in others, but his is a good start). Placing such high value on weekly, documented consideration of the readings, and discussion surrounding those ideas, is intended to persuade you to begin to develop that habit (or at least to engage regularly in it).
This is what I’m looking for in reading response blog posts & responses:
(+) Posts: Focused, multimodal, insightful, makes connections between the book and life writ large, develops one idea deeply or multiple ideas in an integrated way; considers the class as audience
Responses: Respectful, engaging, attentive, constructive. Encourages further discussion and response. Questions, probes, challenges, encourages, supports. Offers some detail, but stays focused, brief.
(✔+) Posts: Mostly focused, consideration given to persuasiveness of the post itself, goes beyond agreeing/disagreeing or noting examples into the realm of evaluation, makes connections, though perhaps not as thoroughly or credibly as possible. Insight present but articulation creates confusion. Perhaps little consideration is given to multimodality, genre/media.
Responses: Respectful, constructive feedback. These might not go beyond agreement/disagreement or finding commonality, but they clearly address the ideas iterated in the post in a way that promotes discussion. The response might be too long to be effective, or it might be too brief/underdeveloped to effectively promote discussion.
(✔) Post: Achieves the assignment but needs more attention in terms of focus, development, and/or presentation. Makes little or no use of media affordances or genre convention.
Responses: Respectful.These responses might be superficial, however, or too general to be useful or convincing. The remain, however, substantial; the responder clearly read and thought about the post content.
(–) Post: Does not meet minimum expectations in terms of focus, reading consideration, or ideas development. Redo for completion credit.
Response: Does not meet minimum expectations in terms of reading consideration and respectful feedback/communication. Redo for completion credit.
Independent Work suggestions:
- Complete posts on weeks other than your assigned ones
- Suggest outside readings and create reading response posts on those, considering the outside readings in terms of Pullman’s book
- Create more than 2 responses (Submit them as “extra discussion” on the Submission Form)
Due dates:
Reading response posts are due for your group on the Tuesday of the weeks listed below (and if you’re not writing a response then your feedback is due the Thursday of that week):
| Group 1 | Group 2 |
| Week 1 | Week 2 |
| Week 3 | Week 4 |
| Week 5 | Week 6 |
| Week 7 | Week 9 |
| Week 10 | Week 11 |
| Group 1 | Group 2 |
| Week 12 | Week 13 |
| Week 14 | Week 15 |
8-10 minutes
For this project, you will make an argument that contributes to a current discussion documented in some form and entered into public discourse. You will have 8-10 minutes to present your argument to the class, providing context and evidence in a manner that persuades. This means your topic must be quite narrow, your focus keen and purposeful.
An example: this morning I was listening to ESPN. Commentators were discussing the recent Boston University report concerning CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in the brains of football players. I Googled “brain disease football” and found two articles:
The larger issue here, of course, involves football culture in America. There are socio-economic dimensions to this issue that must be considered in any honest debate about whether or not football, as it is currently played in American culture, is an unethical culture to participate in. But, as the screenshot above indicates, there are narrower issues within the larger one that would be more feasible for the constraints of this particular project (8-10 minutes). I might choose, for instance, to focus on the role of science and research in the debate. I might choose to take a stance on the Boston University report itself, as there is clearly debate surrounding its veracity. Perhaps arguing for or against the veracity of this particular report will enable me tacitly to make a more persuasive argument about the ethicality of supporting American football culture.
***Note: This is not a report!
Why are we doing this?
This project is intended as an opportunity to practice the concepts encountered in the readings, but it’s also an opportunity to shine a new light on common academic and professional (and sometimes personal) activities we engage in regularly: research & data collection, documentation design, public speaking (and the accompanying writing), claims formation and evidence integration, critical thinking, etc. If first our concern is to be persuasive, how do we approach these tasks differently?
Collaboration opportunity: You may work in pairs (in which case you have 16-20 minutes). If so, you will need to keep a record of the work you do individually. That journal/record will be worth up to 250 IW points for each.
A range projects…
- offers a convincing, focused, evidence-based argument
- argument is “original” (goes beyond merely parroting someone ‘out there’ already making an argument with which you agree)
- creatively and effectively deploys props and aids in the presentation
- employs multiple modes appropriately and effectively
- adheres to MLA documentation or APA documentation standards as appropriate
- is delivered in a clear voice, with attention given to body language
B range: The project achieves the project and is in some respects excellent (see A-range qualities). In some significant ways, however, more attention to the work is needed. This need may exist in one of the following areas, or others:
- originality of argument
- focus
- clarity of delivery
- integrity and presentation of evidence
- cohesion and flow
- deployment of props and aids
- overall persuasiveness
C range: The project is complete and competent. It might even be excellent in one or more arenas, but overall the work needs substantial revision to be convincing, especially in the areas of claims and evidence integrity and integration; delivery; props and aids, focus.
Perhaps the argument is superficial, merely parroting the ideas of others, or perhaps there is insufficient evidence to support claims. Evidence doesn’t seem appropriate or integrated into the overall argument. Much more research is needed for author to build ethos. Project ignores important aspects of the rhetorical situation (author, audience, context/situation). Little awareness seems present in terms of the project itself as an act of persuasion.
Non-passing: Incomplete, or in some vital way missing the intent of the project.
Independent Work suggestions:
- Email responses to speakers after their presentations. Did they convince you? Why or why not? What did you especially admire or respect about the presentation? What could use reconsideration? Why do you think so?
- Write out, in essay form, the argument you presented (up to 500 points for this). Add a reflection to that work in which you contemplate what it was like to persuade via the presentation vs the essay genre (up to 500 more points).
- Keep a research journal via blog posts in which you collect and evaluate sources
- Reimagine your presentation for a completely different audience. Compose an in-depth essay (with revised presentation materials) in which you describe what you would change about your presentation given that new audience and why. (up to 500 points)
- Keep a portfolio of the drafts and notes your work goes through as you complete the project. Submit this portfolio at the end of the project with a note of reflection. How did the process go for you? Why do you think so? (up to 500 points)
Due dates:
Your topic must be approved by the Thursday of week 8 (midterm), 10 October.
Presentations will occur Weeks 12, 13, and 15 (November 7, 9, 14, 16, 28, 29). **Absentee fines double during these weeks @200 points per absentia.
“I’m not going to teach you anything. I’m going to challenge you to learn for yourself.” ~G. Pullman
A substantial aspect of your final grade is determined by the work you choose to do throughout the semester —in terms of quality and quantity—to achieve the course goals. This project is designed to honor your busy schedules, your individual learning styles, and your current, varied knowledge and practice of course concepts.
This is how the project works: I will award points for everything you do this semester that contributes to your achievement of course goals. Everything. If you can make a good argument that completing an assignment in another class, for instance, helps you achieve our course goals, I will award points to you for that work. (I will probably ask that you write me an explanation of your thinking.) If you have an argument with your uncle about why you haven’t moved out of your mother’s house yet, and this argument helps you achieve the goals of this course, explain to me how and I will award you points for this. All you have to do is complete a “Submission Form” (see course website), sending me to evaluate your work. You must do this each time you want credit for work. Essentially the Submission Form is our dropbox.
If you’re a planner, you can take a look at the “suggested IW points” projects offered with each project description and design your semester now for the kinds of things you think you’ll be able to do, or need to do, to achieve the grade you want in the course. As the course goes on, of course, you’ll probably think of other things you can do/want to do for points.
If you’re not a planner, and you prefer for me to assign you specific tasks, I’m happy to tailor, with you, a series of projects that will accomplish your goals for this aspect of your grade. Make an appointment to see me in office hours (up to 100 IW points). Or we can meet online if it suits you better to do so.
Why are we doing this?
Some of us have more time than others. Some of us come to the course with a different kind of preparation for it, in terms of background information and practice. The IW points system rewards both high quality work (fewer projects, higher quality) and more work (more projects, greater need for more practice and feedback). I am always open to your ideas about what kinds of activities should get points, how many, and why. This is your course. These points comprise a means for you to make it your own.
This work will be assigned points and at the end of the term translated into a letter grade. There is no limit to the number of points you can accrue during the course of the semester, but given the suggested independent work offered in the Unit Descriptions, I have created the following grade equivalency to guide your efforts:
| A | B | C | D/F |
| 4000+ points = A+ | 2500 to 2999 = B+ | 1000 to 1499 = C | 999 or below |
| 3500 to 3999 = A | 2000 to 2499 = B | ||
| 3000 to 3499 = A- | 1500 to 1999 = B- | ||
Top points: 400+ per submission
- Substantial quantity, focus, clarity, & effectiveness
- Represents student’s reflective engagement with multiple course concepts
- Generally these points awarded to “big” investments: essays, blog series, remediated prior works, etc.
Mid-range points: 100+ per submission
- Detailed, focused, substantial works
- Represents student’s reflective engagement with course concepts
- Particularly creative, persuasive, skillful or insightful
- Demonstrates student’s developing ideas regarding course concepts and skills
Basic-range points: 50+ per submission
- Focused process work
- Substantial effort
- Engages with course and course concepts in content and/or practice
Maintenance points: 20+ per submission
- Even the little things count: emails, Google Doc comments and responses, site building, etc.
- Or…effort noted, but greater engagement needed
All Independent Work submissions must be completed by Thursday, 30 November.
6-8 pages
For this project, you will compose rhetorical analysis of a recent linguistic or multimodal text or text segment. The text you choose to analyze must be limited in size/time/scope, research-accessible, and documentable.
Suggested genre:
- Album cover
- Preface to a textbook or other work of nonfiction
- A news segment
- Product packaging
- Essay or opinion piece
- Cartoon frame or sequence (not a graphic novel)
- A letter, email/intended to persuade
- Introduction/conclusion to a researched study
- Mission statements (non-profit org, for instance)
- Art (i.e. the “Fearless Girl” statue)
- An action (i.e. Collin Kaepernick’s “taking a knee”)
The project will ultimately answer this question:
- How does the composition do what to whom? How well does it work? Why or why not?
Your written response will need to account for:
- Author
- Purpose
- Intended audience
- Context/situation
- Genre/medium
Why are we doing this?
***Compose a blog post exploring the answer to this question for up to 200 IW points
A range projects…
- offer insightful analysis based on concrete evidence from the text, and reasonable, researched evidence about context and audience
- are organized in a cohesive, appealing manner
- employs multiple modes logically and effectively
- adheres to MLA documentation or APA documentation standards as appropriate
- is written in language that is clear and cogent, often employing terms gleaned from reading and class discussion, and defining terms when necessary and appropriate
- clearly attention given to the persuasiveness of the project itself
B range: The project achieves the project goals and is in some respects excellent (see A-range qualities). In some significant ways, however, more attention to the work is needed. This need may exist in one of the following areas, or others:
- depth of analysis
- focus
- sentence-level work in terms of clarity
- outside research and/or its integrated
- cohesion and flow
- Persuasiveness
C range: The project is complete and competent. It might even be excellent in one or more arenas, but overall the work needs substantial revision to be convincing, especially in the areas of content, language, or organization.
Perhaps the analysis is superficial, lacks follow through of ideas or insufficient evidence to support claims. Evidence doesn’t seem to support claims. Much more research is needed for author to build ethos. Project ignores important aspects of the rhetorical situation (author, audience, context/situation). No awareness seems present in terms of the project itself as an act of persuasion. Multiple error patterns disrupt clear understanding of the work.
Non-passing: Incomplete, or in some vital way missing the intent of the project.
Independent Work suggestions:
- Document your research as a series of blog posts
- Collaborate on the research; keep a journal of your work in the collaboration
- Keep a process journal, reflecting on your thoughts as you work through the project (audio file, Voicethread, video, linguistic)
- Create a series of “thick descriptions” of your text and post as blog posts
- Create a series of outlines for your argument (claims only, claims with evidence)
- Read/explore one of the “Suggested Readings” in Pullman’s book (p. 386-387) and write about it
- Complete the “Your Turn” exercises (individually or collaboration)
- Arrange a “peer review” group; document your meetings and discussions
Due dates:
Text approval: Tuesday, 12 September
Completion due date: Thursday, 26 September
Open note, in-class exam.
A review of the terms and concepts discussed and practiced through the first 8 weeks of the course.
25 short-answer questions and 1 extended response question, created by students.
Why are we doing this?
The exam is an accountability tool, a means of incentivizing the quotidian tasks that comprise engagement with this course. Essentially, if you take thorough notes, writing as you read and engage in discussions, you will do well on the exam. Pullman writes of his hope that you will keep this book because it is a “guidebook to life.” Your notes will help you process the experience of the book and cultivate the regular practice Pullman suggests is needed in order to make the most of it.
What to bring:
Three college-ruled notebook paper pages of notes. You may write on the front, back, margins. I will collect these with the exam responses.
Two large exam blue books, purchasable at the bookstore.
Two pens (or pencils, but be sure the writing is readable). (Crossing out is just fine.)
You will have an entire class period to compose your responses. *If special accommodations are needed, let me know ASAP.
Exam date:
Thursday, 12 October
In class
5-8 pages
At the very beginning of the term, you were asked to define and evaluate “the art of persuasion” and consider the ethics involved in its practice.
Your work this semester leads up to a reflective essay in which you reconsider those original thoughts and ideas. This project asks that you articulate a philosophy of persuasion: a set of beliefs influencing your understanding of the ethics of persuasion in the day-to-day reception and formation of texts. What is persuasion? How does one persuade ethically? Does it matter? Why or why not? These are just a few questions your essay might explore. To help you get started, you might think back to the conversation between Plato and Gorgias (Pullman 335). With whom do you agree more? Why?
Why are we doing this?
Composing a philosophy helps us sort out the often unarticulated assumptions and beliefs upon which we operate, giving us greater control over our actions and choices, empowering us to interact with the world on our terms. We’ve learned so much this semester about ways in which we persuade and are persuaded (or not). These acts shape us and our world in profound ways. If we fail to take some control over how persuasion shapes us, we could fall prey to destructive, unethical forces of persuasion acting on us.
A range projects…
- articulates a focused, fully developed philosophy
- argument is “original” (goes beyond merely parroting someone ‘out there’ already making an argument with which you agree)
- creatively and effectively deploys props and aids in the presentation
- employs multiple modes appropriately and effectively
- adheres to MLA documentation or APA documentation standards as appropriate
- is delivered in a clear voice, with attention given to body language
B range:
The project achieves the project and is in some respects excellent (see A-range qualities). In some significant ways, however, more attention to the work is needed. This need may exist in one of the following areas, or others:
- originality of argument
- focus
- clarity of delivery
- integrity and presentation of evidence
- cohesion and flow
- deployment of props and aids
- overall persuasiveness
C range:
The project is complete and competent. It might even be excellent in one or more arenas, but overall the work needs substantial revision to be convincing, especially in the areas of claims and evidence integrity and integration; delivery; props and aids, focus.
Perhaps the argument is superficial, merely parroting the ideas of others, or perhaps there is insufficient evidence to support claims. Evidence doesn’t seem appropriate or integrated into the overall argument. Much more research is needed for author to build ethos. Project ignores important aspects of the rhetorical situation (author, audience, context/situation). Little awareness seems present in terms of the project itself as an act of persuasion.
Non-passing:
Incomplete, or in some vital way missing the intent of the project.
