Sustainable Public Discourse: August 2010

Aug 31, 2010

Goals Letter - First Day

Dear ENG W350 Class:

In my exuberance to greet you and to begin negotiating our own understandings of "rhetoric" and "discourse", I neglected to tell you two important things at the end of today's class:

1) In a few moments, you will be receiving an invitation to our course weblog, via e-mail. Simply follow the link in the e-mail invitation to get signed on to our W350 blog. Feel free to let me know if you have trouble signing on to the blog.

2) I would like you to prepare a "Goals" letter for Thursday. Write me a letter in which you tell me what kinds of expertise you would like to gain this semester -- or what kinds of capacities you would like to cultivate -- but it should be a letter that you wouldn't mind sharing with an audience of 1 or 2 other people in the class. Your letter will not be graded, but it should be genuine and authentic, i.e., please do not write to what you think are my expectations. As well, it should effectively communicate to me while also accommodating this other audience of your peers. Please bring the letter to class, typed and in hard copy on Thursday.

Finally, please remember to e-mail me your first and second choices for the "Reading Leading" assignment by Thursday.

Thank you for an enjoyable first day,
-Professor Graban

Aug 24, 2010

Welcome to ENG W350

Welcome to English W350: Sustainable Public Discourse for the Fall 2010 semester! This dedicated blog space hosts announcements, updates to our course calendar, gateways for assignments, and a forum for conversation as the class gets underway. This semester, each of you will be writing and maintaining your own blog, and in the first week of class your member links will appear at right. Until then, feel free to browse the links at right to preview (or review) any of our course documents.

-Professor Graban

Short Assignments

Short Assignment #1 – due 9/10/10 (by 5 p.m.)
THE CONTEXT
Jack Selzer helps us understand that a rhetorical analysis can describe how identifiable elements in a text work together to make it persuade. M. Jimmie Killingsworth reminds us that, by virtue of the situational nature of genres, the reader is as involved in persuasion as the writer. Let’s put these ideas to work by selecting one of the following essays to do a brief rhetorical analysis using Selzer’s article as a lens:

“Community in Action” by Studs Terkel, NPR Morning Edition (24 Oct 2005)
“Honesty Is Always the Best Policy” by Michael Lemonick, Onearth (27 May 2010)
“It’s Ms. America to You” by Barbara Kantrowitz, Newsweek (Nov 2007)
“The Real Reason Students Can’t Write” by Laurence Musgrove, Inside Higher Ed (28 April 2006)

THE ASSIGNMENT
Your task is to describe, discuss, and justify the essay’s most persuasive aspect in 1 or 2 examples and post it to the class blog in the form of a coherently written analysis. That’s not much room, so you should be selective yet substantive. In discussing how your essay persuades, draw on either the textual or the contextual approach. Remember that to do the textual analysis, you will want to consider things like inventio (including ethos, pathos, and logos), dispositio, elocutio, and type of argument. To do the contextual analysis, you will need to look up references to people, places, and events that are mentioned in the essay in order to discuss how the writer’s background, message, and strategies were responding to a real audience and need. Please be prepared to justify your approach, i.e., why is one approach better than the other to illustrate how the essay persuades, and why does all of this matter (to you, to other readers, to the class, to writing in the public sphere)?

EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is fairly flexible and I will accept a broad range of responses. I want you to be original, since it is possible that all of you will read the same article but notice different things. Keep in mind the following criteria:

Coherence – your analysis is threaded together by a thesis statement
Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific text details to illustrate the point you want to make
Clarity – your paragraphs are focused, your sentences are grammatically sound
Blogging Guidelines – your analysis follows these and uses them to your advantage

Your analysis should be posted to your own blog by 5:00 p.m. on Friday (9/10). Please feel free to ask me if any of these criteria are unclear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Assignment #2 – due 9/17/10 (by 5 p.m.)
THE ASSIGNMENT
Following this week's discussion on revised movie trailers, I'd like you to consider how Kinneavy's aims/genres and Ong's audience construction affect your understanding of other public genres. For this short assignment, please select one of the following texts to read and analyze:

“All in the Name of Science” by Jane Brody, New York Times (30 Jul 1972) E2
“Letter to President Clinton on Iraq,” New American Century (26 Jan 1998)
“One Day, Now Broken in Two” by Anna Quindlen, Newsweek (9 Sep 2002)
“A Rescue Plan for College Composition and High School English” by Michael B. Prince, The Chronicle of Higher Education (27 Jul 2009)

and one of the following writing tasks:

Drawing on Kinneavy, identify what you think is the principal aim of your chosen text and what genre you believe it best fits, or what genre boundaries it best blurs. Consider Kinneavy's whole definition of "aim" and whether your text's aim relies more or less on audience construction. Think about how your text either fits easily with or complicates Kinneavy's principal divisions, and the significance of that.

Drawing on Ong, discuss how your chosen text could be rewritten to persuade another audience. As part of that discussion, describe the form it would need to take, talk about how you would construct your audience, and discuss at least one contextual "conversation" (remember Selzer's contextual analysis?) you see in the text that makes it likely that another audience would accept it. How is this significant?

Although this is an analysis, please remember that your Short Assignment should make some insightful statement about why or how this matters (to you, to other readers, to the class, to writing in the public sphere). If it helps you to think of this analysis as a “critical reflection,” then that is fine with me.

RESPONDING TO BLOG POSTS
For SA #2, in addition to posting your own analysis, I will ask you to respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by commenting directly on their blogs. You may respond to their SA #1 or their SA #2. By "respond," I mean that you have many options for engaging with their post:

you might continue the conversation they started, if they did start one, or present an answer to a question that they pose, or ask an extended question with the aim of provoking the analysis further
you might demonstrate a shared or a different understanding of something you have read in common, or comment on how the writer's experiences seem to speak for or against your own
you might share how something in the writer's post causes you to understand the limitations of something else in another post (or even in your own post)
you might note some disagreement or dissensus between your understanding of a term they use and their own use of it, and unpack that disagreement for us
you might tell the writer how or whether something s/he wrote has helped you discover something new about what you read, how you analyzed, or certain values you hold about the topic being discussed.

EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is fairly flexible and I will accept a broad range of posts and responses. However, your argument will likely be more complex (and longer) than in SA #1, and your thesis statement will need to reflect that complexity. You may organize your analysis however you wish, but please keep in mind the following criteria:

Content/Argument – your analysis brings your chosen text into dialogue with Kinneavy's and/or Ong's principles (beyond utilizing some of their key terms)
Coherence – your analysis is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates the complexity of your argument and acts as a "thread" for your claims
Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific examples from your chosen texts to illustrate the points you make about aim/genre, audience, and form
Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences are grammatically sound
Blogging Guidelines – your analysis follows these and uses them to your advantage.

Your analysis and two responses should be posted by 5:00 p.m. on Friday (9/17). Please feel free to ask me if any of these criteria are unclear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Assignment #3 – due 9/24/10 (by 5 p.m.)
THE ASSIGNMENT
Following this week's discussion on what constitutes scientific and technical discourse, I'd like you to consider the definitions of several key concepts in this sphere. For this short assignment, please select one of the following texts to read and analyze:

"The Future of Reading" by Johan Lehrer, The Frontal Cortex Science Blog (8 Sep 2010)
“The Green Apple” by David Biello, Scientific American (16 Jun 2010)
“Introduction” to Radio Revolution: The Coming Age of Unlicensed Wireless by Kevin Werbach, New America Foundation (15 Dec 2003) [click on pdf to open]
“Living in a Landscape of Fear” by Cristina Eisenberg, Scientific American (13 Aug 2010)

Drawing on Gross or Fahnestock and Secor, discuss how your chosen text acts, or could be justified as acting, "scientific." In your discussion, be sure to employ Gross's or Fahnestock and Secor's concepts where they apply (e.g., ascending/descending ladder, Baconian induction, stases, arrangement, etc.), and provide clear examples of them in your chosen text. Select the one or two concepts that help you best demonstrate your text's effectiveness for a particular audience or context.

As always, this discussion and critical reflection should lead to some insightful statement about why or how this matters (to you, to other readers, to the class, to writing in the public sphere).

RESPONDING TO BLOG POSTS
For SA #3, in addition to posting your own discussion, I will ask you to respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by commenting directly on their blogs. You may respond to their SA #2 or their SA #3.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is fairly flexible and I will accept a broad range of posts and responses. However, the goal of this assignment is twofold: you want to demonstrate and justify your understanding of Gross and Fahnestock/Secor; you also want to apply that understanding to your own coherent discussion of a new text. You may organize your discussion however you wish, but please keep in mind the following criteria:

Content/Argument – your analysis brings your chosen text into dialogue with Gross's and/or Fahnestock/Secor's principles (beyond utilizing some of their key terms)
Coherence – your analysis is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates the complexity of your argument and acts as a "thread" for your claims
Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific examples from your chosen texts to illustrate the points you make about induction, stases, arrangement, etc.
Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences are grammatically sound
Blogging Guidelines – your analysis follows these and uses them to your advantage.

Your discussion and two responses should be posted by 5:00 p.m. on Friday (9/24). Please feel free to ask me if any of these criteria are unclear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Assignment #4 – deadline extended to 11/6/10 for posts and 11/7/10 for responses
THE ASSIGNMENT
Part One:

Select one of the genre samples from any of the three spheres we have studied this semester and briefly discuss how that genre sample functions as sustainable public discourse according to its form (Winterowd, “Dispositio”) or its symbol-using (Enoch, “Becoming Symbol-Wise”). As part of your discussion, be sure to consider not only what the genre sample argues but also how it argues, and be sure to cite appropriately from any article you use to discuss it.

Part Two:

Discuss—as honestly as possible—an issue having to do with discourse that you want to pursue in your historical-causal analysis, and describe—as specifically as possible—what you think are some viable genres or “real” forms that your issue might take. What are some audience considerations that will come up for you, i.e., things you have to keep in mind about the form or the function of the genre so that it is maximally effective? What will that genre form need to be able to achieve?

RESPONDING TO BLOG POSTS

For SA #4, in addition to posting your own discussion, I will ask you to respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by commenting directly on their blogs. Please respond to Part Two of their post by specifically offering one theoretical concept or principle from our course that you think will be most important to them to keep in mind as they consider their genre or “real” form. What are some audience considerations you would like to see them keep in mind and/or what questions do you have about their issue that may help them along? Please try not to hold back at this point. In other words, if their issue raises actual or potential concerns for you, as a reader, please find a way to turn those concerns into salient advice.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

This assignment is the most flexible of all Short Assignments. The goal is twofold: you want to demonstrate and justify your understanding of Winterowd and Enoch; you also want to start articulating your final project idea for an audience who can give you productive feedback. Please keep in mind the following criteria:

Thoroughness of Discussion
Specificity of Brainstorming
Accuracy in Handling Course Texts
Language and Clarity
Blogging Guidelines.

Your discussion should be posted by 5:00 p.m. on Saturday (11/6) and your responses by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday (11/7). Please feel free to ask me if any of these criteria are unclear.

Aug 23, 2010

Assignments

I will distribute assignment sheets in class, but follow any link below to preview or review what we are writing this semester.

-Professor Graban

Blogging Guidelines

Purpose of the Blog

This semester, I am asking you to set up a blog as a forum for theorizing rhetoric, writing, and sustainable public discourse. My definition of "theorizing" comes from Sidney Dobrin's Constructing Knowledges, in which Patricia Bizzell sets up a critical distinction between Theory and theory: "Whereas 'Theory' tends to be thought of as something static, like a table of laws, 'theory' is better thought of as a process or an activity" (Bizzell 2). Theory with a little "t" is a "framework within which one can operate, ask questions, even alter or refine principles of that theory based on new experience, new observation" (Dobrin 9). This blog is your opportunity to inspire discussion of class-related topics; to apply concepts from the course to what you read, hear, or experience out in the world; and to hone your abilities to write clearly and respond confidently. By the beginning of Week 12, your "Writing Theory Blog" should consist of at least 6 high-quality posts:

4 short assignments (graded upon submission)
2 additional and substantial posts (done on your own throughout the semester).

Blogging Guidelines

Please remember that this blog space is public. Fellow class members will be reading and commenting on your posts, as you will theirs, and other Internet users may encounter your posts and read what you have to say. While I want you to feel comfortable to have great discussions on it, the blog is a performance space where we still need to be committed to good communal practices.

1. Title your posts to give your readers context. Titles should reflect what you have thought or written or are trying to argue (rather than merely restate the name of the article or assignment you are responding to).

2. Aim for substance and quality. I’m not interested in seeing how much space you can fill; I am interested in seeing you genuinely communicate your thoughts, ideas, arguments, and responses to your readers. If you are responding to an article we have read, explain what issues are raised for you, why those issues are interesting or important, how they align with or challenge what you’re learning in class so far.

3. Aim for critical depth. It doesn’t take much skill or expertise to spout opinion or to demonstrate bias; the real skill is in engaging with an idea and considering it empathetically and objectively, as well as sympathetically and subjectively.

4. Aim for clarity and specificity. Consider stating your main early on as a way of helping your readers to follow your thought process. Provide context details to remind us of what article or assignment you are addressing. If you are commenting on one portion of someone else’s post, please copy/paste that portion for others to see.

5. Follow good civil/civic discussion practices. We will spend the semester discovering what these are, but for now please remember that the aim of our discussions is to exchange ideas and help others understand why we think the way we do. In one sense, what we do is like diplomacy. Flaming, aggression, hate speech, inside jokes, or tactics that cause others to feel marginalized or excluded will not only not be tolerated by me, they will also shut down conversation and undermine your discussions.

6. Follow good attribution practices (i.e., if you refer to something we haven’t read, please provide us with either the full citation so we can find it ourselves, or with a hyperlink allowing us to access the document). Please sign your name (or your pseudonym) to every post and every comment so that other readers and writers know who left it.