Class 11/3/11 & BA 8

Before class you need to...

- Read Part 1, Section 5f2, "Concluding Paragraphs" (pp. 132-134) in the St. Martin's Handbook. You will have a reading quiz.

- Bring to class your conclusion paragraph from Draft 1.1 (Bring it in whatever state is in right now. It is fine if still looks the same as it did when you turned in Draft 1.1. You will have time in class to start on BA 8)

- Bring to class your textbook (If you did your rhetorical analysis on Swift's "A Modest Proposal" or FDR's speech, you need to print those out and bring them to class as well).

In class today we will...

- Have a quiz over the St. Martin's reading

- Class discussion on what an effective conclusion looks like

- Start working on BA 8

Brief Assignment 8: Revision of Conclusion

You may use first person on this assignment

Objective: To develop new strategies for writing effective conclusions for academic papers and to expand your understanding of what makes an effective conclusion.

Purpose: The concluding paragraph of a document plays a key role in how readers respond to the entire text. In this assignment, you will attempt a revision of your conclusion to Draft 1.1. Keep in mind that your original conclusion may remain the better of your two efforts.

Description: To complete this assignment, review your Draft 1.1. Consider the following:
Does the initial focus of your draft as expressed in your thesis statement need revision?
Are your purpose for writing and target audience easily identified after reading your draft? If you need to revise your thesis (and thus, a substantial portion of your paper), or if you need to better focus your purpose and identify your audience, your revisions of your conclusion might start with those areas. You may need to make sure that your main point(s) are restated clearly, and that your readers understand the implications of your analysis. If you are satisfied with your focus, purpose, and audience, study your conclusion to determine how clearly it reads. You may need to revise for coherence, emphasis, or conciseness (see Chs. 40 and 43 of your e-handbook), or you may need to work on sentence structure (Chs. 34-39 of your e-handbook).

If you need to work on specific grammatical and/or mechanical issues, consult the appropriate chapters in your e-handbook. Next, review the strategies for writing conclusions in section 5f2 of The St. Martin’s Handbook. Then, copy and paste your original conclusion from your 1.1 draft and re-read it. In a brief sentence or two, identify and explain which of the strategies from the textbook you used in composing this conclusion.

If you cannot identify one of these strategies in your conclusion, then describe the strategy you had in mind.

Next, revise your conclusion. You must incorporate a strategy from the textbook that is different from the structure your conclusion originally used. Finally, write a short summary and evaluation of your revisions. Identify and explain which new strategy you used from the textbook and explain how changing the strategies used in your conclusion will influence your readers’ response to your analysis. Also let readers know here which conclusion, your original or the revision, is the strongest and why you believe that to be so.

The total length of the analysis should be 350-500 words, NOT including the original and revised conclusions.

Some things the graders are looking for...

C1: Focus
Does the student thoroughly examine the quality of the conclusion and demonstrate an understanding of the function of a conclusion? Does the student use this examination and understanding to guide his or her revisions to the conclusion?

C3: Sources and Evidence
Does the student’s revised paragraph show noticeable improvement? Does the student support his or her critique by directly referring to specific parts of his or her conclusion? This criterion is particularly important because students tend to use vague and generic language that could apply to any draft.

C5: Own Perspective
Does the student show authority in relaying his or her perspective about what should be revised in the conclusion and in justifying the effectiveness of the revisions that he or she has made?

C6: Conclusion
Does the student provide an accurate evaluative statement about the overall effectiveness of the revisions? Does the student discuss the significance of the revisions her or she has made in the conclusion?

C7: Communication
How effectively is the revised version of the conclusion delivered? Does the student communicate his or her critique of the revisions effectively? Has the student organized his or her critique effectively? Are both the revised introduction and the critique relatively free of grammatical errors?

Class 10/27/11 & BA 7

Before class you should...

- Read Part 1, Sections 4f, 4h, 5f1, "Revising Thesis and Support, "Revising the Title, Introduction, and Conclusion," "Opening Paragraphs" (pp. 91-93, 130-132) in the St. Martin's Handbook.

- Research the source information of the article you used for Draft 1.1. Start with the information in the beginning of your textbook (pages iii-v), but you will need to go much further than that by using library databases, books, etc. I suggest starting by looking at the beginning of your textbook. Where was your article originally published? For example, the Facebook article was published in The New Atlantic. Once you know the source, go to TTU library's website. Click on the journal tab and type in the journal/magazine/newspaper you are looking for. Then click on the database that subscribes to this journal. This database is where you will do your research. If our library does not subscribe to your source (or you are doing an older piece like Swift's) you can use the internet for your research. However, you must be positive you are using a credible source. I suggest you narrow your google search to only include websites that end in ".edu"
Bring to class a typed page to turn-in for this week's quiz grade. Your typed page should include the original source information in MLA format (where was it published before it was published in your textbook? Or, if you are doing Swift or FDR, where was it published before it was put on that website?) and below the citation you need to answer these questions in a paragraph: What year was the article published? When was the source created? (For example, if it was originally published on a website, when was this website first created? Or if it was published in an academic journal, when was this journal founded? Include at least the year, possibly the date and month as well) Who is their intended audience? (Look under "about us" or "about this journal" - they usually state the gender, age, location, etc. of their readers; include all of this information). Also include any other relevant information you find out about your source. For example, if you are doing Swift's piece or FDR's speech you need to do research on the historical background of these works. We will be presenting these in class so make sure you are prepared.

Today in class we will...

- Present research on rhetorical analysis articles

- Discuss the importance of audience and purpose

- Discuss BA 7

- Discuss St. Martin's reading

- Analyze effectiveness of sample introductions


Brief Assignment 7: Revision of Introduction


You may use first person in this assignment


Objective: To develop new strategies for writing effective introductions for academic papers and to expand your understanding of what makes an effective introduction.

Purpose: The introductory paragraph of a document plays a key role in how readers respond to the entire text. In this assignment, you will attempt a revision of your introduction to Draft 1.1. Keep in mind that your original introduction may remain the better of your two efforts.

Description: To complete this assignment, review your Draft 1.1. Consider the following:

Does the initial focus of your draft as expressed in your thesis statement need revision?

Are your purpose for writing and target audience easily identified after reading your draft? If you need to revise your thesis (and thus, a substantial portion of your paper), or if you need to better focus your purpose and identify your audience, your revisions of your conclusion might start with those areas. You may need to make sure that your main point(s) are restated clearly, and that your readers understand the implications of your analysis. If you are satisfied with your focus, purpose, and audience, study your introduction to determine how clearly it reads. You may need to revise for coherence, emphasis, or conciseness (see Chs. 40 and 43 of your e-handbook), or you may need to work on sentence structure (Chs. 34-39 of your e-handbook).

If you need to work on specific grammatical and/or mechanical issues, consult the appropriate chapters in your e-handbook. Next, review the strategies for writing introductions in section 5f1 of The St. Martin’s Handbook. Then, copy and paste your original introduction from your 1.1 draft and re-read it. In a brief sentence or two, identify and explain which of the strategies from the textbook you used in composing this introduction.

If you cannot identify one of these strategies in your introduction, then describe the strategy you had in mind.

Next, revise your introduction. You must incorporate a strategy from the textbook that is different from the structure your conclusion originally used. Finally, write a short summary and evaluation of your revisions. Identify and explain which new strategy you used from the textbook and explain how changing the strategies used in your introduction will influence your readers’ response to your analysis. Also let readers know here which introduction, your original or the revision, is the strongest and why you believe that to be so.

The total length of the analysis should be 350-500 words, NOT including the original and revised introductions.

Some things the graders are looking for...
C1: Focus
Does the student thoroughly examine the quality of the introduction and demonstrate an understanding of the function of an introduction? Does the student use this examination and understanding to guide his or her revisions to the introduction?

C3: Sources and Evidence
Does the student’s revised introduction show noticeable improvement? Does the student support his or her critique by directly referring to specific parts of his or her introduction? This criterion is particularly important because students tend to use vague and generic language that could apply to any draft.

C5: Own Perspective
Does the student show authority in relaying his or her perspective about what should be revised in the introduction and in justifying the effectiveness of the revisions that he or she has made?

C6: Conclusion
Does the student provide an accurate evaluative statement about the overall effectiveness of the revisions? Does the student discuss the significance of the revisions her or she has made in the introduction?

C7: Communication
How effectively is the revised version of the introduction delivered? Does the student communicate his or her critique of the revisions effectively? Has the student organized his or her critique effectively? Are both the revised introduction and the critique relatively free of grammatical errors?

Class 10/20/11 and BA 6

Before class you should...

- Read Part 1, Section 4a and 4c-e ("Rereading Your Draft," "Getting the Most from Peer Reviewers' Comments," "Learning from Instructor Comments," "Revising with Peer and Instructor Comments" pp. 72-74, 87-90) and Part 5, Sections 24, 25, 27 ("Writing to the World," "Language that Builds Common Ground," "Word Choice" pp. 502-517, 526-538) in the St. Martin's Handbook

- After you have read, complete exercise 27.2 in St. Martin's (questions 1-5 in section 27a). Type directly into the boxes and when you are finished click "view notebook." Remember to put your name in the first box (#1 of exercise 27.2) right before your answer. If your name is not on it, you will not get credit. Make sure all five answers are there, then click "email answers." Then type in your class section (1301.59 for 9:30am, 1301.62 for 11am) and my email (hannah.weems@ttu.edu). You must email this to me BEFORE our class on Thursday to get credit. It will count as your quiz grade for this week.

Today in class we will...

- Take another look at Laura Staron's Rhetorical Analysis (pages 589-91 in First-Year Writing)

- Compare it to her revised draft (pages 592-4 in First-Year Writing)

Brief Assignment 6: Global Revision
Objective: To develop the ability to determine what revisions should be made to an early draft of a document.
Purpose: Most inexperienced writers have trouble identifying, prioritizing, and executing appropriate large scale revisions to a draft. In this assignment, you’ll read both an initial draft and a subsequently revised version of this draft, evaluate the changes made, and make suggestions as to what else might be revised.

Description: To complete this assignment, read the initial draft provided and then write an initial paragraph in which you discuss the problems that you see in the current draft. Next, read the revised draft and write another paragraph in which you discuss 1) whether the problems that you saw in the first draft were addressed, 2) whether the revisions fixed other issues that you hadn’t noticed in the draft, and 3) why the revisions are or are not an improvement over the first draft. If you believe other revisions should be made to the draft, conclude your assignment with an explanation of what those are and how the revisions should be made. Your discussion should be 500 - 650 words in length.

The drafts are available here:https://raiderwriter.engl.ttu.edu/SupplementalFiles/BA6DraftsForSpring.pdf

Some things the graders are looking for...

C1: Focus
Does the student thoroughly explore the quality of the drafts and demonstrate an understanding of why both drafts are being examined?

C3: Sources and Evidence
Does the student support his or her critique with evidence from the texts? In other words, does the student directly refer to specific parts of the texts (paragraphs and/or sentences) or specific ideas represented in the text? This criterion is particularly important because students tend to use vague and generic language that could apply to any draft.

C5: Own Perspective
Does the student show authority in relaying his or her perspective about the effectiveness of the revisions? Students tend to shy away from making a direct critique of the drafts, or they default to praising or criticizing drafts in some generic way.

C6: Conclusion
Does the student provide an accurate evaluative statement about the overall effectiveness of the revisions? Does the student discuss the significance of the problems he or she identifies in both drafts and suggest other ways in which the sample 1.2 draft could be improved?

C7: Communication
Does the student communicate his or her critique of the revisions effectively? Is the student's tone professional? Has the student organized his or her critique effectively? Is the critique relatively free of grammatical errors?

Class 10/13/11 and Peer Critiques

Before class you should...

-Read Part 1, Section 4b, "Reviewing Your Peers" (pp. 75-86) in the St. Martin's Handbook.

-Read the two sample drafts I emailed to you. PRINT them out and BRING them with you to class. This is your quiz grade for this week.

Today in class we will...

9:30 am substitute: Mr. Trice

11 am substitute: Mr. Maraj

- Discuss peer critiques.

Peer Critique 1.1a and 1.1b
This assignment is all electronic through Raider Writer. After you log-in, click on "Turn In/Manage Writing" on the left. Then by Peer Critique 1.1a, click "Submit Now." The draft you are supposed to critique will then pop up. Follow this same process for Peer Critique 1.1b.

Objective: To demonstrate your ability to write a critique based on a primary source (a peer's essay).

Purpose: Having others read your writing is a good way to find out if your document is reaching its intended audience. In this assignment, you will read the drafts of two of your peers and write a critique of each.

Description: To complete this assignment, use the guidelines from Chapter 4b of The St. Martin's Handbook and compose a critique of your peers’ drafts. For each critique, you will introduce the draft, summarize its main points, assess and respond to the author's presentation, and offer conclusions about the effectiveness of the analysis. Remember to speak as specifically as possible about the draft, quoting from it when necessary. Your critique will be 400 - 500 words in length.

The elements of the draft you should address include:

Text for Analysis/Thesis: Identify the writer's thesis and then evaluate it for effectiveness. Determine whether the writer has selected a particular text to analyze and whether or not the thesis indicates that the writer will complete a rhetorical analysis of the text. Discuss whether the thesis is specific enough and of appropriate scope for this analysis. For example, a thesis that states that an author uses ethos, pathos, and logos in their text is NOT specific enough for a rhetorical analysis. Explain why or why not, and provide suggestions for the writer to help improve the thesis, if necessary.

Quality and Specificity of Analysis: Evaluate the writer’s analysis. Does the writer select specific quotations from the text to discuss? What are these quotations, and what does the writer have to say about them? Does the writer seem to effectively analyze, or does the draft read more as a summary or paraphrasing of parts of the text being analyzed, or does the writer end up arguing about the content, rather than the structure and presentation of the text?

Overall Essay Structure: Comment on the overall structure of the essay. For example, explain in detail whether or not the paragraphs are presented in a logical and persuasive way. Does the writer provide a clear introduction, body and conclusion? Does each paragraph begin with a clear topic sentence and transition into the next paragraph? Provide examples that are particularly effective or areas that need more improvement.

What the graders are looking for...

C1: Focus
Does the student thoroughly explore the quality and specificity of the draft being examined in the critique?

C3: Sources and Evidence
Does the student support his or her critique with evidence from the text? In other words, does the student directly refer to specific parts of the text (paragraphs and/or sentences). This criterion is particularly important because students tend to use vague and generic language that could apply to any draft.

C5: Own Perspective
Does the student show authority in relaying his or her perspective about the effectiveness of the text? Students tend to shy away from making a direct critique of a document, or they default to praising the document in some generic way.

C6: Conclusion
Does the student provide an accurate evaluative statement about the draft's overall effectiveness? Does the student discuss the significance of the problems he or she identifies in the draft (i.e., how important each of these problems are)?

C7: Communication
Does the student communicate his or her critique effectively? Is the student's tone professional? Has the student organized his or her critique effectively? Is the critique relatively free of grammatical errors?