Rogerian Assignment & Readings

Welcome back! Hope you all had a good break. This week we will begin our study of a third type of argument: Rogerian argument.

On Monday, March 21, we will begin with an introduction to the form and a review of the assignment below.

On Wednesday, March 23, we will discuss readings from Writing Today, including an essay called "Letter to Jim," which I will post on Blackboard by Monday, and do an in-class exercise.

On Friday, March 25, we will discuss Ayelet Waldman's essay "In Defense of the Guilty, Ambivalent, Preoccupied Western Mom," a response to Amy Chua's essay.

On Monday, March 28, we will discuss Martin Luther King, Jr.'s essay "Letter from Birmingham Jail," a response to a statement by Alabama clergymen.

Please print, read, make notes on, and be prepared to discuss all readings in class. Remember that a notebook check is coming up soon!

The first draft of your Rogerian argument is due on Wednesday, March 30.

From Friday, April 1 to Friday, April 8, we will workshop Rogerian drafts. I will provide links to student essays in a future post.

Essay 3 Assignment: Rogerian Argument

“But ... to subdue the spirit of faction, ... to inspire equity, moderation, and charity into men's sentiments and conduct with regard to others, is the genuine test of eloquence.”

            —George Campbell, The Philosophy of Rhetoric

When emotions run high, often the most effective rhetorical strategy is conflict resolution, rather than classical argumentation.  This assignment, which asks you to put into practice Carl Rogers’ idea of “empathic listening,” has several parts:

1. Identify a problem which you believe needs to be resolved.  You should feel strongly about this issue, but you should also be willing to cede some ground.  Write a Rogerian argument that seeks a resolution of the problem, addressing your argument to a resistant audience (you do not need to use the letter format, although you can if you like).  Your essay should, in some form, do the following:

(1) demonstrate an understanding of the opposing view,

(2) present reasons for considering your view,

(3) identify common ground, and

(4) suggest a compromise. 

While a sound Rogerian argument often takes this basic form, variations exist, and I encourage you to experiment with methods of moving beyond this outline.  It is more important that your argument embodies Rogerian ideals than that it follows the proper formula.

Your first draft is due on you blog on Wednesday, March 30.  In your heading, label your paper Essay 3.1. 

After receiving feedback from me (and, for some of you, the entire class), write a second draft of your essay.  This final draft, known as your “Rogerian Portfolio,” is due on your blog on Friday, April 15.  It must include the following:

·         Prewriting

·         Draft 1 (with comments from me and, for some, the whole class)

·         Reflection 1

·         Draft 2 (in your heading, label your paper Essay 3.2)

·         Reflection 2

·         Any other notes that document your process along the way (outlines, notes taken during research or workshop, etc.) (be sure to identify them clearly)

The grade you receive on the portfolio will be based on the final product as well as the process it reflects.  All parts must be present in order for the portfolio to be considered complete.

Final length: 1200 words, minimum (approximately 3 to 4 double-spaced pages)

Percentage of final grade: 20

Research: Effective research is as important in a Rogerian argument as it is in a rebuttal, because you must demonstrate that you have a comprehensive understanding of both sides of the issue.  So, you should use your research not only to support your own view, but to describe the opposing view as well.  You must perform adequate research to include at least three secondary sources (print and/or online); at least one of these sources must be scholarly.  You may also use primary sources if you wish.  Wikipedia and other “info” sites such as about.com and dictionary.com are not appropriate sources; you may use other encyclopedias or dictionaries, but they are discouraged and do not count as sources.  

Format: Your paper must be formatted and your sources documented in MLA format according to OWL.

Topics: The topic of your paper is open.  While Rogerian argument is often appropriate for age-old, hot-button, “culture war” issues, if you choose one of these, consider ways of making your argument unique.  Use Rogerian ideals to your advantage by advancing the conversation about your issue.  The strongest papers will likely make the old new by revealing thoughtful, sincere, personal, creative, and critical thinking.

                                                                                         

Additional help: I encourage you to see me during my office hours to discuss arguments, claims, structure, or any other concerns at any point during your writing process.  Remember that the Writing Center is also an excellent resource for extra feedback (if you visit the Writing Center, include documentation as part of your portfolio).

Grading Criteria

An “A” paper (90–100):

·      advances a clear, insightful, and original claim and well-defined reasons

·      supports the reasons with sufficient and compelling evidence

·      uses research critically and ethically and incorporates it appropriately

·      is constructed of unified, well-developed paragraphs in logical order with clear transitions

·      demonstrates advanced understanding and execution of Rogerian techniques

·      demonstrates mastery of documentation, grammar, and formatting

·      shows sophistication, innovation, and creativity with style, diction, and voice

A “B” paper (80–89):

·      advances a clear argumentative purpose, but may lack the insight  or originality of an “A” paper

·      supports the reasons with clear and relevant evidence, but support may lack insight

·      uses research ethically and incorporates it adequately, but analysis may lack insight

·      progresses logically, for the most part, and shows some attempt at transition

·      demonstrates incipient understanding of Rogerian techniques

·      demonstrates proper documentation and exhibits few grammar and formatting errors

·      provides evidence of an evolving, but perhaps underdeveloped, individual voice

A “C” paper (70–79):

·      demonstrates an attempt, though perhaps inconsistent, at an argumentative purpose

·      provides support, but may contain generalizations, overlook relevant examples, rely on obvious or clichéd evidence, or take warrants for granted

·      uses research, but research may not be appropriate or incorporated effectively, and analysis may not go beyond the obvious

·      orders paragraphs logically and coherently with, perhaps, a few lapses

·      demonstrates a simplistic understanding of Rogerian techniques

·      exhibits patterns of grammatical error, but they do not significantly impede meaning

·      documents sources appropriately but perhaps with some lapses in formatting

·      may be simplistic in style or reliant on clichés; may lack sentence variety

­A “D” paper (60–69) may lack any of the following:

·      an argumentative purpose

·      sufficient and relevant support

·      analysis of evidence

·      logical paragraph order or clearly defined paragraphs

·      understanding of Rogerian techniques

·      understanding of grammar or documentation

An “F” paper fails to meet most requirements and/or the writing exhibits serious deficiency.