Friday's Essays

In both section 3 and section 4, we are missing an essay that you were supposed to comment on by tomorrow (Anna's and Chloe's). In addition, in section 3, Parker's essay is incomplete. Please do what you can to offer comments on his essay and, in section 4, on Michael's essay. You may disregard Anna's and Chloe's blogs.

No Class Friday; Rogerian Argument Workshops

Remember that, because of the NCUR taking place on campus this week, our class will not meet this Friday, April 1. (I also will not be on campus for my regular office hours.) Instead, you are asked to make extra-generous comments on the student papers that were scheduled for workshop that day, by Anna and Parker in section 3 and by Chloe and Michael in section 4.

Here are the student papers you need to read for the remainder of the Rogerian workshops:

Mon. 4/4: Matthew and Jessica in section 3; Adiba and Jake in section 4.
Wed. 4/6: Jennifer and Rachel in section 3; Greg B. and Zane in section 4.
Fri. 4/8: Josh in section 3; Mark in section 4.

Rogerian Drafts Due Wed. 3/30!

The first draft of your third essay, a Rogerian argument, is due on your blog by the time class meets on Wednesday, March 30. Title the post "Essay 3.1:" and then give your paper a working title. The draft may be rough, but it must be complete--which means it should be at least 1200 words and include at least three secondary sources, one of which must be scholarly.

Rebuttal Revisions Due Mon. 3/28

Final reminder: the final draft of your rebuttal argument -- if you haven't turned it in already -- is due on your blog on Monday, March 28.

First drafts of your Rogerian argument are due Wed. 3/30, so this weekend is the weekend to begin researching and writing! We'll talk about the progress you're making on Monday (as well as talk about King's essay).

Have a good weekend.

NCUR Fri. 4/1

Our class will not meet on Friday, April 1, since the National Conference on Undergraduate Research will be utilizing all classroom space on campus. Unfortunately, this means Parker and Anna in section 3 and Michael and Chloe in section 4 will have to sacrifice their class workshops and schedule individual conferences the following week with me instead. Please be sure to give them plenty of feedback on their blogs.

No Office Hours Today

I am cancelling my office hours this morning because my son has a snow day. If you need to see me, please e-mail me for an appointment. See you in class.

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.

Oops!

I made a mistake in a previous post, stating that the due date for the revision of your rebuttal argument is Monday, March 28. It should be Monday, March 21, the day we return from break. Hopefully most of you recognized the error and are still planning to complete your drafts by tomorrow. But to be fair, I will extend the deadline until next Monday, March 28.

That said, I encourage you to finish your revisions as soon as possible so you can move on to your next assignment: the Rogerian argument.

Rebuttal Comments

Hope you're enjoying your break! I'm enjoying reading your rebuttal arguments and many of you already have comments from me waiting on your blogs. (I'm working backward from Z to A this time, so those with last names at the end of the alphabet will see comments first.) Please take these comments into consideration as you revise over break. If you don't have a comment yet, you will see it there by tomorrow (Wednesday, March 16). You should also have a brief comment on the final draft of your rhetorical analysis as well as a grade on Blackboard.

A few of you either don't have completed drafts posted or you posted the wrong blog address on the master class list (which means I can't access your draft at all). Please check your e-mail to see if this is the case and get in touch with me ASAP so I can give you feedback.

Remember that the revision of your rebuttal is due the day we return from break, Monday, March 21. Post version 2.2 to your blog by the time class begins. If you have questions about my comments or about your revision, feel free to e-mail me at ehenderson@ithaca.edu.

Workshops for Fri. 3/11

For Friday, March 11, section 3 should read Julia's essay (just one!). Please comment on the first version of her draft, not the updated version.

Section 4 should read essays by Avery and Lindsay (note that this reflects a change from the Blackboard schedule).

Final Rebuttal Drafts Due Mon. 3/28

The final draft of your rebuttal argument is due on your blog by the time class meets on Monday, March 28, the day we return from Spring Break. I will do my best to have comments on your first drafts posted by this Monday, March 21 so you will have the week to revise. If you have questions about your papers over break, I will be available via e-mail (ehenderson@ithaca.edu). While I can't read entire new drafts and comment on them, I am happy to answer specific questions you have. Good luck and have a good break!

Spring Break

I hope that many of you will be in class on Friday to contribute to our last rebuttal workshop. But for those of you who won't be, please be prepared to read the papers of the student(s) scheduled for workshop and provide feedback by Friday. Normally when you're absent, you have until the next class to turn in a manuscript to a student, but because final drafts are due when you return from spring break, your feedback will not be useful at that point.

I will post links to students' papers for Friday's workshop later today.

Workshops for Wed. 3/9

For Wednesday, March 9, section 3 should read essays by Besa and Cassie. Section 4 should read essays by Molly Schneider and Elizabeth (even though Elizabeth's essay was originally scheduled for Friday).

Colby's Paper

Section 3: if you're having trouble printing Colby Gee's rebuttal, I've posted it as a Word document on our Blackboard page under Course Content. (Section 4, you can disregard.)

As long as my car can make it to campus today, class is on!

No Office Hours Mon. 3/7

I am cancelling my office hours tomorrow, Monday, March 7, because of the snow. If you need to meet with me, please e-mail me to make an appointment at another time. Class will meet as scheduled.

Workshops for Mon. 3/7

For Monday, section 3 should read essays by Justine and Colby. Section 4 should read essays by Caleale and Joni. Remember that you need to print and read the two essays, make marginal comments on the two essays, post comments on the two students' blogs, and print your comments to bring to class.

Workshops Begin Friday!

Your homework for Friday, March 2, is to read, print, and comment on two student rebuttal drafts. (See the post below titled The Workshop for full details.)

Section 3 (2:00) should read essays by Caleb and Drew, and section 4 (3:00) should read essays by Becca and Christina. Please be thorough and thoughtful in your comments, and be ready to talk about them on Friday.

If you are absent, you are responsible for checking the workshop schedule posted under Course Content on Blackboard to keep up with the workshop. You should also be keeping track of the workshop process through the course schedule, included in the syllabus. Also, if your essay is up for discussion in class, you are still responsible for reading and commenting on the other student's essay.

Two Blog Requests

1. In order to make it easier for me and others to read your blog, please space between paragraphs, but do not indent them. If you would like to reformat your latest draft, please do (but do not make any other changes to this draft until you've received comments from me).

2. In order to make it easier for me and others to comment on your blog, please go to your Dashboard, then Settings, then Comments. Next to "Show word verification for comments?" click on "No."

Proofreaders' Marks

Here is a chart that features common proofreaders' marks. This chart may come in handy when deciphering the marks that I make on your manuscripts, and I encourage you to use these marks when reading other students' drafts (as well as your own).

The Workshop

Here is some information about what to expect from the workshop process--and what is expected of you.  We will review this information in class on Wednesday, March 2.

The purpose of workshops is to give you the opportunity to exchange ideas about and comment on each other’s drafts. Regular communication with others and exchange of works in progress is an indispensable element of a writer’s work. As a member of the workshop group, you should approach this assignment thoroughly and seriously. Think of yourself not as a critic, or an editor, but as a reader whose task is to provide the author with help and enable better revision.

Over the course of the semester, you will read and respond to one essay by every student in the class.  For each student essay that you read, you will take several steps in providing feedback:

1.       Access the student paper on the student’s blog and print it. (See the workshop schedule posted under Course Content on our Blackboard page for the names of the student(s) being workshopped on any given day. Usually, you will read two essays for each class.)

2.       Read the paper and make notes on the manuscript as appropriate, recording your questions and comments in the margins. 

3.       On the student’s blog, use the Comment function to compose a brief (multi-paragraph) note addressed to the writer that summarizes your response to the essay.  Your comments should contain praise as well as constructive criticism and are intended to prepare you to discuss the essay in class.

4.       Print the comments you made on the blog and staple them to the top of the printed essay.  After the workshop, you will return the manuscript with your comments to the student.

You will receive a single grade for your online workshop comments, worth 15% of your final grade, at the end of the semester.

When commenting on other students’ drafts, follow these principles:

• Your job is not to judge the draft as if it were a finished piece, but to help it become better. Do not pay too much attention to grammar and mechanics—you are not an editor. Instead, advise the writer on the content.

• Tell the writer what you think the draft is saying. Praise the good aspects of the draft and explain why you like what you like. If a writer knows what he or she has done well, chances are that he or she will try to do more of the same next time.

• Make specific comments on specific parts of the paper. Don’t just say “It’s good” or “You need to revise.” Such comments are not very useful.

• Be kind, but don’t be nice. Telling the author that everything in the paper is great when it is lacking something is doing the author a disservice.

• If you are the author, listen carefully to the impressions that your work is making on readers. If they get a meaning out of it which you did not intend, make the necessary changes. You are not obliged to do everything your readers are asking for, but it is your responsibility to consider their comments with an open mind. Each workshop is intended to be an opportunity for you to learn more about your own writing.

Workshops begin on Friday, March 4!