Project 2

 

Project 2 (30 points total)

 
 
1. Ana­lytic Web­text — Infor­ma­tion & Argu­ment in Discipline

    due 26-Oct; 20 points; 1000 words* (fewer if screen­cast has audio commentary) 
  • Post link to the web­text on your blog.

Objec­tive:   Ana­lyze and syn­the­size ideas from crit­i­cal obser­va­tions: dis­ci­pli­nary con­ven­tions, of infor­ma­tion and argu­ment, com­mu­ni­cated to aca­d­e­mic read­ers (imag­ined audi­ence).

Web­text: (20 points, text + media)
— first cre­ated indi­vid­u­ally, pre­sent­ing rhetor­i­cal analy­sis; then linked and pub­lished as class col­lec­tion for online readers.
 

  • Con­tent: Present insights in crit­i­cal dis­cus­sion using ana­lytic per­spec­tive & key terms; exam­ples drawn from sources selected (famil­iar and researched) for anno­tated bib­li­og­ra­phy, rel­e­vant and cur­rent for field con­sid­er­ing aca­d­e­mic read­ers (imag­ined audi­ence).
    Offers insights about forms of infor­ma­tion and argu­ments in spe­cial­ized dis­course of your field/discipline in “Infor­ma­tion Paradigm” —
      Dis­course com­mu­nity, com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­ven­tions (rhetorical/written)
      Infor­ma­tion, Knowl­edge, Exper­tise, Research, Argu­ment, Evidence/Proof

     

  • For­mat: For­mal aca­d­e­mic style; present analy­sis effi­ciently and effec­tively con­sid­er­ing audi­ence and pur­pose, sup­port­ing with both spe­cific exam­ples and mul­ti­me­dia (e.g. screen­cap images & screen­cast videos)
    see Design Guide page
     
    Web­texts: “screen-based schol­arly arti­cles that use dig­i­tal media to enact the authors’ argu­ment.” (Ball)

 

Dig­i­tal Rhetoric
— thought­ful and reflec­tive prose with advanced con­tent knowl­edge & per­spec­tive; sep­a­rate com­po­nents from web­text. → Present on page(s) on your blog.

1. Sum­mary (“Design Memo”)

  • 300–400 words, 5 points, due 27-Oct

» Prompt: con­cisely and pre­cisely, describe your Web­text design and ratio­nale con­sid­er­ing audi­ence, pur­pose, and publication.
Rather than sum­ma­riz­ing process, be sure to dis­cuss thought­fully your intent and the effects of the web­text, not­ing spe­cific choices and ele­ments — in terms of reader-focused design (par­tic­u­lar audi­ence imag­ined) and your ratio­nale (most impor­tant).
 

2. Reflec­tion

  • 500 words, 5 points, due 27-Oct

» Objec­tive: expe­ri­en­tial insights from over­all project, about your discipline/field and Web writing.

Dis­cuss thought­fully and specif­i­cally your insights about dis­ci­pline, con­ven­tions, knowl­edge within “Infor­ma­tion Par­a­digm” (as one worldview):

    - how infor­ma­tion is used/privileged; argu­ment/proof
    exclu­sions/omissions? (in what is thought or communicated?)
    knowl­edge invented, dis­cov­ered, cre­ated, con­veyed, “acquired,” circulated
    – insti­tu­tions, roles; forms, “struc­tures”; lan­guages, dis­course community
    – dis­course and knowl­edge dis­tinctly aca­d­e­mic, pro­fes­sional, pub­lic, social/community, personal?

note: you need not address all these issues; how­ever, be sure to include at least 2 of these top­ics when dis­cussing the Infor­ma­tion Par­a­digm as a par­tic­u­lar (sit­u­ated, rel­a­tive) “worldview“ 

* also: no need to compare/contrast with other par­a­digms (for instance, Belief/Story of Unit 1); this will be focus of Blog Entry 3, sep­a­rately.