Rhetorical Analysis

Project 2: Analytic Webtext — Information & Argument in Discipline

 

Exercise 3

Rhetor­i­cal Analy­sis of Schol­arly Article

  • 10 points; 400–600 words
  • due Sat 10-Oct; on your blog or in D2L

 
» Objec­tive: as warm-up toward Project 2, gen­er­ate ideas and prac­tice writ­ing (aca­d­e­mic prose) through a rhetor­i­cal analy­sis of one schol­arly arti­cle from your research — most likely one dis­cussed in your Anno­tated Bib­li­og­ra­phy (or a new one cho­sen for this exercise).
The entire dis­cus­sion is the result of your atten­tive crit­i­cal read­ing, ana­lytic points pro­posed and sup­ported effi­ciently with spe­cific exam­ples — about the key issues of the project:

    in spe­cial­ized dis­course of your field/discipline—
    Infor­ma­tion, Knowl­edge, Exper­tise, Research, Argu­ment, Evidence/Proof,
    Dis­course com­mu­ni­ties, and com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­ven­tions (rhetorical/written).

→ Effec­tively, this exer­cise involves two steps: first ana­lyz­ing the arti­cle con­sid­er­ing sev­eral rhetor­i­cal aspects/elements; then pre­sent­ing your ideas in thought­ful response, espe­cially con­nect­ing points and dis­cussing explic­itly in terms of the project.
In the response, avoid sum­ma­riz­ing; state your ideas first, then sup­port effi­ciently with exam­ples or quotes — rather than describ­ing and then labeling/commenting. Remem­ber, this is a dis­cus­sion about the arti­cle as a “rep­re­sen­ta­tive exam­ple” of schol­arly dis­course in your field: the objec­tive and out­come is to pro­duce insights for the project and prac­tice writ­ing crit­i­cally. So, keep­ing in mind our pur­pose, the con­tent is less sig­nif­i­cant than what it rep­re­sents (e.g. Infor­ma­tion, Exper­tise, Research) or how it is com­posed (e.g. Pur­pose, Argu­ment, Spe­cial­ized language/concepts). 

 
In a brief con­clu­sion (2 sen­tences?), iden­tify a sig­nif­i­cant insight (real­iza­tion) or obser­va­tion about the con­ven­tions of this schol­arly dis­course result­ing from this exer­cise. Look­ing toward the project, be sure to address one or more of the key issues/components of our study (espe­cially if you can con­nect and dis­cuss rela­tion­ship) — and/or a fea­ture of this par­tic­u­lar dis­course com­mu­nity, illus­trated by the arti­cle, unique to the Infor­ma­tion Par­a­digm (Knowl­edge — Lit­er­acy — Proof).

 
 

 

Assess­ment Cri­te­ria (from syl­labus):
Posted to per­sonal blog (or D2L), these infor­mal com­po­si­tions illus­trate atten­tive read­ing of assigned mate­ri­als, progress toward project, and engage­ment with class top­ics rel­a­tive to schedule.
Credit is assigned for (1) sub­mit­ting on-time, with required length and media (if assigned);
(2) demon­strat­ing atten­tion to class top­ics, con­tent knowl­edge, and crit­i­cal think­ing, par­tic­u­larly by describ­ing insights and connections;
(3) pro­vid­ing thought­ful and rel­e­vant responses to prompts, through spe­cial­ized discourse;
(4) with spe­cific exam­ples from per­sonal knowl­edge and/or respec­tive readings,
(5) while extend­ing rhetor­i­cal knowl­edge and mas­tery of writ­ing con­ven­tions, prac­tic­ing effi­cient prose (i.e. min­i­miz­ing /avoiding sum­mary, rep­e­ti­tion, digres­sion, and unnec­es­sary discussion).

 

 
Notes & Guide:
 
» The entire response should dis­cuss the arti­cle in terms of its Rhetor­i­cal Sit­u­a­tion,
as many com­po­nents as relevant:
    Author, Pur­pose, Con­text, Tim­ing (kairos);
    Audi­ence (implied, intended, secondary/unanticipated);
    Arrange­ment, Deliv­ery, Mode(s), Meth­ods (Style?); Strate­gies, Per­sua­sive Appeals (to ethos, to logos, to pathos)
    Mes­sage (explicit, implied)

* pro­tip: start with notes from critical/annotated read­ing on each of these cat­e­gories, con­sid­er­ing or exam­in­ing first → then, group into top­ics (3–4?) with con­cise exam­ples (keep­ing in mind the effi­ciency of the response, 400–600 words).
 
» Resources: