Exercise 3

Project 2: Analytic Webtext — Information & Argument in Discipline

Exercise 3

Rhetor­i­cal Analy­sis of Schol­arly Ar­ti­cle

  • 10 points; 400–600 words
  • due Sat 27-Feb; 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: