Op­tional Exer­cise: Cross Par­a­digm

• ex­tra credit — assign­ment points
• 500 words (min­i­mum; 700 max); 1 in­stance of me­dia (any form)
  → sug­gested 300 words part 1, 200 words part 2
  (just esti­mated guide­lines, not re­quire­ments) 
• post on your blog as en­try or page (by 28-Mar)

» objective/experiment Trans­for­ma­tion:
Belief-Story into Infor­ma­tion Par­a­digm (Proof : Lit­er­acy)
–or– Info/Argument into Story Par­a­digm (Be­lief : Oral­ity)

» Instruc­tions & Ob­jec­tives

Part 1: this is a “thought exper­i­ment,” need­ing crit­i­cal and cre­ative think­ing to ex­plore the impli­ca­tions of “cross­ing” par­a­digms; con­sider thor­oughly be­fore com­pos­ing, as the form/output is less impor­tant than the in­quiry. How­ever, impor­tant to note: the en­tire dis­cus­sion is the re­sult of your imag­in­ing ei­ther trans­for­ma­tion — no need to de­scribe your process/sequence, nor to spec­u­late broadly.

→ The re­sponse is the cross-paradigm trans­for­ma­tion, demon­strat­ing ad­vanced aware­ness of rhetor­i­cal con­ven­tions and forms of knowl­edge respec­tive to each mode.

• For effi­ciency, you might likely use content/ideas from projects/units 1 and 2; or, cer­tainly use other ideas and exam­ples from expe­ri­ence, learn­ing, obser­va­tions, re­flec­tions.
• The key aim is to ex­plore the promi­nent mode of the par­a­digm, whether Be­lief or Proof, by apply­ing your under­stand­ing of rhetorical/discursive con­ven­tions to demon­strate your in­sights about dis­tinct forms of knowl­edge and com­mu­ni­ca­tion.
• re­minder: be sure to only choose 1 “trans­for­ma­tion” —
  con­vert­ing Belief/Story into Information/Proof (analytic/argument dis­course : Lit­er­acy)
  –or–
  com­pos­ing Information/Argument idea in form of Nar­ra­tive (Be­lief : Oral­ity) 

What hap­pens when indi­vid­u­als or groups try to trans­form Be­lief into Infor­ma­tion for Argu­ments, or con­vert Proof into Nar­ra­tive? 


Part 2: af­ter com­pos­ing, read your trans­for­ma­tion and con­sider the dis­tinct modes/conventions of par­a­digms from the per­spec­tive of “appa­ra­tus the­ory.”
Write a short reflec­tion (200 words), dis­cussing any in­sights —
fur­ther under­stand­ing “par­a­digm rhetoric,” two “world­views” and dis­cur­sive con­ven­tions we’ve ex­am­ined;
per­haps any new per­spec­tive from this exper­i­ment, con­sid­er­ing your prior projects (and expe­ri­ence gen­er­ally) — espe­cially in terms of Insti­tu­tions, Iden­tity, Tech­nol­ogy, Social/Cultural Forms;
or, poten­tial lessons for Elec­tracy as a dis­tinct appa­ra­tus (nei­ther Oral­ity nor Lit­er­acy, but poten­tially a hy­brid of both and be­yond…).
In any case, these in­sights can be spec­u­la­tive — while be­ing con­cise and pre­cise, thought­fully con­sid­ered and com­posed (avoid­ing overly-broad phras­ing and gen­eral points).
 

---

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).