Renewal - cla.purdue.edu€¦ · Web viewArgument Research Essay requires students to research a...
Transcript of Renewal - cla.purdue.edu€¦ · Web viewArgument Research Essay requires students to research a...
TO: IWC Committee
FROM: UR@ Leaders; Elizabeth Geib, Victoria Ruiz, and Derek Sherman
DATE: March 27th, 2018
SUBJECT: UR@ Syllabus Approach Renewal-Draft
We are happy to submit to you the attached document(s) for the renewal of the UR@ syllabus approach for the academic year 2017-2018. UR@ has shrunk to approximately 8-10 instructors since the last renewal as a consequence of losing a mentor group lead by Dr. Thomas Rickert. Therefore, we are looking to focus UR@’s purpose based on feedback from previous and current instructors. One of our goals with this renewal is to refocus the approach so that instructors will be persuaded to implement our approach. We sincerely believe that UR@’s strength lies in our focus towards technology, literacy and identity as conceptual means of addressing twenty-first century demands. However, we do believe the time has come to reconsider our approach and to present these changes to you.
Within these pages you will find the renewal support documentation, in conjunction with sample assignments and syllabi, as well as three thoroughly fleshed out assignment sheets. We are happy to address any necessary changes in the document before it is accepted for renewal. For your reference, a Table of Contents is provided on the following page for easy navigation.
Thank You,
Elizabeth Geib, Document Coordinator Victoria Ruiz, Co-Leader Derek Sherman, Co-Leader
Table of Contents
RenewalSyllabus Approach InformationTextbooks
All Syllabus ApproachesICaP Approved for UR@
Assignment SequencePedagogical ObjectivesExample SequencesSample TimelineSequence Example 2
AppendixSyllabi & Course SchedulesProject Examples
Renewal
Syllabus Approach InformationApproach Name: UR@ Semester of Renewal Submission: Spring 2018 Approach Leaders: Victoria Ruiz and Derek Sherman Document Coordinator: Elizabeth Geib
Background
Historically, UR@ has been presented as a flexible syllabus approach that focuses on targeting the writing process while also encouraging student reflection on where they find themselves in the present moment. As the title suggests, “you are at” is a phrase left open for the interpretation of both instructors and students; consequently, the expressed concerns by current and past members have helped guide the following revisions.
UR@’s largest growth area is found in the ambiguous terminology located in the theoretical rationale. For example, the terms ‘cultural domains’ and ‘play’ reference numerous concepts and render different meanings depending on the individual. Moreover, it is also critical for renewal revisions to include recognition of technological changes since the last renewal; therefore we have grounded UR@’s concepts in identity, technology, and literacy.
Renewal Revisions
Original Theoretical Rationale New Theoretical RationaleUR@ sees the act of composition as a process of locating oneself within and engaging with interdisciplinary discourse in order to move through networks of relations within and across spaces. In short, this approach encourages students to locate themselves in relation to contemporary cultural domains and engage with various media, such as film, music, text, and web text. While incorporating aspects of traditional composition, this approach also provides space for play, which enables movement and flow, invention and discovery, all necessary components of creative composition. In addition, UR@ acknowledges that the shifting landscapes of technology requires an agile and sophisticated command of new compositional strategies.
UR@ facilitates an awareness of the networked relations shared by communities across time and space, while offering instructors flexibility regarding focus on various media and contemporary cultural domains--e.g., cultural artifacts, rhetorics, language, or relations with other cultures. In addition, UR@ acknowledges that the shifting landscapes of technology and literacies requires an agile and sophisticated command of new compositional strategies. In effect, this approach unites students’ creativity with aspects of traditional composition as a means for exploring play -- investigation, interpretation, and experimentation within writing and its various forms. UR@ prioritizes the concepts of identity, technology, and literacy.
The original theoretical rationale stated, UR@ “encourages students to locate themselves in relation to contemporary cultural domains,” but provided no explanation of what this means. Therefore, examples of cultural domains should be provided to guide instructors in syllabi development. While we are not limiting instructors’ choice in cultural domains, examples
provide guidance on what this could mean. Therefore, we have focused our newer definition on “artifacts, rhetorics, language, or relations with other cultures” as a way to further clarify this term.
Additionally, play--i.e., investigation, interpretation, and experimentation within writing and its various forms-- is multidimensional depending on one’s discipline, assignments, etc. Situating play in writing as investigation, interpretation, and experimentation creates clarity for instructors and what that means for a first-year composition (FYC) course. Again, we are not limiting instructors in what they can do with play, but we do situate and clarify its meaning in terms of writing.
Lastly, the acknowledgment of changing technologies and literacies is pivotal to the UR@ approach because it addresses the rapidly developing world. Therefore, elaboration on technologies and literacies has been added to address 21st century skills. For example, we changed our description by including literacies; therefore, this new description is as follows: “In addition, UR@ acknowledges that the shifting landscapes of technology and literacies requires an agile and sophisticated command of new compositional strategies.” The acknowledgment of these “compositional strategies” allows UR@ instructors to engage students in a variety of composition strategies, including academic research, multimodality, creative writing, and argument to name a few.
Textbooks
ICaP Approved for UR@
Given that the renewal process opens the door/possibility for change, we feel that it is necessary to phase out the current approved textbooks for our syllabus approach. Though Picturing Texts and The World is a Text each offer their own unique contributions that facilitate and streamline students’ learning, both are considerably dated (i.e., fourteen and ten years, respectively).
We also suggest Writing Situations by Sidney I Dobrin as a replacement. This textbook bridges academic and non academic components of communication, something important for UR@, an approach that bridges academic/professional identities with larger cultural domains (as described above). UR@ students are constantly asked to consider the rhetorical situation in relation to these academic and non-academic contexts- this is something that Writing Situations effectively displays.
The Digital Writer by Sean Morey is an additional textbook to add to the UR@ approach. Morey’s textbook encompasses UR@’s concept of technology, but through a lens that allows students to study identities and literacies in the 21st century. This digital lens approach provides students with the opportunity to study identities, literacies, and technology through a 21st century approach to writing, rhetoric, and argument.
Assignment Sequences
One of the benefits afforded by this syllabus approach is its embrace of varying pedagogical methods. UR@ provides instructors with the ability to compose assignments anchored in the following key concepts: identity, technology, and literacy. These concepts are are each targeted by the various categories listed in the graph below. As the venn diagram to the right indicates, identity, technology, and literacy each overlap; the layered structure speaks to the different categories that house each assignment, which instructors must choose from to get at the heart of the UR@ rationale. In lieu of a numerical sequence, we have provided a grid of potential assignments.
Using the Grid Below:
Instructors must pick one assignment option from either of the two categorical rows pertaining to each of the three concepts (i.e., for three major assignments total). This structure moves away from the “anything goes” approach by limiting the number of possible sequences. In addition, instructors can choose to include a fourth major assignment or a series of mini assignments that take over the entire semester (see sample sequence1 below).
Concept Category Assignment Options
Literacy
Contemporary Literacies
Mural Analysis Visual Poster Analysis
Go-Fund Me / Natural Disaster Relief
Intersectional Research
Academic Literacies
Literature Review Proposal Primary Source Analysis
Argument Research
Technology
Public Writing Advertising Campaign
Editorial Professional Email Résumés & Job Documents
Multimodality Digital Portfolio Websites Infographics Video-based Projects
Identity
Rhetorical and Cultural Awareness
Analysis Ethnography Literacy Narrative Rhetorical Listening
Audiences and Identities
Blogs & Discussion Threads
Reading Annotations
Professional Email Assignment
Research Method Creation (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, narrative-based, etc.)
The graph below illustrates how each assignment maps onto ICaP’s Goals, Means, and Outcomes.
1 Additional sequences provided for review in the sample syllabi located in the appendix.
ICaP Goals, Means, and Outcomes
1 2 3 4 5 6Demonstrate rhetorical awareness of diverse audiences, situations, and contexts.
Compose a variety of texts in a range of forms, equaling at least 7,500-11,500 words of polished writing.
Critically think about writing and rhetoric through reading, analysis, and reflection.
Provide constructive feedback to others and incorporate feedback into their writing.
Perform research and evaluate sources to support claims.
Engage multiple digital technologies to compose for different purposes.
Potential Assignments
Rhetorical Analysis
Intersectional Research
*Collectively all assignments meet this standard
Literature Review
Professional Email
*Collectively all assignments meet this standard
Literature Review
Intersectional Research
Digital Portfolio
Visual Poster Analysis
Digital Portfolio Multimodal Research
Primary Source Analysis
Autoethnographic Website
Argument Research Literacy Narrative Multimodal Research
Video ethnography
Infographic Rhetorical Listening
Research Paper/Proposal
Multimodal Research
Advertising Campaign
Go-Fund Me / Natural Disaster Relief
Infographics
Mural Analysis
Advertising Campaign
Pedagogical ObjectivesIn UR@, students explore the interconnectedness of contemporary literacies, stretch this interconnectedness through play, and write in as many genres and media as possible: students understand (read and interpret), play (investigate and experiment), and then compose (write and design). The ways in which particular instructors enact this third element and the ways in which students play emphasize UR@’s core concepts of identity, literacy, and technology.
Example Sequences
The following is a research intensive approach to the UR@ syllabus. This course utilizes a four assignment sequence that requires students to research academic article, conduct their own primary research, concoct an argument, and reimagine their argument in a multimodal format:
Assignment 1: The Literature Review (taught in conjunction with annotation assignment)
Assignment 2: Investigate on our own and
address the gaps(primary source)
Assignment 1: Research the
field and enter the conversation
(literature
Assignment 2: Primary Research Essay--students conduct their own primary research (survey, interview, etc.)
Assignment 3: Argument Research Essay (taught in conjunction with rhetorical listening)
Assignment 4: Post-Truth Era Assignment, or Multimodal Assignment
Sample Timeline
Week Computer Class Conference
UNIT 1: Literature Review (Establishing Where We Are)
Week 1
Jan. 8-14
IntroductionsIntroduction to Course
Writing Sample--Literacy
Syllabus MaterialsAssign Project 1 (Tuesday)
· Establishing Credibility—What makes a source credible? How do we know? What are peer-reviewed academic sources? Scholarly
vs. Popular Sources*Read Chapter 1: Starting with Inquiry
Using the Database (Thursday)· Navigating the Library’s databases
· Introduce Zotero*Read Chapter 6: From Finding to Evaluating Sources
Groups of 5 for 25 minutes· Intro to conferences
· Brainstorming
Week 2
Jan. 15-21
NO CLASS Annotation Assignment (50 points) introduction: What does it mean to annotate? How to read with a listening ear? How to
critically evaluate?*Read Chapter 2 and 3
Structuring the LREOutlining and Structuring
Time to read and annotate
Groups of 5 for 25 minutes· Invention
· Finding Resources
Week 3
Jan. 22-28
Incorporating SourcesOSIE format, quoting,
paraphrasing, and summarizing
Work Time the rest of the week *Read Chapter 7: From Summary to Synthesis
Differentiating the Skills
Week 4 Jan. 29-Feb.
4
Work Day on Rough Drafts*Revisit Chapters
Rough Drafts and Annotations Assignment due Tuesday
Literature Review Peer-Review
Individual Conferences
UNIT 2: Primary Source (Investigating on Our Own)
Week 5
Feb. 5-11
Work Day on Revisions· Ask Questions
Drafts returned on TuesdayIntroduce Assignment 2
*Read Chapter 11: Other Methods of Inquiry
Final LRE due on Sunday, February 11th, by 11:59 p.m. on Bb
Research Methods Breakout Sessions
Individual Conferences
Week 6Feb. 12-18
Data Collection· How do we collect data?
· What are the best practices and tools?
Introduction to Qualtrics
Source Materials· Primary vs. Secondary vs. Popular
· Gathering other types of primary sourcesSample Survey Creation
· Proper Questions to Ask
Invention in groups of 5
Week 7
Feb. 19-25
Writing methods sections· What to include
Analyzing· Analyzing Primary Sources· Update on primary research
· Work Time on Primary Research
Invention in groups of 5
Week 8
Feb. 26-Mar. 4
Visual Rhetoric:· Representing Data
visually· Word Tricks for data
Rough Drafts/Methods Sections due Tuesday
Peer Review of Primary Source Essay
Individual Conferences
Week 9
Mar. 5-11
Writing the results and discussion sections
· What’s the difference?
Rough Drafts returned TuesdayWork day on revisions
*Final PSE due Sunday, March 11th by 11:59 p.m.
Individual Conferences
Week 10 (March 12-18): SPRING BREAK
Unit 3: Argument Research Essay (Establishing Our Ground)
Week 11Mar. 19-25
Introduce Assignment 3
Dissenting Opinion—· Rhetorical listening and
writing to understand· Write in favor or understanding of the
opposition to your argument
The Research Process· Reminder about requirements
· Look to LRE and Primary Source
Structure*Chapter 9: From Introductions to Conclusions
*Read Chapter 4: From Identifying Issues to Forming Questions
Group Conferences
Week 12
Mar. 26-Apr. 1
WORK TIME ON ARGUMENT RESEARCH ALL WEEK Group Conference
Week 13
Apr. 2-8
Introduce Assignment 4· What is post-truth?· In-Class Readings
· Philosophical traditions· Why does it matter?
Rough Drafts/Dissenting Opinions due on TuesdayRhetorical Analysis:
· Ethos, pathos, logos· Commercial· Photographs
· Advertisements
Individual Conferences
Brainstorming Time for Project 4
UNIT 4: Hybridizing Arguments (Inviting a Bigger Audience)
Week 14Apr. 9-15
Options for Assignment 4· Movie
· Boy band· Website
· What matters is its ability to convince in a post-
truth era.
Rough Drafts returned
WORK TIME ON POST-TRUTH
Final ARE due Sunday, April 15th by 11:59 p.m.
Individual Conferences
Week 15Apr. 16-22
Work Time Rough Draft of Post-Truth Era DuePeer-Review of Post-Truth
Group Conferences
Week 16Apr. 23-29
Presentations Presentations all weekPost-Truth Era due April 29th by 11:59 p.m.
Available to Meet, if needed
Sequence Example 2 Used in Dr. Rickert’s Mentor Group
This sample sequence utilizes four assignments. The assignments can be used to build off one another, if the instructor chooses. The course begins and ends with visual rhetoric where design and rhetorical principles are introduced. Additionally, the course includes writing to two distinct audiences: one general audience and one academic audience. In all, this sequence provides a focus on visual, academic, and public writing.
Assignment 1: Rhetorical Poster Analysis requires students to pick a poster and analyze its visual components, including CRAP design principles and rhetorical principles (e.g., ethos, logos, and pathos). Assignment 2: Editorial requires students to compose an argumentative editorial for a generalized audience. Assignment 3: Argument Research Essay requires students to research a topic and compose an argument that defends their thesis. Assignment 4: Advertisement Design and Proposal requires students to create an advertisement--where the form is open to digital and non-digital projects. Additionally, students are required to compose a proposal.
Please note that additional course schedules are provided in the two sample syllabi linked below.
AppendixSyllabi & Course SchedulesElizabeth’s Syllabus — Spring 2018: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3uii1H1YZ6WvjCe2uRH6q85-VS9BSq_/view?usp=sharing
Victoria’s Syllabus — Spring 2018: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1riZF4tYMYw0OmynROc8pVqDW4zjdjQ-L/view?usp=sharing
Project Examples Derek’s Multimodal Research Project — Fall 2017:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pwqBPuHMUNV15kaM8OhfoIWG8BbqScwZ/view?usp=sharing
Elizabeth’s Autoethnographic Website — Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Fall 2017, Spring 2018: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lNy4BvLv3EfMLY-9F3wMwtgThCd4R-kq/view?usp=sharing
Elizabeth’s Rhetorical Visualization: Album Cover & Playlist — Fall 2016, Spring 2017:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1assfGXu4FNSrsbVKtmgosyXrrN58W1vc/view?usp=sharing
Victoria’s Personal Portfolio — Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Fall 2017, & Spring 2018:https://docs.google.com/document/d/110NaSjdPMJnL58ehJ85nWGGsD3spMBW0cwpZTdE16cc/edit?usp=sharing