Mini-analyses
The AssignmentYou will be writing a series of six mini-analyses--each 3-5 pages (AT LEAST 1200 words--not including the cover sheet), double-spaced, 12 point times new roman font, one inch margins--where you apply evaluative methods to a chosen textual artifact(s).
In each short written mini-analysis you must:
Provide a cover sheet wherein you compose two statements:
And within any given mini-analysis, you are striving to bring forth the following qualities, which all intertwine together simultaneously:
Everyone is required to read and comment on drafts of their group members. These comments will likely be written, though you can also "insert comments" using a shared Google doc, which will then be printed and handed in with the portfolio at the end of the unit. Use your growing knowledge from practicing the method, and also rely on the topics for workshopping mini-analyses.
|
Specific instructions for writing and providing feedback on each mini-analyses:Mini-analysis 1: Structure (McKee/Mamet/Butler)
Mini-analysis 2: Close/Critical (Gallop/White/Berger) Mini-analysis 3: Rhetorical analysis (Selzer/Covino) Mini-analysis 4: Audience analysis (Seitz/Rabinowitz) Mini-analysis 5: Genre analysis (Foss) Mini-analysis 6: Intertextual analysis (Porter) For the mini-analyses that require you to use audience, genre, and forum analysis, please use the general guidelines from the topics for workshopping mini-analyses and apply them together with the specific vocabulary and method given in the methodological texts.
Note: It is possible for each student to select a single text or rhetorical artifact to which they will apply all methods of evaluation to write these mini-analyses. However, each student may discover that different kinds of writing call for different methods of evaluation, and that each method is more appropriate for a certain kind of writing. In any case, each student is free to select a single text or different texts for each mini-analysis. When in doubt, feel free to contact me.
|
Breakdown of the procedure
PreparationPrior to the class period in which we will discuss a given method, you are to read the assigned readings, notate these readings, generate summaries for them (which will be included in your annotated bibliography), and begin to generate notes wherein you practice applying the method on a chosen textual artifact.
During class sessions when I introduce a method:
We will engage in substantive class discussion of the assigned readings, using a variety of examples, including those YOU suggest we discuss. By the end of class you will select an artifact that you will apply the method to, planning to write a short mini-analysis that goes beyond what we covered in class.
Prior to presentation class sessions:
Begin drafting the mini-analysis to help gather your thoughts, sharing your effort with your workshop group.
Presentation class sessions:
Several students will present their attempts to analyze the artifact using the method, with the aim to engage the class in discussion of the text and the method used to analyze it.
Workshop class sessions:
Provide written commentary using the topics for workshopping analysis. Also be prepared to provide spoken feedback to the writer during class. Bring a clean rubric for your peers to evaluate your mini-analysis.
|
Evaluation of the written mini-analyses:
I will evaluate your written mini-analyses when you hand them in with your portfolio. Your grade depends less on how well you perform the analysis than on your honest and complete effort in attempting to apply the method to a chosen text (up to 50 points for each analysis for a total of 300 points, or 30% of your total grade. Please see the rubric). At this stage it is not about getting it right as much as it is about getting it done--and getting it done means that you have honestly attempted to accomplish the following in your written piece:
|
Rationale for the mini-analyses
The articles that we read—in quick succession—are complex and demanding. The goal of the presentations and accompanying short written analyses is to improve your ability to read analytically and purposefully and to present the work of others, as well as your interpretation of it through practical applications.
You are working to develop yourself as a connoisseur of methods of evaluation, and as a critic able to persuade an audience of other connoisseurs of your evaluation. Ultimately, you will select one of these short written analyses as a starting point to expand into a more comprehensive evaluation of a piece of writing: the First Analysis. However, you are not limited to using the same text you analyzed in the corresponding mini-analysis. |
|
Assignment Objectives
At the local, more immediate level, you are in essence moving through a series of methodical approaches to evaluating writing from different perspectives. The objective is to discover a method YOU would like to learn more about by practicing it in an extended analysis. However, you can’t really discover a method you wish to pursue more deeply unless you dabble with several, which is why we are moving through each method as a series of low-stakes writing exercises that will ultimately comprise your portfolio for the course.
At the global level, which has to do with moving toward the completion of the Writing Arts major, you are practicing at least FOUR of the core values for the major (1, 2, 3, and 5) as you work toward writing the First Analysis:
So, one of the objectives of this course is for you to be able to write about how you have practiced these values in your Analysis Statement that you will write in your Portfolio Seminar. In that statement you will REFLECT critically on your writing from several of your courses, including this one, showing how your writing reveals your having practiced each of the core values of the major.
|
Note:
Everything is built up within a tightly timed sequence of steps that build upon each other. Since many of you are planning to be teachers of writing, I wanted to share what my pedagogic rationale is for the design. First: Once you have gone through the first mini-analysis, I hope each of you are seeing that an effective (though not required) strategy would be:
Ideally, by the first class-session where we discuss a particular method, you could have already gotten far into an email conversation with your group. The way I’ve structured the sequence allows these conversations to begin to happen and the more you take advantage of it, the more you will grow as an independent learner.
Second: these are LOW STAKES practice exercises, where you will receive a majority of the points through giving an honest effort and do so on time, which allows plenty of room for risk-taking and the inevitable failures that happen whenever trying something new (learning cannot happen unless there’s a safe space within which to fail). The presentation portion, which all of you will get a chance to do, is meant to provide opportunities for all of us (including me) to encounter and work through the challenging difficulties of practicing these evaluative methods. I do not, and NOR SHOULD YOU, expect anyone to present any of these methods with perfect knowledge and mastery. Again, I am much more interested in allowing for moments of actual learning to happen rather than having people merely assert what they already know. The course is designed to maximize such moments. Third: each method will echo and reinforce aspects from the previous methods, such that they will occur more as developing out of our prior work. This then permits the inclusion of a variety of methods in a relatively short period of time, such that each student might find a suitable method to pursue more fully with a chosen text. |
The Rubric
|
|