CONTENTS: Final Paper Guidelines & Final Paper Peer Review.
*************************************************************************************FINAL PAPER GUIDELINES
*************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************
The research-based argument: This project is an opportunity for you to explore a topic that interests you rhetorically. Consider the images that shape a debate, tell a certain history, or persuade an audience in a certain way. Your task will be to write a research paper in your own academic voice, integrating visuals (if necessary) & using a wide range of rhetorical & argumentative strategies. The paper should be a persuasive argument, but you are free to take whatever angle you choose. That is, you are free to develop your own position & rhetorical stance. You do need to rely upon a significant body of research that can take the form of articles, books, interviews, field research, surveys, & other secondary sources. Explore whatever subject matter you wish (outside of those excluded in the syllabus). Feel free to run ideas by your instructor in class, in individual conferences, or via email. Realize that it’s time for you to bring to fruition your developing skills as a scholarly writer.
Length/Format: The paper should be 2700-3000 words & should meet pre-ordained formatting standards, be spell-checked & proofread. You will us MLA style in order to learn the standard documentation convention for writing in the humanities, or the Modern Language Association.
A separate Works Cited (& Consulted, if you wish) page, in which you identify all referenced texts & images using MLA style, should be included.
Subject Specifics: Your paper must be an argument, not a report. In other words, the entire essay should be designed to support a thesis statement through strategic use of your research and through effective use of the rhetorical appeals logos, pathos, & ethos. You might consider how to integrate effectively the multiple sides you have been researching.
Content: look to see that you have incorporated the following in the paper itself:
Length/Format: The paper should be 2700-3000 words & should meet pre-ordained formatting standards, be spell-checked & proofread. You will us MLA style in order to learn the standard documentation convention for writing in the humanities, or the Modern Language Association.
A separate Works Cited (& Consulted, if you wish) page, in which you identify all referenced texts & images using MLA style, should be included.
Subject Specifics: Your paper must be an argument, not a report. In other words, the entire essay should be designed to support a thesis statement through strategic use of your research and through effective use of the rhetorical appeals logos, pathos, & ethos. You might consider how to integrate effectively the multiple sides you have been researching.
Content: look to see that you have incorporated the following in the paper itself:
· A strong, unique, specific, & compelling thesis
· A fully developed introduction, body, & conclusion
· Strategic use of persuasive appeals of logos, pathos, & ethos
· Strategic incorporation of your research as a means to support your claims through evidence (primary & secondary sources, interviews, statistics, analogies, examples, etc.)
· If pertinent to your subject: Visual rhetoric, or how visual mediate, shape, create a particular controversy, situation, issue, or phenomenon. Visual rhetoric should be both the lens of analysis & the key primary source focus
· An articulation of the context and significance of this problem
· Development of your persona & a strong statement of your purpose
· The proposal of some kind of solution to the problem at hand or the delineation of a new way of looking at the issue
· Organization of your writing with attention to overall coherence, transitions, balance between parts, & the relationship of part to whole
· Understanding of the conventions of academic discourse (correct usage, diction, syntax, grammar, & documentation format)
· Documentation of sources cited using MLA style in the body & the Works Cited page
· Insertion of images according to academic convention (Figure 1, etc.) & posted in a clear & aesthetically pleasing manner
· No typos, careless errors, or proofreading mistakes that decrease credibility & destroy ethos
*************************************************************************************
FINAL PAPER PEER REVIEW FORM
*************************************************************************************Be as specific as you can in answering these questions, using examples from the draft you are reading. Your comments will help the writer improve his or her paper.
1. Does the paper include a clearly stated thesis? What is it? Does the thesis contain an argument that the writer will attempt tom develop? Is the thesis strong, unique, specific, and compelling? After reading through the entire paper, does the thesis adequately encompass the purpose of the work? In what ways can the thesis be altered to make it more appropriate?
2. Does the paper contain a fully developed introduction, body and conclusion? If not, what are some ways that these aspects of the work can be improved? Be specific with your suggestions. For example, does the introduction provide an articulation of the context and significance of this problem?
3. Does the paper incorporate the rhetorical appeals of logos, pathos, ethos in a strategic manner? Are there sections of the paper that do not utilize one of these methods? In what ways could these appeals be integrated into the work so as to create a stronger argument? Are there moments when the paper demonstrates faulty reasoning in logos, overly emotive pathos (bathos), or employs an appeal of ethos that lacks credibility (remember that proper grammar, mechanics and usage constitute a rhetorical appeal to ethos as well)?
4. What type of rhetorical arrangement does the paper employ? Is the model utilized the most effective and efficient available? Can you suggest another arrangement that would be successful in the development of this paper?
5. Within the paper is there a strategic incorporation of research as a means to support the paper’s claims through evidence (primary and secondary sources, interviews, statistics, analogies, examples, etc.)? Do the methods of integration allow for comprehensible reading and concise structure? Does the paper explain why specific quotes are referenced, or are the quotes inserted into the work without proper analysis?
6. If the paper contains visual rhetoric, how do the visuals mediate, shape, create a particular controversy, situation, issue, or phenomenon? Is the visual rhetoric both the impetus for analysis and the key primary source focus? If not, what suggestions can you make about these matters?
7.What, if anything, confuses you about the research paper?
8.What would you like to know more about?
1. Does the paper include a clearly stated thesis? What is it? Does the thesis contain an argument that the writer will attempt tom develop? Is the thesis strong, unique, specific, and compelling? After reading through the entire paper, does the thesis adequately encompass the purpose of the work? In what ways can the thesis be altered to make it more appropriate?
2. Does the paper contain a fully developed introduction, body and conclusion? If not, what are some ways that these aspects of the work can be improved? Be specific with your suggestions. For example, does the introduction provide an articulation of the context and significance of this problem?
3. Does the paper incorporate the rhetorical appeals of logos, pathos, ethos in a strategic manner? Are there sections of the paper that do not utilize one of these methods? In what ways could these appeals be integrated into the work so as to create a stronger argument? Are there moments when the paper demonstrates faulty reasoning in logos, overly emotive pathos (bathos), or employs an appeal of ethos that lacks credibility (remember that proper grammar, mechanics and usage constitute a rhetorical appeal to ethos as well)?
4. What type of rhetorical arrangement does the paper employ? Is the model utilized the most effective and efficient available? Can you suggest another arrangement that would be successful in the development of this paper?
5. Within the paper is there a strategic incorporation of research as a means to support the paper’s claims through evidence (primary and secondary sources, interviews, statistics, analogies, examples, etc.)? Do the methods of integration allow for comprehensible reading and concise structure? Does the paper explain why specific quotes are referenced, or are the quotes inserted into the work without proper analysis?
6. If the paper contains visual rhetoric, how do the visuals mediate, shape, create a particular controversy, situation, issue, or phenomenon? Is the visual rhetoric both the impetus for analysis and the key primary source focus? If not, what suggestions can you make about these matters?
7.What, if anything, confuses you about the research paper?
8.What would you like to know more about?
No comments:
Post a Comment