Fall 1998

Mr. Pierce

Text: Podis, JoAnne M. and Leonard A. Podis. Rethinking Writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996.

Assignments:

Sept. 3	Introduction
Sept. 8	Chapter 1; paragraph due
Sept. 10	Chapter 5
Sept. 15	Paper draft due; workshops
Sept. 17	Reporting: facts, objectivity, and language
Sept. 22	Revision due; oral analyses of your news items
Sept. 24	Written version of news item due; Chapter 6
Sept. 29	Language as persuasion: advertising
Oct. 1	Bring advertisement and analyze orally
Oct. 6	Written analysis of ad due
Oct. 8	Chapter 9: argument
Oct. 13	Analysis of argument; bring paragraph to analyze orally
Oct. 15	Written argument due
Oct. 27	Workshops on arguments
Oct. 29	Revised argument due; Chapter 11
Nov. 3	Bring paragraph from your discourse community to analyze orally
Nov. 5	Page explaining a term from your discourse community due
Nov. 10	Argument from your discourse community due; workshops
Nov. 12	Language as a tool: style and correctness; bring your questions
Nov. 17	Analyzing styles
Nov. 19	Paragraph and imitation due; jargon
Nov. 25	Chapter 10: research; topic paragraph for final paper due
Dec. 1	Work in progress due; workshops
Dec. 3	Final paper draft due
Dec. 8	No class; appointments with Mr. Pierce
Dec. 10	Final paper due

Course requirements:

1) Participate in all classes and workshops. Do the reading assignments, attend, and take part in discussion. I do not require formal excuses for absences, but keep them to an absolute minimum, and notify me if you expect to be absent.

2) Do all the writing on time and conscientiously. Papers should be typed or word-processed double-spaced or neatly written in ink. Use 8 1/2 x 11 paper. You may make arrangements to hand in a paper for this course that you are going to use as part or all of a paper for another course, but only under the following conditions: you have approval in advance from the other instructor; you get the paper to me at least a week before it is due for the other course and warn me so that you have time to revise it; you let me know how it fared in the other course.

3) Maintain a notebook in which you keep all writing exercises and drafts of papers, including writing that you do in class. Bring the notebook to all classes and conferences with me.

If you carry out all the requirements for the course, you will receive credit. Your work will not be graded, and the whole function of evaluation in the course, by me, other students, and you yourself will be to improve your writing: both the individual text on which you are currently working and your techniques for writing in general.

We will spend a lot of time in class looking at examples of writing including your papers. Your comments on a fellow student's papers can be of great value since you and your fellow class members (including me) are the audience he or she is trying to inform or persuade or whatever. But above all you will be learning to look at your own writing in the same critical way, which should greatly improve the writing you produce.

Always begin thinking about the paper by asking what worked well about it. Then you can go on to consider how it could be made to work better.

Seek ways to improve the paper itself, rather than turning it into the paper you would have written. For example, don't give arguments against a stand in the paper; rather show how the arguments for the paper's stance could be improved or its terms clarified.

Consider such topics of analysis as the following:

Purpose: What is the purpose or purposes of this paper? Is the purpose clear and unified? Is it a reasonable undertaking?

Idea: What is the central idea? Are there any secondary ones?

Type of paper: Is the aim primarily argumentative? expository? emotive? What tone does the writer strive for?

Means: By what means and how successfully does the paper achieve its purpose?

Organization: Do the parts completely carry out the purpose? Are any of them irrelevant? Are they easy for the reader to distinguish and follow? Are they arranged effectively for the purpose?

Material: Are the details well chosen to develop the ideas? Are they clear? persuasive? accurate? Has the writer mastered the sources? Does he or she commit any logical fallacies or misinterpretations?

Style: Does the style as a whole and in detail contribute to the purpose? Is the vocabulary clear? Are key terms clearly and precisely used? Is the tone appropriate to the purpose? Does it ring true? Do any awkward sentences conceal vagueness of thinking? Do the literary devices (figures of speech, alliteration, rhythm, balanced sentences, rhetorical questions, etc.) work effectively?

Mechanics: Do any mechanical errors seriously interfere with the purpose?