Department of Rhetoric & Writing
Department of Rhetoric & Writing

RHE 306 • Rhetoric And Writing

43470
Meets TTH 8:00AM-9:30AM BEN 1.104
show description

Multiple meeting times and sections. Please consult the Course Schedule for unique numbers.

This does NOT meet the Writing Flag requirement.

This composition course provides instruction in the gathering and evaluation of information and its presentation in well-organized expository prose. Students ordinarily write and revise four papers. The course includes instruction in invention, arrangement, logic, style, revision, and strategies of research.

Course centered around the First-Year Forum (FYF) selected readings. Students focus on the foundational knowledge and skills needed for college writing. In addition, they are introduced to basic rhetoric terms and learn to rhetorically analyze positions within controversies surrounding the FYF readings.

RHE 306 is required of all UT students. Contact Student Testing Services at (512)-232-2662 to petition for RHE 306 credit.


RHE 309K • Rhet Of Bicultural Identity

43600 • Brozovsky, Erica
Meets TTH 11:00AM-12:30PM FAC 7
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Bicultural Identity 

What do Kid Cudi, Olivia Wilde, and Louis CK have in common? And what about Eminem, Snooki, and Mindy Kaling? The members of the first group can be identified as multiracial: the children of parents of different ethnicities and races. The second group lends itself to a more multicultural lens: Eminem is not seen as just a rapper, but a white rapper; Snooki embodies the Italian-American guidette, but is in fact Chilean; and in the words of Mindy Kaling, “My parents raised me with the entitlement of a tall, white, blond man.” In this class we will examine mixed identity in both measures of race and of culture.

As globalization simultaneously shrinks the perceived distance between cultures and broadens our worldview, there has arisen a population of individuals who do not solely identify with one cultural ethnicity or community. From deciding which box to check on demographic forms to communicating with grandparents in makeshift sign due to language barriers, the offspring of multiculturalism often struggle with what unicultural people might consider innocuous tasks or decisions. What does it mean to be accused of “acting black” or, in the case of Rachel Dolezol, actually passing as black? How do people behave differently or speak differently in the various cultural spheres to which they belong? With this struggle comes the question of identity. Where do these people fit in?

Through a rhetorical lens, we will explore a multitude of topics including historical viewpoints on miscegenation (and the negative connotation the word conveys), third culture, the immigrant experience, diaspora, and loss of culture. We will examine the way our society talks about multiculturalism, and in turn, how the way we talk about it shapes the way that it exists. In this course, we will learn to engage critically with a variety of texts from laws to YouTube videos and evaluate them based on the rhetorical toolkit developed over the course of the semester. By researching credible sources, and writing and revising college-level papers, we will emerge at the end of the semester with a greater understanding of rhetoric, writing, and the multicultural world around us.

 

Required Textbooks and Handbooks

  • Everything’s an Argument, Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, & Keith Walters
  • Little Longhorn Handbook, Richard Bullock, Michal Brody, & Francine Weinberg

 

Selected Texts - Additional texts will be assigned in a course packet or distributed electronically. Authors may include: Jan Blommaert, David Pollock & Ruth Van Reken, Rutledge Dennis, Barack Obama, Trevor Noah, Vaidehi Muhumdar, Mary Bucholtz, and Emma Lazarus.

 

Course Assessment

  • Paper 1.1 – 10 %
  • Paper 2.1 – 10%
  • Paper 2.2 – Revision – 15%
  • Paper 3.1 – 10%
  • Paper 3.2 – Revision – 15%
  • Final Presentation – 10%
  • Short writing assignments (5 – 20%)
  • Participation (10%)
  • Peer Reviews (Mandatory)

RHE 309K • Rhet Of Human Computation

43645 • Emison, Emily
Meets TTH 3:30PM-5:00PM FAC 7
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Human Computation

At the nexus of human talent and technological advancement lies human computation: the practice of using the processing power of people to solve problems and/or analyze data that computers cannot (yet) solve/analyze and, importantly, vice versa. This promising, problematic marriage of man and machine is not new—the prosthetic extension of ability via technology is at least as old as the wheel, the stylus, or the sundial. What is novel, however, is the massive scale on which these extensions are taking place in the 21st century.

"Rhetoric of Human Computation" is designed to bridge the gap between the anxious Luddites (whether self-styled or externally perceived) and the myopically optimistic practitioners by interrogating the central claims made about the relationship between human beings and computers. Students will gain a more nuanced understanding of this ongoing conversation's context by examining a variety of viewpoints and thinking critically about the rhetorical moves made by different texts (including non-written and born-digital texts). Arguments for and against many distinct approaches to human computation will be analyzed for their bias/credibility, intended audience(s), underlying assumptions, and appeals to the classical triad of ethos/pathos/logos. This course will ask students to read and write arguments about human computation but also, ultimately, to consider how “rhetorical” human-machine interaction is, in itself.

 

Major Assignments:

  •             Project 1: Annotated Bibliography (10%)

  •             Project 2: Rhetorical Analysis (10%)

  •             Project 2 Revision (15%)

  •             Project 3: Argument (10%)

  •             Project 3 Revision (15%)
  •             Project 4: Computational Translation (10%)

Shorter Assignments: Research Summaries 1-4 (15%)

Participation: Measured via Canvas Discussions and Quizzes (15%)

Instructor Conferences: For Projects 1 & 4 (Mandatory)

Peer Reviews: For Projects 2 & 3 (Mandatory)

 

IV. Course Readings

  • Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. 3rd        Edition.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2014.
  • Bullock, Richard, Michal Brody, and Francine Weinberg. The Little Longhorn Handbook. 2nd Edition.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2014.

 

Sample of additional readings and resources (to be posted on Canvas):

  • Marcus, Adam Marcus and Aditya Parameswaran. Crowdsourced Data Management: Industry and                    Academic Perspectives, "Human Computer Interaction," "Machine         Learning and Artificial            Intelligence," "Social Science," "Game Theory," and "Systems and Programming Models" (each      section is 2-3 pages, maximum).
  • Quinn, Alexander J. and Benjamin B. Bederson. "Human Computation: A Survey and Taxonomy of a      Growing Field."

RHE 309K • Rhet Of Injustice In Comics

43572 • Wells, Jazmine
Meets TTH 11:00AM-12:30PM WAG 308
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Injustice in Comics 

Course Description

In this course, we will analyze the measures comic book characters take to bring justice to their communities. In order to better understand why these characters have decided to fight for social justice, we will discuss and dissect the injustices committed against them, such as being illegally experimented on, stigmatized, and falsely criminalized. In class, we will use the comic book hero Luke Cage to investigate how comic book characters rhetorically tackle issues related to race, crime, and politics. As a class we will view clips from the Netflix series Luke Cage, refer back to excerpts from the comic book, and read current scholarship published on Luke Cage. Although Luke Cage will serve as the main case for class discussions, students are allowed to focus their assignments on any comic book character they want.

By exploring and critiquing how popular culture frames conversations regarding Luke Cage, students will learn to identify and analyze rhetorical appeals and fallacies, in both traditional and visual texts. Students will then take the analytic skills, critical thinking skills, and research methods developed from having these discussions, and use them to examine how a comic book character of their choice also addresses and solves social issues. Students will be asked to compose short and long writing assignments summarizing and analyzing their comic book character’s actions, with the purpose of producing an argument about their comic book character’s fight for justice. At the end of the course, students will be asked to join in on this fight for justice, by taking action towards solving a social issue in their local communities.

 

List of Assignments

  • Project 1: Annotated Bibliography (15%)
  • Project 2: Argumentative Essay (10%)
  • Project 2.2: Revision (15%)
  • Project 3: Action Rhetoric Project (10%)
  • Project 3.2: Revision (15%)
  • Project 4: Build-a-Superhero (10%)
  • 5 Short Writing Assignments (25%)

 

Required Texts

  • Browne, M. Neil and Keeley, Stuart M. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 2007. Print.
  • Bullock, Richard, Michal Brody, and Francine Weinberg. The Little Longhorn Handbook. 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2014.
  • Access to a Netflix account 

RHE 309K • Rhet Of Islam In America

43635 • Chovanec, Matthew
Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM PAR 304
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Islam in America

Islam and Muslims figured prominently in the public discourse of the United States these days, from Donald Trump's controversial "Muslim ban", to the unbridled Muslim feminism of the "I Wrap my Hijab" rap video. However, this is nothing new. Islam has appeared frequently in American political and popular culture, going back even to discussions over religious liberty in the colonial period. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Americans have engaged in an ongoing, controversial debate about their country’s relationship to  the global and national Muslim population. Much of this conversation is based upon uncritical assumptions about the nature of Islam, including those regarding gender roles, support for violence and terrorism, Islamic law ("shari'a"), religious authority, cultural and ethnic origins, and its inherent compatibility with democracy.   


This course will explore popular representations of Muslims in the American imagination. After examining the history of Islam in America, and the use of Muslims as the ‘Other’ in the West more broadly, students will examine contemporary debates over Islam in the American media. Students will be challenged to think critically about the political expediency of specific representations of religion and cultures:  how dominant narratives are engineered and when and how they are challenged. Through this historical exploration of the history of Islam in American rhetoric, students will also learn how to identify and analyze a text’s relation to historical, political, and rhetorical contexts; conduct original research using UT library resources and online search engines; approach media and journalism using tools of critical analysis referred to broadly as “media literacy”; assess the credibility of a variety of digital sources; develop a thoughtful writing practice through peer reviews and revisions; identify rhetorical strategies across a range of multimedia texts; write cohesive, analytical papers that contribute to larger conversations about Muslims and their treatment in American culture, politics, and media; and present clear and persuasive written arguments.

Students will be graded on the following assignments for the term:

  • Oral Presentations (3) and in-class participation 20%
  • Research summaries (2) 10%
  • Short Assignments: 20%  
  • Timeline/TimeMap 5%
  • Rhetorical Appeals Summary/Analysis 5%
  • Analysis of a Cultural Object 5%
  • Proposal 5%
  • Major Assignments: 50%
  • Definition Paper 10%
  • Rhetorical Analysis Essay 15%
  • Cultural Object and Reflection 25%

 

List of Required Texts:

  • Everything’s an Argument – Andrea Lunsford, John Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters
  • A History of Islam in America: From the New World to the New World Order, Kambiz GhaneaBassiri
  • Compass - Mathias Énard  

RHE 309K • Rhet Of Sports/Athleticism

43590 • Goheen, Jeremy
Meets MWF 10:00AM-11:00AM JES A209A
show description

In a 2006 New York Times article, David Foster Wallace defined the spectacle of watching Roger Federer play upon the “sacred grass” of Wimbledon as a “religious experience.” Framing such an experience in religious terms, Wallace contends that Federer is “one of those preternatural athletes who appear to be exempt . . . from certain physical laws.” We, as an audience, are asked to imagine Federer’s athleticism and performance on the court less in terms of sheer muscular physicality and more in terms of pure transcendent beauty—a beauty divested of political and cultural meaning. Nine years later, Claudia Rankine would explore in the same venue with a much different agenda “The Meaning of Serena Williams.” Williams, Rankine contends, embodies black excellence, but not the kind of black excellence that performs with “good manners and forgiveness in the face of any racist slights or attacks.” On quite the contrary, Rankine suggests Williams’s performances have rewritten the “unspoken script that demands” black people, and black athletes in particular, to absorb racism without resistance. The “new script” Williams provides is one in which “winning doesn't carry the burden of curing racism, in which [black athletes] win just to win.” While each of these representations of the two athletes could not have more radically different agendas, they share some common denominators. Significantly, both authors ask us to change the way we talk about and perceive sports and athleticism. But in asking us to alter our perspectives, they do something we all do every day (knowingly or not): they subtlety, and sometimes not so subtlety, make arguments. And they do so using a wide range of rhetorical strategies.

In this course, Rhetoric of Sports and Athleticism, we will seek to answer a series of fundamental questions: What are sports? What is athleticism? What rhetorical strategies, specifically, does the media employ as a means of selling the spectacle of sports and athleticism to spectators? What is the price we pay for incessantly talking (and arguing) about sports? What is there to be gained? How is rhetoric used to both destroy and advance individual careers? Whose bodies get talked about and whose bodies do not? Where do sports and politics collapse into one another? Are they (or have they) ever been distinct from one another? In attempt to answer these kinds of questions, students will complete three major assignment divided into three units. In the first unit, students will map a particular sports related controversy of their choice. To help narrow the scope of the project, students will select a single athlete through which they will map the controversy. In the second unit, students will learn to rhetorically analyze televised and live sports events. In the third and final unit, students will make an intervention into the controversy they will have explored over the course of the semester.

Required Textbooks and Handbooks

  • Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments, Lester Fairly and Jack Selzer
  • Longhorn Handbook

Grading

  • 1.1 Annotated Bibliography (10%)
  • 2.1 Rhetorical Analysis (televised event) (5&)
  • 2.2 Rhetorical Analysis (live event) (5%)
  • 2.3 Rhetorical analysis revision (10%)
  • 3.1 Argumentative Essay (15%)
  • 3.2 Argumentative Essay Revision (20%)
  • Short Writing Assignments/participation (20%)
  • Oral Presentations (5%)
  • Participation (10%)
  • Peer Reviews (Mandatory)

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Action Films

43575 • Ptacek, Jacob
Meets MWF 9:00AM-10:00AM PAR 303
show description

From the iconic (“I’ll be back…”) to the ironic (“Go ahead—I don’t shop here, anyways!”), action films have shaped—for good and bad—the discourse of American culture for the past forty years.   And while often critically reviled, action films and franchises are one of the most profitable sectors of Hollywood’s film industry, both at home and abroad.  But action films are more than just an evening’s light entertainment.  They engage in political and cultural arguments from all sides of the spectrum, from the treatment of returning veterans (First Blood) to race relations (Lethal Weapon) to governmental surveillance of civilians (The Dark Knight).  They map shifting responses to, among others, urban fears (the Dirty Harry and Death Wish series), Vietnam (the Rambo films), the Cold War (the James Bond franchise, Red Dawn),feminism (the Alien films, Speed) and terrorism (the Die Hard, Spider-Man, and Batman franchises, The Hurt Locker).  They often, quite literally, infiltrate contemporary political discourse: Reagan praising Rambo, Schwarzenegger as “the Gubernator,” Obama as a “socialist” Joker.  And of course, lots of things explode.

 

This course takes for granted, then, that action films are worthy of serious study; and our purpose will be to analyze the arguments that they make, both narratively and visually, through rhetorical strategies.  Because rhetoric depends on understanding speech as situated in a particular socio-historical context, our class will look not just at the films themselves, but also the historical moments from which they emerge, and how critics and others responded to them at the time.  As this is a course in rhetoric, and not in film, students need have no familiarity with traditional models of film analysis (camera angles, shot composition, mise-en-scene, suture theory), but rather an interest in what action films say: How do they respond to an historical event?  What kinds of arguments do they make, and for whom?  Is an argument the words the actors say, or the images the director presents, or some combination of the two? How do these films engage with political, social, scientific, and cultural ideas?  How do their arguments change over time?  How can we evaluate those arguments, and why should we? 

 

Required Texts:

  • Picturing Texts by Faigley, George, and Palchik
  • Everything’s an Argument by Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz
  • Additional short pieces may be assigned through Blackboard (film reviews, critical articles, etc.)

 

Grading:

  • Five short writing assignments (one-page, single-spaced; the lowest grade will be dropped): 15%
  • Paper 1.1: 5%
  • Paper 1.2: 10%
  • Bibliography Assignment: 10%
  • Paper 2.1: 10%
  • Paper 2.2: 15%
  • Paper 3.1: 10%
  • Paper 3.2: 15%
  • Oral Presentation: 10%

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Food

43650 • Mishra, Amrita
Meets TTH 3:30PM-5:00PM GAR 0.132
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Exotic Food 

“Stop thinking. Just slurp the noodle in your mouth. I don’t need you to tell me about your spiritual awakening, or your surprise at how modernized our cities are, or how charmed you were that English was so widely spoken … Eat, but don’t expect a gold star for your gastronomical bravery.” – Shin Yin Khor

“I got hot sauce in my bag, swag” −Beyoncé Knowles, “Formation”

Brightly coloured fruit. Spicy aromas floating out of chaotic souks. Palm trees. The idea of “exotic food” generally conjures up an alluring faraway place; anyone who tries it must be a daring worldly adventurer, or “gastronomically brave.” Food and travel blogs and television shows like Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown have long promoted the glamour of traveling to experience cuisines on the other side of the world as “authentically” as possible. For those of us who can’t globe-trot, restaurant reviews, menus, cookbooks, and social media attempt to recreate the experience of travelling by constructing and then selling the “exotic”: but can you experience all of Ethiopia by trying injera, or be an expert on Uruguayan culture if you try a choripán? What might the dangers of imagining and glamourizing the “exotic” be? When we become food adventurers in our hometowns or travel to eat, are we doing the same thing European colonizers did for centuries: profit from other regions of the world by exploiting their natural resources and culturally appropriating elements while imagining ourselves to be superior? 

In this course we will explore and interrogate a range of texts in public discourse—from food memoirs to restaurant reviews to food travel shows—concerned with debates surrounding “exotic” food. Some central questions may be: how does the marketing of the “exotic” affect the environment and endangered species, and certain livelihoods? Can claiming an “exotic” food empower certain minority cultures? Is Beyoncé singing about hot sauce in her bag a way of inverting black stereotypes to celebrate blackness and her Southern heritage? We will also work to determine how the “exotic” is constructed and then used in various genres of food-writing and marketing to make particular arguments, an constantly ask: what does this food text want to argue for? How does a formulation of the “exotic” help this text accomplish that argument? We will learn to identify arguments, rhetorically analyze different kinds of persuasive sources and food genres, and cultivate individual arguments. Critical writing assignments include summarizing the argument of a food text, researching and and mapping out a particular controversy related to “exotic” food, rhetorically analyzing the menu, presentation of food, or ambience at a dining establishment, and writing a rhetorical analysis paper. We’ll also do some creative persuasive writing: a personal food memoir and blog post documenting an encounter with “exotic” food, and a final project where students will construct an argument through a genre of food-writing of their choice: memoir, recipe and introduction, blog-post, critical op-ed or restaurant review.

 

Assignments:

  • Food Source Summary: 5% 
  • Food Memoir and Reflections: 7.5%
  • Exotic Food Blogging: 10%      
  • Definition Paper: 2.5%
  • Coggle Map + Synthesis: 15%
  • Primary Cultural Object Analysis: 5%
  • Rhetorical Analysis Paper: 20% (10% for first draft, and 10% for revised draft)
  • Paper Proposal: 2.5%
  • Argument Paper and Presentation: 25% (10% for first draft, 15% for revised)
  • Participation, in class and on Canvas discussions: 7.5% 

Required Course Materials:  Everything’s an Argument, Andrea A. Lundsford and John J. Ruskiewicz, EasyWriter, by Andrea A. Lundsford. Additional readings on Canvas.


RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Healing

43640 • Jasraj, Anushka
Meets MW 2:30PM-4:00PM FAC 7
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Healing

“Everyone who is born holds dual citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and in the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer to use only the good passport, sooner or later each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to identify ourselves as citizens of that other place.”

            - Susan Sontag

In this course we will consider what wellness means within different communities, and across time periods. Students will focus on a specific mode of healing, whether spiritual, medical, emotional, or mental, and analyze the discourse around their chosen topic.

Some of our guiding questions will include: What is holistic care? How do we differentiate between bodily and spiritual healing? How do people discuss health and illness across cultural, political, and medical contexts? What are the rhetorics of environments that enable healing? What is the role of rhetoric in healing and reparative justice?

 

Required Course Texts

  • Everything’s an Argument, Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz
  • EasyWriter by Andrea A. Lunsford
  • Excerpts from: Illness as Metaphor by Susan Sontag, The Cancer Journals by Audre Lorde, On Immunity by Eula Biss

 

Assessment

  • 1.1 Annotated Bibliography (10%)
  • 2.1 Mini Rhetorical Analysis of space (15%)
  • 3.1 Mini Rhetorical Analysis of narrative (15%)
  • 4.1 Final Proposal (10%)
  • 4.2 Final Proposal Revision (20%)
  • Weekly Blog Posts (20%)
  • Participation: In-class writing assignments, and twitter posts (10%)
  • Peer Reviews (Mandatory)

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Horror

43585 • Harring, Emily
Meets MW 10:00AM-11:30AM PAR 6
show description

Culturally, the horror genre has allowed writers and directors the opportunity to discuss real world issues in a sphere removed from our own, to make the dialogue easier to digest for consumers. Throughout the semester, we will gauge what real world issues we see reflected in the horror we read/listen to/view, in order to analyze how the issue informs the argument being made. This course invites you to explore the language of horror. It asks: what rhetorical strategies does the author (or director) choose in order to achieve their horrific moments? What arguments are made in popular horror cinema or literature, and how are those arguments being made? In this class, you will learn how to rhetorically analyze arguments—specifically those tied to the horrific. We will trace the rhetoric of horror from medieval literature to contemporary horror films—stopping along the way to meet the Anglo-Saxon monster Grendel, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Charles Baudelaire, and Edgar Allen Poe; we will listen to the broadcast that terrified the masses in 1938, and watch as a young woman finds herself accused of witchcraft in Robert Eggers’s The Witch. As we trace horror, we will ask ourselves which issues seem most important to the writers or directors; what are they arguing against or towards?

 

Textbooks

 

• Everything’s an Argument. 7 th Edition w/o readings

• The Little Longhorn Handbook. Norton, 2014.

• Let the Right One In

• The Witch

• Other readings available on course website.

 

Assignments and Grades

The assignments are as follows: Synthesis Essay Rhetorical Review (2.1) Rhetorical Review Revision (2.2) Creative Rhetorical Essay (3.1) Creative Rhetorical Essay Revision (3.2) Final Project Short Writing Assignments.

In this class, “traditional” grades will not be given for assignments; rather, I am employing the Learning Record. Students will be asked to demonstrate to the instructor that that have developed across the six dimensions of learning throughout the entirety of the course.


RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Romeo

43610 • Shearer, Kayla
Meets MW 11:30AM-1:00PM FAC 10
show description

            What does it mean to be “talking” with a potential romantic partner? How do dating apps like Tinder or Bumble change the way we think about finding love? What cultural pressures have we internalized, and how do they shape the way we approach dating? This class will undertake a comprehensive study of the rhetoric behind the modern U.S. dating environment in an attempt to find some answers to the above questions. In particular, we will assess how certain images, values, and ideas have come to dominate our cultural idea of “romance”—such as the famously star-crossed lover, Romeo. We will look at magazines, songs, movies, and other sources that invoke the name of romance to build an understanding of how issues such as the gender binary, the preferential representation of heterosexual couples, and the commercialization of love are produced and preserved through rhetorical strategies. As we develop our skills as rhetorical analysts we will challenge modern standards for romance and the harmful messages aimed at both men and women legitimized therein.

            This class is for those students interested in improving their ability to deconstruct the ways that arguments are produced and spread, for those students who want to engage with harmful messages about gender, love, and sexuality in a constructive way, and for those who are invested in studying cultural phenomena for their rhetorical value.

  • Paper 1.1—Rhetorical Analysis of a Character: 10%
  • Paper 1.2—Rhetorical Analysis of a Character Revision: 15%
  • Project 2—Annotated Archive and Bibliography: 15%
  • Paper 3.1—Persuasive Argument: 15%
  • Paper 3.2—Persuasive Argument Revision: 15%
  • Project 4—Creative Persuasion: 10%
  • Short Writing Assignments (5)—15%
  • Participation—5% This will be calculated through in-class assignments and homework (which are graded as credit/no credit).
  • Peer Reviews—Mandatory

 

There are three required texts for the course:

  • Everything’s an Argument, Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, & Keith Walters (6th edition)
  • Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare (Folger’s edition)
  • The Little Longhorn Handbook

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Spying

43620 • Dadugblor, Stephen
Meets TTH 12:30PM-2:00PM FAC 10
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Spying

When, in June 2013, Edward Snowden admitted to leaking classified information from the United States’ National Security Administration (NSA), he confirmed what many people have for long suspected, or even probably known: We are secretly watched by our governments! Yet, while it is commonly believed that governments are mainly responsible for surveillance, recent developments in digital technologies have opened up possibilities to reconsider surveillance not only in terms of macro-, governmental levels of invasion of privacy, but also at the level of minute, everyday practices that we engage in as individuals. In what ways are we complicit in, desire, encourage, or resist being spied on in our everyday interaction with others?

In this class, we will focus on rhetoric as an entry point to exploring and analyzing the manifestations, contexts, controversies, and utility of surveillance in everyday life. Beyond secret, governmental surveillance, we will discuss how current digital technologies have extended the scope of surveillance to nearly every facet of our lives. Throughout this course, we will have the opportunity to critically engage with and analyze a variety of texts and situations, as well as research credible sources, and develop effective writing skills. Ultimately, we will consider how a culture of spying influences our notions of privacy, civil liberties, security, and truth-telling for the common good.

Course Materials

  • Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, edited by David Lyon, Ball Kirstie and Kevin            Haggerty
  • Good Reasons: Researching and Writing Effective Arguments, 6th edition by Lester Faigley and         Jack Selzer
  • Easy Writer, 4th edition by Andrea Lunsford
  • Other relevant course materials will be provided on the course Canvas page.

Coursework and Grading

  • Project 1: Annotated Bibliography: 15%
  • Project 2.1: Rhetorical Analysis: 10%
  • Project 2.2: Rhetorical Analysis Revision: 15%
  • Project 3.1: Persuasive Argument: 15%
  • Project 3.2: Persuasive Argument Revision: 15%
  • Project 4: Infographic: 10%
  • Short Writing Assignments (Research Summaries & Final Project Proposal): 10%
  • Class Citizenship/Participation: 10% 

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of The 1960s

43630 • Hatch, Justin
Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM FAC 7
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of the 1960s 

America loves the 1960s. “The Sixties” in the U.S. connotes romantic ideals of freedom, rebellion, exploration, civil rights, and political and social radicalism—also, The Beatles. Most pertinent to this course, however, the 1960s were a time when much of the youth of the United States found the injustices of their time too gross to tolerate quietly. During the Birmingham Campaign, the Occupation of Alcatraz, the Greensboro sit-ins, on the Freedom Rides, in protesting the War in Vietnam, and during the Free Speech Movement, young people, against all odds, spoke truth to power. They gathered, marched, picketed, rode, sat-in, sang, spoke, and, of course, wrote in response to a world they had discovered was badly flawed. This course offers students the opportunity to investigate the rhetorical strategies that people about their age employed in redressing seemingly insurmountable social, political, and economic national and global ailments, before encouraging them to ask if their own time doesn’t warrant rhetorical engagement of similar magnitude.

This class, however, will not be an uncritical or romantic celebration of student and youth movements of the time, and our mission will not simply be to learn and apply the rhetorical strategies used in The Sixties. We will identify and learn from the mistakes of movements that were too often misogynistic, and that sometimes degenerated into violence. The course also investigates the extent to which the massive social wrongs inspiring redress in the 1960s are still with us today, and the extent to which new problems parallel, extend, or, in some cases eclipse, those of the past.

 

Assignments and Grading

  • 1.1 Annotated Bibliography 1 (5%)
  • 2.1 Rhetorical Analysis (10%)
  • 2.2 Rhetorical Analysis Revision (10%)
  • 3.1 Annotated Bibliography 2 (5%)
  • 4.1 Intervention and Speech (10%)
  • 4.2 Intervention and Speech Revision (15%)
  • Short Writing Assignments (20%)
  • Presentation (15%)
  • Participation (10%)

 

Required Textbooks and Handbooks 

  • Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee
  • The Little Longhorn Handbook, Bullock et al.

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of The Gospels

43580 • Buckley, Tom
Meets TTH 9:30AM-11:00AM PAR 103
show description

This course will treat the gospels as rhetorical texts, rooted in time in place and shaped by the communities they were written for. Students are expected to apply rigorous historical method and careful literary analysis to gain a nuanced understanding of how the leader of a Jewish renewal movement became the object of devotion in earliest Christianity. We’ll explore the strategies each gospel writer uses to achieve purpose for his audience, considering the information the writer selects for presentation; the ordering and apportioning of that information; and the language used. By studying the gospels in this way, we’ll be prompted to consider how these texts — both canonical and non-canonical — emerged from the communities following Jesus. We’ll also consider the form of the gospel itself — what it is, what it is not — as we explore the conventions that governed the first-century Mediterranean world (both social and literary).

In addition to examining the gospels, we’ll consider more recent — and vigorous — arguments about the historical Jesus, as offered by organizations like the Jesus Seminar, and as presented in documentaries like PBS’s From Jesus to Christ and ABC’s The Search for Jesus, in attempting to gain a fuller understanding of the gospels. By exploring both the original arguments and the responses to those arguments, we’ll observe the ongoing conversation that exists regarding the quest for Jesus and the role the gospel writers played in crafting his story.

 

Assignments and Grading

  • Rhetorical Analysis of Mark and Matthew (20%)
  • Analysis of “Q” Passage (20%)
  • Research Paper on the First Century Mediterranean World (20%)
  • Refutation of Historical Jesus Argument (20%)
  • Midterm exam (10%)
  • Final exam (10%)

Texts

There are four principal texts:

  • Gospel Parallels (5th edition), Burton H. Throckmorton Jr., Thomas Nelson.
  • The Gospels and Jesus (2nd edition), Graham Stanton, Oxford University Press.
  • The Historical Jesus — the LIfe of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, John Dominic Crosson, Harper One.
  • Misquoting Jesus, Bart D. Ehrman, HarperOne.

In addition, a course packet includes excerpts from six sources: John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew—Rethinking the Historical Jesus; E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus; Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus—Two Visions; Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them); Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable—A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus; and Dale C. Allison, Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Stephan J. Patterson, The Apocalyptic Jesus—A Debate


RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of The New Yorker

43615 • Voss, Peter
Meets MW 11:30AM-1:00PM FAC 9
show description

The New Yorker is a highbrow magazine that’s been around since the 1920s. Published weekly, the magazine regularly offers various forms of cultural commentary, from fiction submitted by respected authors, to investigative journalism written by first-rate essayists, to cartoons composed with unfailingly witty captions in mind. Each issue contains calendars highlighting upcoming social events across Manhattan. Quite often longer content in the magazine relates to current events outside of New York City, and increasingly outside of the United States. This course will examine all the various rhetorics that surround the magazine. We will consider each week’s cover and the various rhetorical strategies therein at play. We will read several famous articles from the magazine’s past, as well as current articles commenting on the world in which we live. Ultimately, we will consider the various ways in which arguments in the magazine are made.

Regular reading of The New Yorker will guide us as we practice research and writing over the course of the semester. Students will pick a controversy towards the beginning of the semester and, in addition to our reading from the magazine, research a particular topic that interests them. The goal of this research will be for students to produce a New Yorker-style essay by the end of the semester.

 

Assignments and Grading

  • Paper 1.1                     5%
  • Paper 1.2                     10%
  • Paper 2.1                     10%
  • Paper 2.2                     15%
  • Paper 3.1                     15%
  • Paper 3.2                     15%
  • Research summaries     20%
  • Reading Quizzes          10%
  • Peer reviews                Mandatory      
  • Participation                Invaluable

 

Required Texts

  • New Yorker subscription
  • “They Say / I Say”: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing (with readings) – Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst
  • Easy Writer – Andrea Lunsford

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of The New Yorker

43625 • Voss, Peter
Meets TTH 12:30PM-2:00PM FAC 9
show description

The New Yorker is a highbrow magazine that’s been around since the 1920s. Published weekly, the magazine regularly offers various forms of cultural commentary, from fiction submitted by respected authors, to investigative journalism written by first-rate essayists, to cartoons composed with unfailingly witty captions in mind. Each issue contains calendars highlighting upcoming social events across Manhattan. Quite often longer content in the magazine relates to current events outside of New York City, and increasingly outside of the United States. This course will examine all the various rhetorics that surround the magazine. We will consider each week’s cover and the various rhetorical strategies therein at play. We will read several famous articles from the magazine’s past, as well as current articles commenting on the world in which we live. Ultimately, we will consider the various ways in which arguments in the magazine are made.

Regular reading of The New Yorker will guide us as we practice research and writing over the course of the semester. Students will pick a controversy towards the beginning of the semester and, in addition to our reading from the magazine, research a particular topic that interests them. The goal of this research will be for students to produce a New Yorker-style essay by the end of the semester.

 

Assignments and Grading

  • Paper 1.1                     5%
  • Paper 1.2                     10%
  • Paper 2.1                     10%
  • Paper 2.2                     15%
  • Paper 3.1                     15%
  • Paper 3.2                     15%
  • Research summaries     20%
  • Reading Quizzes          10%
  • Peer reviews                Mandatory      
  • Participation                Invaluable

 

Required Texts

  • New Yorker subscription
  • “They Say / I Say”: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing (with readings) – Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst
  • Easy Writer – Andrea Lunsford

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Tourism

43655 • Rodriguez, Gabriella
Meets MW 4:00PM-5:30PM FAC 9
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Tourism

Travel to Jamaica where you can “be alright,” go to Tahiti and “escape to a place untouched by time” or journey to nearby Bali to experience the “sublimely sacred.” Tourism slogans like these intuit a deep desire in all of us by hinting that beyond the banality of daily life exists a place that can fundamentally alter us. Each slogan creates its own version paradise: an ideal of a location steeped in history or nostalgia, characterized as sophisticated, wild, or sublime.

Examining poetry, novels, travelogues, magazine ads, postcards, posters, brochures, popular songs, paintings, illustrations, and more we will ask ourselves how the rhetoric of tourism shapes our understanding of destinations, histories, and cultures. Throughout the semester, we will explore the motivations, expectations, and experiences of many politically charged subject positions: tourist, local/native, outsider/insider and colonizer/colonized. We will also examine how visual and written texts entice us to visit a place by creating some version of paradise. Your task will be to analyze texts using rhetorical theory as outlined in the course textbook as well as some recent critical theory before selecting a relevant controversy for individual research and analysis. Possible controversies will ask questions about how the rhetoric of tourism is related to the economic, political, cultural, social, and environmental impacts of traveling. Using your chosen controversy as a platform, you will practice rhetorical analysis of multimedia texts that you will research and select. In your final project you will explore the rhetoric of paradise by creating a cultural object that engages with, relies on or rejects these rhetorics. Ultimately, you will choose a target audience and will advocate a position regarding the cultural, economic, political, and environmental impacts of travel and tourism today. In considering your position and the way arguments about tourism are formed in our course texts and media, we will work to cultivate ourselves as global citizens and academic writers.

Coursework & Grading

UNIT 1

  • Annotated Bibliography          15%
  • In-Class Presentations                        10%

UNIT 2

  • Rhetorical Analysis Essay       20%
  • Research Summaries (2)         15%

UNIT 3

  • Cultural Object Proposal        15%    
  • Cultural Object Analysis         25%

Textbooks

  • Lunsford, Andrea A. – Easy Writer
  • Lunsford, Andrea A. and John J. Ruszkiewicz – Everything’s an Argument 

RHE 309K • Rhetoric Of Women's Work

43595 • Echternach, Julia
Meets MWF 11:00AM-12:00PM PAR 204
show description

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Women’s Work 

In 2015, white women were paid only 82 cents for each dollar that white men were paid at their jobs. In the same year, Black women took home 65 cents and Latina women took home 58 cents for every dollar paid to white men. Yet just the year before, in 2014, a study of economics professors found that women with two children were the most productive workers in their field. During the same period, a coalition of Black women began putting in hours of unpaid labor to organize a social movement called Black Lives Matter, and Central American mothers in immigrant detention centers started organizing hunger strikes to protest their ongoing incarceration. And in early 2017, millions of people – thousands of them protesting for the first time - participated in a national Women’s March, sparking an ongoing debate about whose work had made the march possible and whose work it supported.

In this course, we will engage in critical discussions about the work that women are actually doing, the work that is classified as “women’s work,” and the long history of women’s work being devalued and ignored. We will use rhetorical tools to analyze a variety of arguments about how women’s work should be defined and compensated, and we will consider how these arguments open some possibilities and place limitations on others. Topics covered will include work inside the home, work outside the home, and the work of surviving, resisting, and organizing. We will pay close attention to how definitions of women’s work affect women of color, poor and working-class women, queer and trans women, and Indigenous women worldwide. Students will use the tools of rhetorical analysis to write response papers to the articles, artwork, and film that we engage in the class, and will also conduct an individual research project, culminating in a persuasive piece advocating for a change in the valuation of women’s work. Students who enroll in the class should be prepared to read and write extensively, to actively engage in discussion with their classmates, to reflect continuously on their own experiences and assumptions, and to evaluate their own learning.

 

Writing Assignments

Students will receive instructor feedback on their written assignments, and then evaluate their own writing and learning through a Learning Record. Students will argue for a final grade. The instructor will make the final decision of what grade to assign, honoring self-evaluations as much as possible.

  • Weekly Journal Entries (2 pages)
  • Rhetorical Analysis (4-6 pages)
  • Annotated Bibliography (5 pages)
  • Literature Review (4-6 pages)
  • Argument for Women’s Work (4-6 pages)
  • Connecting Women’s Work to Knowledge and Experience (4-6 pages)

 

Required Texts

  • Faigley and Selzer, A Little Argument (2012)
  • Little Longhorn Handbook

Selected articles on Canvas


RHE 309S • Crit Read/Persuasive Writ-Hon

43665 • Harrison, Hannah
Meets MW 1:00PM-2:30PM PAR 6
show description

In this course, we will pursue two goals. We will try to become:

(1) more proficient users of language, and

(2) more critical users of language.

To do so, we will study argumentative forms, practice their use in particular situations for specific groups of people, and we will analyze the potential effects (social, political, economic) of language. The big question that we will encounter is this: how do the available arguments at a given moment shape a conversation and make (im)possible certain actions?


RHE 309S • Crit Read/Persuasive Writ-Nsds

43670 • Charney, Davida
Meets MW 11:30AM-1:00PM FAC 7
show description

The aim in this course is to develop a better understanding and mastery of rhetoric-the art of persuasion-an art that's essential not only for your college work, but also for your participation as a citizen in a democracy. You already know this art instinctively: every day, all day, you're immersed in rhetoric. But our goal in this course is to become more consciously and effectively rhetorical.

To accomplish this goal, we'll use a number of approaches. We'll complete a number of assignments addressed to specific audiences for specific purposes; we'll engage ourselves in additional assignments involving analysis and evaluation; we'll read rhetorically, with a critical awareness of the techniques and strategies adopted by writers; and we'll involve ourselves in discussions about what we read.

The course-and its assignments-will challenge you to think differently, to question age-old assumptions, and to engage in argument as part of a larger community. This course isn't for the faint of heart. If you're not prepared to be challenged in your thinking, or if you're not comfortable participating in conversations with others, you best not sign up. But if you're a hard worker, you like to share your thoughts, and you're open to a slightly different approach to learning, then this is the place for you.

 


RHE 312 • Writing In Digtl Environments

43675 • Breece, Matthew
Meets TTH 9:30AM-11:00AM FAC 7
show description

In our current moment in the twenty-first century, the phrase “writing in digital environments” sounds like a redundancy.  There are few environments where writing might be considered non-digital.  Most of our daily writing takes the form of texts, emails, (re)tweets, and (re)posts.  And we read, listen, watch, and circulate compositions through an array of digital media.  The speed and ease with which we write and engage with texts has allowed us to disseminate useful information, make meaningful connections, and act in new creative ways.  Yet it has also prompted challenges with respect to credibility and accuracy.  In order to respond to these challenges, this course asks students to examine how the circulation of news stories (real and fake) in digital environments is rhetorically constructed and distributed across platforms and media.

In this course students will critically engage with a variety digital environments in which they are already familiar, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, among others. They will also become more proficient in the use of digital tools for textual analysis and production, creating multimodal (textual, visual, audio, and video) compositions and publishing them using WordPress. 

Note: No prior knowledge of digital media technologies is required for success in this course.

 

Course Materials 

  • Bullock, Richard, Michal Brody, and Francine Weinberg.  The Little Longhorn Handbook.
  • Gottfried, Jeffrey, and Elisa Shearer.  “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016.”  Pew Research Center.  26 May 2016.
  • Jack, Caroline.  “Lexicon of Lies: Terms for Problematic Information.”  Datasociety.com.  9 Aug. 2017.
  • Kim, Eunsong.  “The Politics of Trending.”  modelviewculture.com.  19 Mar. 2015.
  • Schulten, Katherine and Amanda Christy Brown.  “Evaluating Sources in a ‘Post-Truth’ World: Ideas for Teaching and Learning About Fake News.”  Nytimes.com.  19 Jan. 2017.
  • Soll, Jacob.  “The Long and Brutal History of Fake News.”  Politico.com.  18 Dec. 2016.
  • Sundar, S. Shyam.  “Why Do We Fall for Fake News?”  theconversation.com.  7 Dec. 2016.

 

Assignments and Grading

  • Short Writings: Discussion Boards and Reading Responses (20%)
  • Unit 1: Mapping and Circulation of News Media Webtext (20%)
  • Unit 2: Rhetorical Analysis of Fake News Webtext (20%)
  • Unit 3: Information and Advocacy Video Project (20%)
  • Final: WordPress Revisions and Presentation (20%) 

RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric

43690 • Ferreira-Buckley, Linda
Meets TTH 5:00PM-6:30PM PAR 101
show description

The study of rhetoric, one of the original seven Liberal Arts (along with logic, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), has a  long and proud history, stretching back to the 5th century BCE and up to the present day.  Both a productive and interpretive art, it is decidedly cross-disciplinary: the principles of rhetoric (audience, context, kairos, exigency, ethospathoslogos, and so forth) are consistently employed, for example, not only in literary analysis but in law, politics, education, science, and religion.

This course introduces students to common rhetorical principles and to the disciplinary history of rhetoric and writing studies.  Assignments in the class will offer students the chance to identify and apply these rhetorical principles while composing, interpreting, and presenting “texts”—oral, print, and/or electronic.   The course will meet all necessary requirements to qualify as an writing flag course.

At the end of the term, students should be able to:

(1) Write an effective rhetorical analysis.

(2) Write a responsible argument relevant to a contested issue.

(3) Discourse about some of the major issues in the field (such as: What is the relationship between truth and language? How do technologies of communication affect discourse? What is "good" public argument? What constitutes a quality rhetorical education? and so on.)

(4) Situate the significance of some of the canonical figures in rhetorical studies.

(5) Apply the basic principles of rhetorical study, as mentioned above, to contemporary situations.


RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric

43680 • Charney, Davida
Meets MW 1:00PM-2:30PM FAC 7
show description

The study of rhetoric, one of the original seven Liberal Arts (along with logic, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), has a  long and proud history, stretching back to the 5th century BCE and up to the present day.  Both a productive and interpretive art, it is decidedly cross-disciplinary: the principles of rhetoric (audience, context, kairos, exigency, ethospathoslogos, and so forth) are consistently employed, for example, not only in literary analysis but in law, politics, education, science, and religion.

This course introduces students to common rhetorical principles and to the disciplinary history of rhetoric and writing studies.  Assignments in the class will offer students the chance to identify and apply these rhetorical principles while composing, interpreting, and presenting “texts”—oral, print, and/or electronic.   The course will meet all necessary requirements to qualify as an writing flag course.

At the end of the term, students should be able to:

(1) Write an effective rhetorical analysis.

(2) Write a responsible argument relevant to a contested issue.

(3) Discourse about some of the major issues in the field (such as: What is the relationship between truth and language? How do technologies of communication affect discourse? What is "good" public argument? What constitutes a quality rhetorical education? and so on.)

(4) Situate the significance of some of the canonical figures in rhetorical studies.

(5) Apply the basic principles of rhetorical study, as mentioned above, to contemporary situations.


RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric

43685 • Roberts-Miller, Patricia
Meets TTH 11:00AM-12:30PM PAR 103
show description

The study of rhetoric, one of the original seven Liberal Arts (along with logic, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), has a  long and proud history, stretching back to the 5th century BCE and up to the present day.  Both a productive and interpretive art, it is decidedly cross-disciplinary: the principles of rhetoric (audience, context, kairos, exigency, ethospathoslogos, and so forth) are consistently employed, for example, not only in literary analysis but in law, politics, education, science, and religion.

This course introduces students to common rhetorical principles and to the disciplinary history of rhetoric and writing studies.  Assignments in the class will offer students the chance to identify and apply these rhetorical principles while composing, interpreting, and presenting “texts”—oral, print, and/or electronic.   The course will meet all necessary requirements to qualify as an writing flag course.

At the end of the term, students should be able to:

(1) Write an effective rhetorical analysis.

(2) Write a responsible argument relevant to a contested issue.

(3) Discourse about some of the major issues in the field (such as: What is the relationship between truth and language? How do technologies of communication affect discourse? What is "good" public argument? What constitutes a quality rhetorical education? and so on.)

(4) Situate the significance of some of the canonical figures in rhetorical studies.

(5) Apply the basic principles of rhetorical study, as mentioned above, to contemporary situations.


RHE 328 • Magazine Writing/Publishing

43700 • Buckley, Tom
Meets W 5:00PM-8:00PM PAR 101
show description

This course is designed to give students an understanding of the magazine field from the perspective of both writers and editors. The course offers a broad core of practical knowledge while also exploring issues related to the field. In the first part of the course, students will learn how to generate story ideas; research appropriate magazine markets to pursue; conduct interviews; sell their ideas (and themselves) in query letters; develop the best format for presenting their information; and, finally, organize the materials, write, and revise the article itself, and send it off for publication.

In the second half of the course, students will publish an issue of a magazine, acting as writers, editors, and designers responsible for its content – and beholden to a publisher. They'll identify a niche audience, formulate an editorial vision, and write, revise, edit, fact-check, and generally take part in all aspects of the publication. In short, they'll perform all the editorial functions of a magazine staff. They'll work individually and in teams, devising departments, assigning stories, gathering art, selling ads. They'll write headlines and captions, crop pictures, fit copy, and design layouts. And they'll engage in discussions about issues of advertising, media ethics, and publisher control.

No previous journalistic experience is necessary.

 

Course Requirements

Three articles during the first half of the course (profile, issue of conflict, feature); various tasks associated with publishing a magazine in the second half of the course. During the second half, students will also continue to revise the three articles from the first half of the course.

 

Grading Policy

  • Three articles, with revisions: 25% each
  • Shorter exercises: 15%
  • Participation in second half of the course: 10%

 

Required Texts

  • Writer's Market 2010, Robert Lee Brewer (Editor)
  • Writing for Magazines: A Beginner's Guide, Cheryl Sloan Wray

RHE 328 • Writing For Entrepreneurs

43697 • Spinuzzi, Clay
Meets TTH 9:30AM-11:00AM PAR 6
show description

Peter Drucker once said, “the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity.” Entrepreneurs discover and conceptualize problems, then look for opportunities to solve those problems with innovative solutions—solutions that could involve new products, services, processes, or principles. Such innovations can range from household gadgets to industrial processes to viral phone apps.

To be successful in achieving her or his vision, an entrepreneur must develop, extend, and hone complex arguments to interest stakeholders in the vision (and to adapt that vision to the needs of the stakeholders). From developing an idea to researching the market, from sketching out the business model to describing the value proposition, from gathering customer feedback to pitching a product, entrepreneurs must perform many small arguments that form a larger coherent argument.

How do they do that? In this class, we will learn, analyze, and practice some of the many types of arguments that entrepreneurs use. We will apply basic rhetorical concepts to these arguments to better analyze and construct them, and we will read articles from rhetoric, marketing, management, and related fields to better understand their context.

Students do not need an entrepreneurship background, nor do they need to have a winning idea. Our focus won't be on creating the next big thing (although you might!) but on figuring out how successful entrepreneurs argue and what texts they use to make those arguments successful.

 

Course Requirements and Grades

This course has 5 major projects:

  • Project 1: Develop an innovative idea using the Design Thinking approach, resulting in a set of prototypes and other process documents. Write a 4-page report describing your choices and how the results suggest an innovation. The innovation can be a product, service, or process. Include all process documents as an appendix. (15%)
  • Project 2: Develop and describe a business model built around the innovation, using heuristics (at minimum, the Business Model Canvas, Value Proposition Canvas, Environment Analysis, and SWOT analysis). Write a 1500-word report discussing the heuristics and any changes you made to the innovation as a result. Include all heuristics as an appendix. (25%)
  • Project 3: Research possible markets for the innovation, using primary and secondary research. Iterate the P1 idea and P2 heuristics based on the results. Write a 6-page report describing the results of your market research. Include all revised heuristics as an appendix. (20%)
  • Project 4: Develop and test an MVP. Develop a minimally viable product (MVP) and collect data. Write a 1500-word report describing your MVP, how you tested it, and how these results led you to iterate. (15%)
  • Project 5: Pitch the business and innovation to potential investors, partners, or distributors, using an appropriate slide deck; a 6-minute presentation; and a 3-minute Q&A. (Group project, 15%)

In addition, 10% of your grade will be based on reading responses.

Required Texts

  • Blank, The Startup Owner’s Manual
  • Day, Innovation Prowess
  • Osterwalder & Pigneur, Business Model Generation
  • Reis, The Lean Startup
  • Design Thinking “mixtapes” at http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/mixtapes-four-hour-design-sprints-with-your-team/
  • Course packet of readings (in Canvas and linked on schedule)

RHE 330C • Digital Storytelling

43715 • Boyle, Casey
Meets MW 11:30AM-1:00PM PAR 104
show description

Digital Storytelling pairs narrative techniques with new media and digital technologies. Using text, audio, visual, and video in concert with research and narrative composition, this course will introduce students to and provide repeated practice in using digital media for composing compelling digital stories. In addition to composing with digital media, students will be introduced to research sites that may include university libraries, community centers, state museums, and many other sites available for further independent exploration. In conversation with our readings, discussions, and the students’ own researched topics, the course assignments and projects will entail learning to compose with digital media by researching and developing short narratives, culminating in a semester-long, digital story.

Please Note: While no prior experience with digital media is needed, a willingness to learn is required. Toward these ends, the course will be organized as a project-based workshop (especially in the second half of the semester) and will require substantial work on the students’ parts to research and develop material to be used for composing the digital stories. In addition to readings and discussions, several of our class meetings will be opportunities for hands-on practice with digital audio tools that will involve your classmates and the instructor. Please be advised that such work requires regular attendance, diligent preparation, and active participation.

Texts and Materials

Students will be asked to subscribe to Adobe’s Creative Cloud for the duration of the class (Be advised that Adobe offers an educational discount).

Several articles and online texts will be shared via Canvas course site (So, there will be no required books to purchase).

Assignments and Grading

Reading Responses - 10%

Multiple written responses to required readings posted to our course site (300-500 words posted in Canvas). Responses will be opportunities to critically and creatively engage course readings and case studies as well as provide the starting point for much our class discussion.

Story Proposal and Research Plan - 10%

2-3 page proposal that identifies a story of interest, locates relevant material for independent research, and outlines a production strategy for composing the semester-long digital story.

Image Story - 10%

This assignment serves to introduce image manipulation software by composing a short, image-based story.

Audio Story - 15%

Using free and open-sourced audio-editing software, students will record, edit, and share a short audio narrative.

Video Story - 20%

Students will produce a concise (60 seconds) video story.

Digital Story - 35%

The final project builds on the previous smaller assignments, culminating into a substantial Digital Story. Each digital story will be based on students’ independent research and will also vary in form (media and its delivery) depending on each individual student’s chosen material. 


RHE 330C • Women In The Digital Archv

43720 • Frank, Sarah
Meets TTH 12:30PM-2:00PM PAR 104
show description

As Kate Eichhorn notes, third wave feminism—like many contemporary activist rhetorics—is marked by an archival turn: a return, as she has noted, to the “scrap heap” of materials and ephemera produced by second wave feminism’s “partially completed social transformations.” Accordingly, feminist researchers and archivists across multiple disciplines have begun to think seriously about archives as sites not only of preservation, but also as sites where contemporary feminist activism can be re-imagined. In the process, feminist archivists challenge received notions of “what counts” as archival material, “what counts” as archival labor, and even “what counts” as an archive itself.

In this “hands-on” course, students will consider the insights and challenges of the feminist archival turn from the perspective of the digital archivist. Students will consider whether (and how) feminist critiques of traditional archival practice can be applied in digital environments, and they will speculate on the limits and affordances of digital archives for feminist history and activism.

Note: This class will be “hands-on,” and will include at least two multimedia projects. Students will be evaluated on their work according to a portfolio-based style of assessment. Students will be assessed utilizing the standard Learning Record portfolio system.

 

Major Assignments

Informal Reflections:

Students will regularly reflect on and digitally annotate course readings and materials.

Digital Archive Analysis (Multimedia Project):

Students will locate and select a relevant online digital archive, and they will produce a rhetorical “video analysis” of the archive’s selection criteria, searchability, metadata practices, and accessibility.

Digital Archival Manifesto:

Students will consider what, exactly, makes a digital archive a feminist archive. Citing course readings and materials, they will propose criteria for the invention and construction of a feminist digital archive.

Collaborative Digital Archiving Project:

Towards the end of the course, students will work together to construct a digital archive representing our work throughout the semester. This project will reflect their understanding of feminist archival principles and challenge them to implement concrete tools, practices, and considerations associated with digital archiving.

 

Selected Texts

  • Kate Eichhorn, The Archival Turn in Feminism
  • K.J. Rawson, “Queer Archives/Archival Queers”
  • Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzwieg, Digital History
  • Tarez Samra Graban, “From Location(s) to Locatability: Mapping Feminist Recovery and Archival Activity through Metadata”

 


RHE 330D • Cicero, Rhet & Ancient Rome

43725 • Longaker, Mark
Meets TTH 11:00AM-12:30PM PAR 208
show description

For centuries, Marcus Tullius Cicero’s name has been synonymous with rhetoric and associated with the Roman Revolution. In this class, we will study Cicero’s practice of rhetoric, his theory of oratory, and his efforts at persuasion. Additionally, we will examine Cicero’s political circumstances in order to see what role he played in two well-documented events: the Catilinarian conspiracy and fallout of Julius Caesar’s assassination. Finally, we will apply Cicero’s ideas and his theories of oratory to contemporary public address. Did Cicero contribute to or valiantly fight against the demise of the Roman republic? Was he an honorable statesman or a conservative demagogue? Did Cicero appeal to classical democracy and virtue, or did he pander to Roman prejudices and fears? These questions can only be answered if we learn about his oratory and his circumstances. Additionally, we will ask if present-day politicians and public speakers embody the noble oratory that Cicero (arguably) defended. Or do they continue to practice the cheap asides and the tawdry innuendos that excite the crowd but degrade our culture? If Cicero offered us an ideal of virtuous public discourse, can we improve our own rancorous political climate by taking some of his advice? If Cicero’s rhetoric was not noble, will our own practice of classical rhetorical tricks lead to the collapse of American democracy as it may have contributed to the fall of the Roman republic?

Reading List:

  • Cicero’s De Inventione, De Oratore (book 1), De Officiis (selections), Pro Quinctio, In Catilinam (all four orations), and Philippicae (the first two orations)
  • Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae
  • Plutarch’s Antony
  • Selected audio lectures and other contextual sources,

 

NB: All classical sources will be read in the Loeb translations, available electronically through the UT Library portal: http://guides.lib.utexas.edu/db/919; all contemporary sources will be available through the Canvas site.

 

Major Assignments: 

  • Either a technical analysis of a Ciceronian oration that the student chooses or a contextual analysis of one oration among the Orationes in Catilinam or Philippicae: 15% of the final grade
  • Ethical analysis of a contemporary argument: 15% of the final grade
  • Revision of either the technical/contextual or the ethical analysis paper (student’s choice): 30% of the final grade
  • 10-minute “Ciceronian” oration on a contemporary topic to be delivered in class: 15% of the final grade
  • Infographic summary of a scholarly source about Cicero, rhetoric, and/or ancient Rome: 15% of the final grade

1 discussion leader post: 10% of the final grade


RHE 330D • Essays Since The Internet

43729 • Voss, Peter
Meets MW 2:30PM-4:00PM FAC 9
show description

DESCRIPTION: This class will explore how digital culture has transformed the ways in which essays are written. The genre of the essay has a long history in the West, arguably dating back to the invention of writing in ancient Mesopotamia. Over thousands of years, the transmission of written, discursive information developed into what we broadly consider to be “an essay”. Over much of this time, writers used the form of the essay to impart information across time and space in ways that they admittedly found magical. The Internet has radically changed this equation. The old model of a writer communicating discursive information via printed text across time and space might currently seem more than a little pedestrian. Each of us now possesses the ability to post live video streams on our Facebook feeds and broadcast them around the world without much trouble. And yet, incredibly profound essays are still being written. Taking all of this into consideration, this course will examine how the genre of the written essay is coping with our digital present. Ultimately, we will consider the ways in which essayists writing since the turn of the millennium have attempted to address questions that essayists have been grappling with ever since the invention of writing.

 

TEXTS:

  • Sappho, Stung with Love: Poems and Fragments
  • Plato, Five Dialogues
  • David Foster Wallace, A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again
  • Cynthia Ozick, The Din in the Head
  • Jonathan Franzen, How To Be Alone
  • Joyce Carrol Oates, Where I’ve Been, and Where I’m Going
  • The Best American Essays 2012 (ed. by David Brooks)

 

ASSIGNMENTS: There will be 3 essays. The first essay is worth 20% of students’ final grades, and will be revised once for a further 10%. The second essay is worth 30%, and the final essay is worth 40%.


RHE 330D • Rhet Inventd/Revised/Retold

43740 • Diab, Rasha
Meets TTH 12:30PM-2:00PM PAR 303
show description

In this course, we will examine how rhetoric has been theorized, taught, practiced and revisited. Throughout its history, different voices have shaped what rhetoric is and its function in a community. At times, these different understandings of rhetoric expanded and at others narrowed rhetorical territory. Moreover, social, political, intellectual, historical changes can facilitate and mandate a revision and a retelling of rhetoric.

In this course, we will revisit and critically engage the contribution of key figures exemplifying rhetoric in antiquity; medieval; renaissance; enlightenment periods. We will also explore modern times, needs and challenges, studying how the work of, for example, Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman, Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Jacquline Royster and others impact our conception of rhetoric today.

Focusing on how rhetoric is revisited and retold, we will explore some influential revisions of rhetoric. These revisions continue to expand rhetoric’s territory beyond that conceived in antiquity. We will investigate revisions that uncovered women’s rhetorical contributions (Royster; Glenn); different rhetorical traditions; the intersections of culture, race, nation, etc. and rhetoric. For example, we will explore how scholars continue to shed light on the nuances of rhetoric especially when it intersects with facets of our experiential, relational and material lives including culture, ability, race, etc.

 

Assignments and Grading

Students’ performance will be assessed based on an achievement rubric detailed at the beginning of the semester.   

Major assignments will include:

-       Two researched, peer reviewed, and substantially revised research papers

-       Short assignments

-       Participation (class participation, oral report/leading class discussion/individual or group presentation)

-       Attendance (attendance policy detailed at the beginning of the semester) 

Required Texts and Course Readings

  • A history of rhetoric book
  • A course reader including selections from Cheryl Glenn’ s Rhetoric Retold, Andrea Lunsford’s Reclaiming Rhetorica, Molly Wertheimer’s Listening to Their Voices, Carol Lipson and Roberta Binkley’s Ancient Non-Greek Rhetoric and Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks.

RHE 330D • Rhetoric And Hitler

43734 • Roberts-Miller, Patricia
Meets TTH 9:30AM-11:00AM BEN 1.122
show description

DESCRIPTION: This course will consider three aspects of Adolf Hitler and rhetoric: first, what were Hitler's rhetorical strategies in various situations, how those strategies fit with dominant cultural rhetorical practices, how the example of Hitler functions in arguments about deliberation and politics. There will be three major researched papers (80% of the final grade), nearly daily writing assignments (10%), and at least one exam (10%).

The first part of the course will look at the rhetorical strategies and cultural background of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, looking especially at the rhetorics of eugenics and antisemitism in early 20th century Euro-American culture. The second part of the course will examine Hitler’s rhetorical strategies once he was in power, especially the speeches of 1933-34, his deliberations with his generals, and the speeches about and supporting him. The third part of the course will invite students to consider how the “reductio ad Hitlerium” functions in community deliberations, and how it relates to other similar rhetorical moves (such as the “argument from Galileo”). Overall, the goal of the course is to use Hitler (and arguments about Hitler) to pursue questions about what we mean when we talk about “effective” rhetoric. 

GRADING:

  • 3 Major Research Papers: 80%
  • Daily Writing Assignments: 10%
  • Exam: 10%

RHE 330E • Animal Rhetorics

43745 • Davis, D
Meets MW 11:30AM-1:00PM PAR 6
show description

Traditionally, rhetoric has been defined as a specifically human art or science in which human beings use language to persuade one another to take up particular attitudes or behaviors. For Plato rhetoric was “the art of winning souls by discourse,” for Cicero it was “speech designed to persuade,” and for Quintilian it was “the good man speaking well.” For the so-called father of modern rhetorical studies, Kenneth Burke, rhetoric’s most basic function is “the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents” (Rhetoric 41). Rhetorical theorists traditionally presume that rhetorical ability, in fact, is the definitive distinction between human beings and all the other animals—Burke actually defines the human being as “the symbol using (and abusing) animal.”

In 1992, however, a respected translator of Aristotle, George A. Kennedy, scandalously proposed that rhetoric is not simply a human art but pre-verbal energy that is evident in all animal life. All animals engage in various sorts of rhetorical exchange, according to him, epideictic, deliberative, and forensic. Indeed, the conviction that there is a single, definitive capacity that distinguishes all human beings from all nonhuman animals—a capacity for language or reason or culture or tool-use or altruism or self-knowledge—has been systematically debunked by recent discoveries in a wide array of disciplines, including primatology, neurobiology, psychology, and anthropology. Certain animals, for example, pass the same mirror test used to determine self-recognition in human children; many more use tools, share distinct languages and complex social interactions, have a sense of past and future, pass knowledge from one generation to the next, and indicate varying propensities for laughter, grief, deception, empathy, and shame. We now know that human beings are not the only “rational animals,” in other words, nor are they the only symbol using animals. Many animals, we’ll see, are quite successful rhetors.

In this course we will study both animal rhetorics and rhetorics of “the animal.” We’ll engage recent animal studies research, where we’ll meet, for instance, apes who “write,” prairie dogs who use sophisticated grammatical patterns, elephants who mourn and bury their dead, dogs who “read” human gestures, magpies and dolphins and gorillas who recognize themselves in a mirror, rats who starve themselves to prevent a buddy from being harmed, and African Grey parrots who can count, discern shapes and colors, and use many English words. We will also study philosophers and rhetoricans who interrogate the fuzzy line between human beings and nonhuman animals, and the ways in which any understanding of “the human” is already dependent on a rhetoric of “the animal,” as if that descriptor covered every nonhuman entity, from a sea sponge to a great ape.

 

Texts

  • George Kennedy, “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of a General Rhetoric”
  • Jeremy Rifkin, chapter three from The Empathic Civilization
  • Irene M. Pepperberg, selection from Alex and Me
  • Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger Lewin, selection from Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind.
  • Con Slobodchikoff, selection from Learning the Language of Animals: Chasing Doctor Doolittle.
  • Nature Channel’s Documentary, Secret Life of Crows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89C5gsdaSXg
  • Barbara J. King, selections from How Animals Grieve
  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, selections from The Genius of Dogs
  • Marc Beckoff and Pierce, selections from Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals.
  • Marc Beckoff, selections from The Emotional Lives of Animals.
  • Frans De Waal “Morally Evolved,” from Primates and Philosophers
  • Temple Grandin, selections from Animals Make Us Human.
  • JM Coetzee, The Lives of Animals
  • Cary Wolfe, “Flesh and Finitude: Thinking Animals in (Post)Humanist Philosophy.”
  • Karl Steel, “How to Make a Human”
  • Several videos

Assignments and Grading

  • Semi-weekly Reading Posts on class discussion board. Informal notes analyzing/exploring key issues in the readings + at least one thoughtful response to a classmate’s post. 10 x 2pts = 20%
  • Three Summary/Response papers. Formal, very rigidly defined one-page, single spaced, beautifully polished, and terribly insightful papers devoted to summarizing and responding to the assigned text. 3 x 10pts = 30%
  • One short digital (visual or aural) argument based on course texts.  20%
  • One final, 5-6 page researched paper devoted to some aspect of the course theme. 30%

RHE 330E • Democracy And The Media

43755 • Longaker, Mark
Meets TTH 12:30PM-2:00PM PAR 208
show description

At the very beginning of the United States’ long and successful democratic experiment, Thomas Jefferson said that, if he were given the choice between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government, he would take the newspapers. Democracy needs informed citizens. Democracy needs people who can discuss their shared concerns in productive ways. Democracy, therefore, needs media. In this class, students will research and write about the media’s efforts to help citizens understand, discuss, and decide upon their shared political fate. We will read works by Walter Lippmann, Robert Asen, Robert McChesney, and Cass Sunstein. Students will undertake and complete a semester-long research project culminating in a substantial paper that describes and evaluates one effort by the media to help citizens fulfill their civic duties.

 

Reading List:

  • Walter Lippmann’s The Phantom Public

 

And selections from:

  • Robert Asen’s Invoking the Invisible Hand
  • Cass Sunstein’s #republic
  • Robert McChesney and John Nichols’s Dollarocracy

 

Major Assignments:

  • A research log including but not limited to: documentation, rationale for, and description of 10 media objects (such as newspaper articles, videos, and images), 5 contextual sources (articles about the history of an event), 5 sources about a medium (articles either about media outlets such as FOX News or about types of media, such as partisan television networks), and 1 summary of an academic article that is relevant to the research project (40% of the final grade)
  • A medium-length (5-7 pages) explanation of what media should provide citizens and why (i.e. a theory of public discourse) (10% of the final grade)
  • A short (3-5 pages) analysis of one media object, explaining how it succeeds or fails at providing citizens what they need (i.e. an analysis of one contribution to public discourse) (10% of the final grade)
  • A research paper that builds upon but expands the ideas presented in the theory of public argument and the analysis papers (30% of the final grade)
  • Two in-class presentations and one infographic (10% of the final grade)

RHE 330E • Rhetoric And Narrative

43750 • Diab, Rasha
Meets TTH 3:30PM-5:00PM PAR 208
show description

“the world is a set of stories which must be chosen among to live the good life in a process of continual recreation.

In short, good reasons are the stuff of stories”—Fisher

Are we storytelling animals? In this course, we will examine rhetorical narratives. This will help us, for example, examine stories we live by, stories we tell about ourselves, and stories that are told about us and others. What is common between these narratives is that they provide an “interpretive lens” that shapes our relationship with and perception of ourselves, people, life, experiences, and possibilities.

Because of their seeming simplicity, rhetorical narratives call on us to be vigilant and mindful rhetors who are aware of the multidimensional activities involved; narratives engage our intellects, emotions, ideologies, and ethics. Our explorations of rhetorical narratives will address questions like:

  • Do we know rhetorical narratives when we see them?
  • What makes a narrative rhetorical?  What are the rhetorical features and functions of narrative?
  • How do narratives appeal to us? What are the consequences of rhetorical narratives?
  • What are our ethical and rhetorical responsibilities as readers and writers of narrative?

As we read about and respond to these questions, we will explore the rhetorical dimensions of a variety of narratives from different times and different regions in the world. These narratives are used in different genres like news reports, biographical writing, testimonials, and political speeches. To analyze these narratives, we will use different rhetorical concepts like representation, presence, identification, terministic screens, and pentadic ratios.

Assignments and Grading

Students’ performance will be assessed based on an achievement rubric detailed at the beginning of the semester.

Major assignments will include:

  • Two researched, peer reviewed, and substantially revised papers (60%)

  • Short writing assignments (15%)
  • Participation (class participation, oral report/leading class discussion, individual or group presentation) (15%)
  • Attendance (policy detailed at the beginning of the semester) 
(5%)

Required Texts and Course Readings

The Course reader will include:

  • Selections from Krista Ratcliffe’s Rhetorical Listening, James Phelan’s Narrative as Rhetoric, Carol Lipson and Roberta Binkley’s Ancient Non-Greek Rhetoric, Kenneth Burke’s Rhetoric of Motives, Pereleman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, Andrews and Bamberg’s Considering Counter-Narratives, Fisher’s Human Communication as Narration, Page and Bronwen’s New Narratives: Stories and Storytelling in the Digital Age.  
  • Articles/Chapters like Fisher’s “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm”, Burgess’ “The Rhetoric of Moral Conflict”, Kirkwood’s “Narrative and the Rhetoric of Possibility”, Lucaites and Condit’s “Re-constructing Narrative Theory”, McClure’s “Resurrecting the Narrative Paradigm: Identification and the Case of Young Earth Creationism”, Lewis’s “Telling America’s Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency”, andCorder’s “Rhetoric as Love”.

RHE 360M • Rhet/Writ For Teachers Of Eng

43760 • Buckley, Tom
Meets TTH 8:00AM-9:30AM PAR 103
show description

Designed for students planning a career teaching English, this course will introduce you to scholarship in composition that informs the teaching of writing today. Theories will be examined in terms of their assumptions about the nature of language and learning. Among the topics we'll discuss are the writing process; the rhetorical situation; the relationship between language and identity; the place of grammar and usage; curriculum for basic and developmental writers; collaborative learning; and creating and evaluating assignments.

 

Although this isn't a methods course, it will have a practical orientation: we'll discuss the implications of each approach for designing courses and for evaluating writing. In addition to reading about writing, you'll write about writing. You'll compose a number of writing assignments, each to be revised after receiving written critiques both from me and from your peers. You'll also write critiques of your peers' work as a way to sharpen your own analytical abilities and to develop the ability to offer writers detailed, pointed, tactful advice. Additionally, you'll keep a reading journal; do writing, style, and grading exercises; and investigate a contemporary educational debate on the issue of your choice. A mid-term exam will allow you to demonstrate your understanding of the information studied.

 

This class is not for the timid or narrow-minded. Participation is a must as we try to hash out in a conversational setting important questions about contemporary education.


RHE 366 • Internship In Rhetoric & Writ

43765
show description

This course provides an academic foundation and practical support for upper-division students working in DRW-approved internships.

It is designed to help students 1) recognize how rhetoric is applied in the workplace environments, and 2) apply their training and skills in rhetoric and writing professionally.

To meet these objectives, students will participate in a variety of activities: assigned readings, class discussions (in class and online), journal reflections on their workplace experience, university-sponsored workshops about job searching and workplace protocol, and in-class workshops and peer critique sessions designed to further develop their writing skills.

Students will produce 20 pages of writing (which may include Discussion Board assignments and journal entries at an instructor’s discretion) by the end of the semester. Because the amount of on-the-job writing students do will vary per internship, students will consult with the instructor at the beginning of the semester to determine the types of writing they will produce.

This course is offered on a pass/fail basis. It does not count toward the rhetoric major.

It may be repeated once for credit when the internships vary.

Prerequisites

Consent of supervising instructor must be obtained. Upper-division standing and twelve semester hours of work in Rhetoric & Writing are required.

Texts

A course packet

Others TBA


RHE 367R • Conf Crs In Rhetoric & Writing

43770
show description

Prerequisites

Upper-division standing; one of the following: English 603A, Rhetoric and Writing 306, 306Q, or Tutorial Course 603A; and approval of written application by the supervising instructor.

Course Description

This is course does NOT meet the Writing Flag requirement.
Hours to be arranged.
May be repeated for credit.


RHE 368C • Writing Center Internship

43775 • Batt, Alice
Meets TTH 11:00AM-12:30PM PCL 2.340
show description

GOALS:

RHE368C is a course designed to prepare you to serve as a peer tutor in the University Writing Center (UWC). During the first part of the term, you will study issues related to writing center theory and practice. You will analyze the goals and practices of writing centers, examine elements of contemporary rhetorical and composition theory, survey syllabi and assignments from various courses, learn and apply research methods, and review grammar, mechanics, and usage. During the final weeks of the term, you will work under supervision for six hours per week as a consultant in the University Writing Center. The class meets twice during that internship period to critically reflect upon your consulting experiences and support each other’s continued learning.

 

COURSE WORK:

  • Blog Entries
  • Discussion Board Posts
  • UWC Observation Reports
  • Grammar Assignments/Quizzes
  • Research Project
  • Presentation
  • Letter to the Next Class of UWC Interns

 

BOOKS (Do not buy until after first class)

  • Gillespie, Paula and Neal Lerner. The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring, 2e
  • Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors, 4e
  • Ryan, Leigh. The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors.
  • Rafoth, Ben. Multilingual Writers and Writing Centers
  • Praxis: A Writing Center Journal