Conferences will be held on Wednesday, April 25th and Monday, April 30th at the Holmes Student Center next to the coffee-shop. For this conference, you must bring 2 copies of your working essay for discussion as well as a pencil to write with. You must have a polished introduction, thesis statement, 2 body/support paragraphs, and a bibliography.
Since we are meeting for a conference, I will not be holding regular office hours during these weeks so if you need to contact me be sure to send an e-mail. Also, I have cancelled class for these conferences, therefore missing your scheduled time will count as two unexcused absences from the class. Do not miss these!
Wednesday, April 25th
2:00 PM Kelsey
2:15 Kayla
2:30 Ali
2:50 Antwan
3:05 Scot
3:20 Kylie
Monday, April 30th
1:45 PM Sandra
2:00 Lauren
2:15 Jordan
2:30 Alex
2:45 Jessica
3:00 Ryan
3:15 Jacob
3:30 Sarah
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Reminder
Regular class today (Monday March 19th.) We will work on refining your research topics, look at APA citations, and answer any questions you have about conference proposals. Wednesday we will not meet for regular class but will have meetings at the Holmes Student Center coffee house (by the bus drop off.) Monday, March 26th, we will meet for class proposals.
Hope you all had a nice break. I will see you this afternoon.
Dustin Marquis
Hope you all had a nice break. I will see you this afternoon.
Dustin Marquis
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Conference #1
Conference #1 - Wednesday March 21st
Holmes Student Center Coffee Shop
1:25 - Taylor and Zach
1:40 - Antwan
1:55 - Jacob
2:10 - Ryan Barr
2:25 - Jordan Nickelson
2:40 - Scot, Sandra, and Lauren
2:55 - Jessica and Kylie
3:10 - Ryan Kirby
3:25 - Kayla
3:40 - Ali
3:55 - Alex
4:10 - Sarah
Holmes Student Center Coffee Shop
1:25 - Taylor and Zach
1:40 - Antwan
1:55 - Jacob
2:10 - Ryan Barr
2:25 - Jordan Nickelson
2:40 - Scot, Sandra, and Lauren
2:55 - Jessica and Kylie
3:10 - Ryan Kirby
3:25 - Kayla
3:40 - Ali
3:55 - Alex
4:10 - Sarah
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Practicing Peer Review
Read the following essay and then respond to it covering at least all of the peer review questions asked below.
THE VIOLENT MEDIA DISCUSSION
By: JEFF LAWRENCE
Authors Gerard Jones, with “Violent Media Is Good for Kids,” and Eugene F. Provenzo Jr., with “Testimony Before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children,” present us with both sides of a debate on violent media. This debate is over whether or not violent media such as comic books, video games, and movies have a positive or negative effect on children. The authors take opposing sides on this argument; Jones is a comic book writer who believes violent stories, such as the ones he writes help children deal with natural emotions. Provenzo is a long-time writer and researcher at the University of Miami who testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in regards to how violent media is negatively effecting child development. Both authors use several different methods of argumentation: appeals to logic and emotion through reasoning techniques and the establishment of credibility through experience. Both authors use these techniques; however, Jones‟s essay seems to use these methods of argumentation to provide a more complete argument. There is no doubt that people in America have encountered this issue at some point. The way Jones and Provenzo present their sides of the issue allows us to analyze and determine the strongest argument.
While both authors address similar issues, it is apparent that they differ in some aspects. Jones‟s (2000) main argument was that sheltering children from violent media damages their ability to deal with natural emotions, which in turn shelters them “against power and selfhood” (p. 498). His argument is directed towards parents and adults; his examples contain methods and ideas about parenting. Jones made it seem like this piece was written for almost anyone; it was as if anyone can be involved in the prevention of his or her child‟s development. The way Jones targeted a large audience could in fact strengthen his article. It leaves the reader and myself with a lasting impression and makes it seem that there is something we can do about the problem. Provenzo believes certain types of games are actually simulations, training children to become better killers. He says that these violent simulators are in fact causing people to view violence romantically. Provenzo does have a dissimilar audience. He was speaking towards the Senate Committee—people who can make drastic changes in the availability of violent media. The fact that this essay was written about his experience in the hearing seems to damage his argument. He is attempting to reach a broader audience by publishing his thoughts, but he fails to include methods of arguing with a broad audience. After reading Provenzo‟s essay, it is difficult to find what action he wants done. It almost seems as if he was trying to outlaw the ability to create violent First Person Shooter type games; someone not on the Senate Committee may have a hard time accomplishing this. His arguments can speak to most adults, but they lack direction and do not really inspire any action for a normal parent. This does seem appropriate based on the context; he was offering his expert consultation to the committee based on his research.
Jones and Provenzo both use rhetoric to build the credibility within each piece of evidence. Provenzo begins by stating both literary works that he has written to establish himself as an expert. Even the fact that he was being asked to testify to the Senate could be a source of credibility; this act could justify calling him an expert in his field. Then, he uses many specific examples of media violence and their relation to actual violence. His main example was that of the Columbine school shooting. Provenzo believes it was clear that these students learned their planned actions from the video game Doom and the movie Natural Born Killers. This example was credible in the fact that the evidence supports the fact that they were mimicking this media; however, he uses this one example as the outcome of all violent exposure. Since it is well known that violent media has been extremely mainstream since the advent of computer systems, Provenzo (2000) mildly loses some of his credibility by only presenting one example where the “increasing „romanticization‟ of violence” actually caused real violence (p. 500).
Jones almost exclusively uses personal experience in his examples, which causes him to lose a bit of credibility. Jones starts off strong and explains what he went through as a child, and how the violent media helped him turn into a better person. He uses his son as an example, and it seems to help the argument. However, when he mentions that he himself is a comic book writer, there was a definite conflict of interest between acceptability of comic books and his career. He offers one expert opinion, that of a psychologist who works with many children in public schools. This one expert opinion raises his credibility, but he then loses it again when he mentions that he was in league with this psychologist to create a program for children. Jones does not offer any examples that are not directly related to his own actions. He presents a strong argument, but it was an argument based on generally accepted beliefs and personal opinion only.
To bring these authors into comparison, Jones had little credibility in his evidence but had decent examples and a great amount of real-world experience. Provenzo had the credibility of an expert but lacked enough evidence that could be related to the real world. The differences in credibility generally even out and bring the authors on par with each other. It was interesting that a comic book writer can seemingly be just as credible in the area of child development as a professor who studies children and education.
Both authors presented evidence to support their claims. The authors used evidence to make the reader reach the same logical conclusion as they did. Since the conclusions about the effects of violent media differ, we must break apart the arguments and analyze the logic each author uses. To begin with Jones‟s opening example, he believes there is a simple cause and effect of his trouble as a child. The stated cause was that his parents, in their progressive manner, sheltered him from violent media. He believes the effect he felt was that he moved into a state of “passivity and loneliness” (Jones, 2000, p. 496). He further explained that when he was finally introduced to the Incredible Hulk comic books, his faults were soon fixed. By using deductive reasoning, Jones believes that his experience with violent videogames helped him become a more rounded person. This theme is carried through the rest of his essay and personal examples; examples of two girls who were bettered by strategic use of violent media extend this cause and effect. These logical cause and effects by deductive reasoning are valid, but may not be totally sound. The examples of the two girls did not show total control over their behavior; it seems that the author puts his logic to test on the girls and creates a causation fallacy between violent media and the results. To set up a quick deductive reasoning experiment, we can insert Jones‟s premises: (1) Girl listens to rap music; (2) Girl turns out productive; (3)Therefore, rap music is productive. It is apparent that these premises are odd, but it seems to be how Jones describes the example. Another interesting logical point is how he mentions the fact that there have been school shootings. Jones (2000) argues that violent entertainment has “helped hundreds of people for everyone it‟s hurt” (p. 497). This can be put to logic, and even though Jones does not state statistics of child violence, it seems to be sound that violent media is not the sole cause of violence among children.
Provenzo also uses a good amount of cause and effect and even states the logic he uses within one of the paragraphs. To begin, Provenzo must prove that violent games are literally “instructing” adolescents in the ways of warfare and violence. This was where the Columbine shooters came in; their video diaries clearly showed that they were mimicking what they learned in games and movies. Then he used this to describe how skilled people become skilled through practice, and that game players become better with practice, and finally that game players are becoming skilled in the profession of violence. He then moved on to explain that the continuous increase in computing capability will cause violent simulations to only increase their ability to train children. A negative aspect of Provenzo‟s logic was that he never brought together the children skilled in violence and the children who commit violence. This seems like a major disconnect in his logic, and although his logic was sound, he was not connecting it properly through his examples. This could be the reason he only had one cause and effect example of a school shooting where there was a direct connection to violent media and the effect.
When comparing the logic of both authors, it seemed like Jones touches on the heart of the issue more than Provenzo. Jones acknowledges that violent media can be negative but has positive qualities that can be found when presented correctly with parental guidance. Provenzo offers no positive aspects of violent media and is quick to condemn it completely. Logically, it was easier to agree with Jones‟s article because he acknowledges both sides of the argument, while Provenzo does not.
The other argumentation technique found in both articles is the method of appealing to emotion. Jones uses this much more than Provenzo does, and it makes his argument stronger in some aspects. Provenzo did a good job staying objective and presenting his evidence to the committee, while it was apparent that Jones had very strong emotional feelings on the issue. Jones‟s argument about his childhood can appeal to emotions of compassion to people who felt similarly as a child. He also makes use of many feelings and philosophies during the rest of his essay, talking about power, selfhood, and general emotions like fear and anxiety, which are felt by everyone. By telling people what would happen if they sheltered children from violence, he appeals to readers‟ feelings of guilt or regret. It is apparent that he was not only targeting adults and parents, but more specifically, targeting adults‟ and parents‟ emotions. Provenzo mostly sticks to the logical aspect of his argument, but he does appeal to the emotion at the end of his essay when he compares the rise of media to a genetic engineering experiment. This choice of analogy adds gravity to the situation and works the emotion by adding a sense of urgency to the situation.
The conclusions of both essays were very strong in that they ended on a powerful note. Jones used his emotional appeal with an analogy about the Victorians sheltering their children from sexuality, and he continued to talk about sheltered emotions. Provenzo compared violent games to a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong, which made his work seem important and urgent. Overall, Jones‟s article targeted at emotions seems to be more convincing, even with his slightly sub-par evidence. While that may be because I have played violent games myself, I think it was because Jones seems to brush on the surface of the deeper issue: parenting. While Jones really never stresses the importance of proper media implementation and explanation done by a parent, Provenzo did not mention the role of a parent at all in his entire essay and only stated his facts based on pure logic. Provenzo‟s problem came when I took a deep look at his logic and revealed that what he had created was a fallacy. Of course it can be said that violent games train children in warfare techniques, but there was a disconnection when it comes to actually putting those techniques learned to negative uses. If it is agreed that parenting was the disconnection, Provenzo does not include that into his logic, and this undermines his entire essay. With that being said, if the context of Provenzo‟s essay was to offer objective information to the Committee, this would explain the disconnection. In the end, Jones‟s essay was the one that provided a more complete and persuasive argument.
REFERENCES
Jones, G. (2000). Violent media is good for kids. In C. L. Alfano and A. J. O‟Brien (1st Ed), Envision in Depth (pp. 496-498). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Provenzo Jr., E. F. (2000). Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “The impact of interactive violence on children”. In C. L. Alfano and A. J. O‟Brien (1st Ed), Envision in Depth (pp. 499-503). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Your peer review should address at least the following questions:
Thesis Statement
What was the writer's thesis statement?
Does it include all three parts C - S - C?
Does the thesis reflect the content of the rest of the essay? Were there paragraphs that are not clearly connected to the thesis statement?
Mechanics
Were there any repetitive or particularly problematic mechanic, grammar, or formatting issue?
Did the essay flow? Was it well organized? Were there transitions sentences or phrases to show the direction of the essay?
Content
You should respond to the writer as well. For example, was there a part of the essay you connected with or thought was particularly well done? Were there areas that were not clear? Were there places where the essay should be expanded or an idea which the writer didn't consider but should have.
Does the essay reflect the writing prompt? For this sample peer review, consider the prompt to be the Blog Assignment #4.
Overall, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this essay?
THE VIOLENT MEDIA DISCUSSION
By: JEFF LAWRENCE
Authors Gerard Jones, with “Violent Media Is Good for Kids,” and Eugene F. Provenzo Jr., with “Testimony Before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children,” present us with both sides of a debate on violent media. This debate is over whether or not violent media such as comic books, video games, and movies have a positive or negative effect on children. The authors take opposing sides on this argument; Jones is a comic book writer who believes violent stories, such as the ones he writes help children deal with natural emotions. Provenzo is a long-time writer and researcher at the University of Miami who testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in regards to how violent media is negatively effecting child development. Both authors use several different methods of argumentation: appeals to logic and emotion through reasoning techniques and the establishment of credibility through experience. Both authors use these techniques; however, Jones‟s essay seems to use these methods of argumentation to provide a more complete argument. There is no doubt that people in America have encountered this issue at some point. The way Jones and Provenzo present their sides of the issue allows us to analyze and determine the strongest argument.
While both authors address similar issues, it is apparent that they differ in some aspects. Jones‟s (2000) main argument was that sheltering children from violent media damages their ability to deal with natural emotions, which in turn shelters them “against power and selfhood” (p. 498). His argument is directed towards parents and adults; his examples contain methods and ideas about parenting. Jones made it seem like this piece was written for almost anyone; it was as if anyone can be involved in the prevention of his or her child‟s development. The way Jones targeted a large audience could in fact strengthen his article. It leaves the reader and myself with a lasting impression and makes it seem that there is something we can do about the problem. Provenzo believes certain types of games are actually simulations, training children to become better killers. He says that these violent simulators are in fact causing people to view violence romantically. Provenzo does have a dissimilar audience. He was speaking towards the Senate Committee—people who can make drastic changes in the availability of violent media. The fact that this essay was written about his experience in the hearing seems to damage his argument. He is attempting to reach a broader audience by publishing his thoughts, but he fails to include methods of arguing with a broad audience. After reading Provenzo‟s essay, it is difficult to find what action he wants done. It almost seems as if he was trying to outlaw the ability to create violent First Person Shooter type games; someone not on the Senate Committee may have a hard time accomplishing this. His arguments can speak to most adults, but they lack direction and do not really inspire any action for a normal parent. This does seem appropriate based on the context; he was offering his expert consultation to the committee based on his research.
Jones and Provenzo both use rhetoric to build the credibility within each piece of evidence. Provenzo begins by stating both literary works that he has written to establish himself as an expert. Even the fact that he was being asked to testify to the Senate could be a source of credibility; this act could justify calling him an expert in his field. Then, he uses many specific examples of media violence and their relation to actual violence. His main example was that of the Columbine school shooting. Provenzo believes it was clear that these students learned their planned actions from the video game Doom and the movie Natural Born Killers. This example was credible in the fact that the evidence supports the fact that they were mimicking this media; however, he uses this one example as the outcome of all violent exposure. Since it is well known that violent media has been extremely mainstream since the advent of computer systems, Provenzo (2000) mildly loses some of his credibility by only presenting one example where the “increasing „romanticization‟ of violence” actually caused real violence (p. 500).
Jones almost exclusively uses personal experience in his examples, which causes him to lose a bit of credibility. Jones starts off strong and explains what he went through as a child, and how the violent media helped him turn into a better person. He uses his son as an example, and it seems to help the argument. However, when he mentions that he himself is a comic book writer, there was a definite conflict of interest between acceptability of comic books and his career. He offers one expert opinion, that of a psychologist who works with many children in public schools. This one expert opinion raises his credibility, but he then loses it again when he mentions that he was in league with this psychologist to create a program for children. Jones does not offer any examples that are not directly related to his own actions. He presents a strong argument, but it was an argument based on generally accepted beliefs and personal opinion only.
To bring these authors into comparison, Jones had little credibility in his evidence but had decent examples and a great amount of real-world experience. Provenzo had the credibility of an expert but lacked enough evidence that could be related to the real world. The differences in credibility generally even out and bring the authors on par with each other. It was interesting that a comic book writer can seemingly be just as credible in the area of child development as a professor who studies children and education.
Both authors presented evidence to support their claims. The authors used evidence to make the reader reach the same logical conclusion as they did. Since the conclusions about the effects of violent media differ, we must break apart the arguments and analyze the logic each author uses. To begin with Jones‟s opening example, he believes there is a simple cause and effect of his trouble as a child. The stated cause was that his parents, in their progressive manner, sheltered him from violent media. He believes the effect he felt was that he moved into a state of “passivity and loneliness” (Jones, 2000, p. 496). He further explained that when he was finally introduced to the Incredible Hulk comic books, his faults were soon fixed. By using deductive reasoning, Jones believes that his experience with violent videogames helped him become a more rounded person. This theme is carried through the rest of his essay and personal examples; examples of two girls who were bettered by strategic use of violent media extend this cause and effect. These logical cause and effects by deductive reasoning are valid, but may not be totally sound. The examples of the two girls did not show total control over their behavior; it seems that the author puts his logic to test on the girls and creates a causation fallacy between violent media and the results. To set up a quick deductive reasoning experiment, we can insert Jones‟s premises: (1) Girl listens to rap music; (2) Girl turns out productive; (3)Therefore, rap music is productive. It is apparent that these premises are odd, but it seems to be how Jones describes the example. Another interesting logical point is how he mentions the fact that there have been school shootings. Jones (2000) argues that violent entertainment has “helped hundreds of people for everyone it‟s hurt” (p. 497). This can be put to logic, and even though Jones does not state statistics of child violence, it seems to be sound that violent media is not the sole cause of violence among children.
Provenzo also uses a good amount of cause and effect and even states the logic he uses within one of the paragraphs. To begin, Provenzo must prove that violent games are literally “instructing” adolescents in the ways of warfare and violence. This was where the Columbine shooters came in; their video diaries clearly showed that they were mimicking what they learned in games and movies. Then he used this to describe how skilled people become skilled through practice, and that game players become better with practice, and finally that game players are becoming skilled in the profession of violence. He then moved on to explain that the continuous increase in computing capability will cause violent simulations to only increase their ability to train children. A negative aspect of Provenzo‟s logic was that he never brought together the children skilled in violence and the children who commit violence. This seems like a major disconnect in his logic, and although his logic was sound, he was not connecting it properly through his examples. This could be the reason he only had one cause and effect example of a school shooting where there was a direct connection to violent media and the effect.
When comparing the logic of both authors, it seemed like Jones touches on the heart of the issue more than Provenzo. Jones acknowledges that violent media can be negative but has positive qualities that can be found when presented correctly with parental guidance. Provenzo offers no positive aspects of violent media and is quick to condemn it completely. Logically, it was easier to agree with Jones‟s article because he acknowledges both sides of the argument, while Provenzo does not.
The other argumentation technique found in both articles is the method of appealing to emotion. Jones uses this much more than Provenzo does, and it makes his argument stronger in some aspects. Provenzo did a good job staying objective and presenting his evidence to the committee, while it was apparent that Jones had very strong emotional feelings on the issue. Jones‟s argument about his childhood can appeal to emotions of compassion to people who felt similarly as a child. He also makes use of many feelings and philosophies during the rest of his essay, talking about power, selfhood, and general emotions like fear and anxiety, which are felt by everyone. By telling people what would happen if they sheltered children from violence, he appeals to readers‟ feelings of guilt or regret. It is apparent that he was not only targeting adults and parents, but more specifically, targeting adults‟ and parents‟ emotions. Provenzo mostly sticks to the logical aspect of his argument, but he does appeal to the emotion at the end of his essay when he compares the rise of media to a genetic engineering experiment. This choice of analogy adds gravity to the situation and works the emotion by adding a sense of urgency to the situation.
The conclusions of both essays were very strong in that they ended on a powerful note. Jones used his emotional appeal with an analogy about the Victorians sheltering their children from sexuality, and he continued to talk about sheltered emotions. Provenzo compared violent games to a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong, which made his work seem important and urgent. Overall, Jones‟s article targeted at emotions seems to be more convincing, even with his slightly sub-par evidence. While that may be because I have played violent games myself, I think it was because Jones seems to brush on the surface of the deeper issue: parenting. While Jones really never stresses the importance of proper media implementation and explanation done by a parent, Provenzo did not mention the role of a parent at all in his entire essay and only stated his facts based on pure logic. Provenzo‟s problem came when I took a deep look at his logic and revealed that what he had created was a fallacy. Of course it can be said that violent games train children in warfare techniques, but there was a disconnection when it comes to actually putting those techniques learned to negative uses. If it is agreed that parenting was the disconnection, Provenzo does not include that into his logic, and this undermines his entire essay. With that being said, if the context of Provenzo‟s essay was to offer objective information to the Committee, this would explain the disconnection. In the end, Jones‟s essay was the one that provided a more complete and persuasive argument.
REFERENCES
Jones, G. (2000). Violent media is good for kids. In C. L. Alfano and A. J. O‟Brien (1st Ed), Envision in Depth (pp. 496-498). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Provenzo Jr., E. F. (2000). Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “The impact of interactive violence on children”. In C. L. Alfano and A. J. O‟Brien (1st Ed), Envision in Depth (pp. 499-503). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Your peer review should address at least the following questions:
Thesis Statement
What was the writer's thesis statement?
Does it include all three parts C - S - C?
Does the thesis reflect the content of the rest of the essay? Were there paragraphs that are not clearly connected to the thesis statement?
Mechanics
Were there any repetitive or particularly problematic mechanic, grammar, or formatting issue?
Did the essay flow? Was it well organized? Were there transitions sentences or phrases to show the direction of the essay?
Content
You should respond to the writer as well. For example, was there a part of the essay you connected with or thought was particularly well done? Were there areas that were not clear? Were there places where the essay should be expanded or an idea which the writer didn't consider but should have.
Does the essay reflect the writing prompt? For this sample peer review, consider the prompt to be the Blog Assignment #4.
Overall, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this essay?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Class Blogs
Be sure to check out some of the quality work your classmates are doing. The links are below. Remember you are responsible for responding to 8 of your peers' posts this semester. We will be discussing expectations for these responses in class soon.
http://myteensselfimage.
http://blogenglish105.
http://ablogregardingblogs.blogspot.
http://laurenrobak.blogspot.
http://
http://newblog349.blogspot.
http://jessicaburnhamniu.blogspot.
http://kyliestojentin105.
http://
http://z1636899.blogspot.com/
http://myteensselfimage.
http://blogenglish105.
http://ablogregardingblogs.blogspot.
http://laurenrobak.blogspot.
http://
http://newblog349.blogspot.
http://jessicaburnhamniu.blogspot.
http://kyliestojentin105.
http://
http://z1636899.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Some Sample Blogs
Feel free to check out some of these sample blogs or find blogs of your own you find interesting.
Sports law - http://sports-law.blogspot.com/
Sports of Boston - http://sportsofboston.com/
Cooking - http://cookingwithamy.blogspot.com/
Table Tennis - http://aussietabletennis.blogspot.com/
Fashion - http://iamfashion.blogspot.com/
Economic Legislation - http://economic-legislation.blogspot.com/
Blogs about blogging - http://lorelle.wordpress.com/ - SOPA
Writing a bio blog - http://alpineopinion.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/third-person-blog-bios/
Monday, January 16, 2012
Weekly (Short) Assignments
I will try to keep this list as up-to-date as possible. It will include daily assignments, often given in the previous class. Handouts, worksheets, assignment sheets, and other documents will likely be available in the shared GoogleDocs folder.
These dates reflect the day the reading is assigned. It should be read prior to the next class
period. These dates may shift or be amended
a bit as the semester progresses.
Week
|
Reading Assigned
|
Short Assignments
|
|
1
|
Mon: No Class
|
||
Wed: TCW: Chapter 1 p. 3-24
|
|||
2
|
Mon: TCW: Chapter 2 p. 25-50
|
||
Wed: TCW: Chapter 3-4 p. 51-98 (due next Wed)
|
|||
3
|
Mon:
|
Bring in copy of source (article or book) related to blog
|
|
Wed:
|
Bring copy of source
|
||
4
|
Mon: |
Locate, read, and outline "The Male Consumer as Loser: Beer and Liquor Ads in Mega Sports Media Events" by Michael A. Messner and Jeffrey Montez de Oca. Identify the thesis statement.
|
|
| Wed: | |||
5
|
|
Locate and read "Mega-Special-Event Promotions
and Intent To Purchase: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Super Bowl" by Norm O'Reilly, et al. |
|
Wed: TCW: Chapter 6 p. 131-151
|
|||
6
|
Mon: TCW: Chapter 7 p. 152-174
|
||
Wed: TCW: Chapter 5 p. 98-128
|
|||
7
|
Mon:
|
||
Wed: TCW: Chapter 8 p. 175-204
|
|||
8
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
9
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
10
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
11
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
12
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
13
|
Mon: TCW: Chapter 10 p. 231-259
|
||
Wed
|
|||
14
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
15
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
16
|
Mon
|
||
Wed
|
|||
Finals
|
Welcome to ENGL 105!
Welcome class to the main blog page for ENGL 105. Below you will find the course syllabus and schedule as well as links to your peers' blogs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of English
English 105: Rhetoric and Composition
Spring 2012
Section: OM01 - Monday and Wednesday 2:00-3:15 p.m.
Instructor: Dustin Marquis
Office address: Reavis Hall 313
Office hours: Monday 3:15-4:15 p.m. or by appointment
E-mail: dustin.marquis.niu@gmail.com – this is the best way to reach me
Classroom: Lincoln Classroom D
Lab: Wednesdays - Lincoln Lab (in “the pit” next to the classroom)
Course Description:
The Undergraduate Catalog describes ENGL 103 in the following terms: “Concentrated rhetorical approach to the writing and revising of expressive, expository, and persuasive essays accompanied by the critical reading of various forms of writing. Documented writing required in all sections. Grade of C or better required to satisfy English core competency requirement.”
Prerequisites & Notes
“PRQ: Placement only through English Core Competency Examination or a score of 30 or higher on the ACT combined English/Writing Test.”
(Go to: http://catalog.niu.edu/)
Course Objectives:
• Draft and revise essays appropriate for college academia
• Communicate to a variety of audiences and in various forms
• Engage in active critical reading and questioning
• Explain connections that you see between others’ ideas and your own
• Provide evidence and reasoning that back up your informed opinions
• Please see the attached list for the breakdown of all departmental outcomes
Required Texts:
• Hacker, Diana, Stephen Bernhardt, and Nancy Sommers. Writer’s Help. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2011. Web. 22 Aug. 2011.
• Moore, Kathleen Muller and Susie Lan Cassel. Techniques for College Writing: The Thesis Statement and Beyond. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Grade Breakdown:
• In-Class Work: Active participation in class discussion, activities, and in-class free writing. In-class work will be graded as either + (100%), “check” (75%), or - (0%). 5%
• Reading Quizzes and Peer Reviews: These "pop quizzes" will be given without warning at the beginning of class and will be based on assigned reading assignments for that day's class. Any hand-written notes taken over the reading may be used so long as the notes are the student’s own and are not located in the text being quizzed over. These quizzes do require active reading and retention, however they are not meant to be extremely challenging when familiar with the material. Students will be assigned a grade of A (100%) B (85%) C (75%) D (65%) or F (0%). Peer reviews and blog commenting will require students to read their peers’ work closely and critically while offering helpful and specific feedback. Over the course of the semester all students must offer at least 8 responses of at least 200 words to their peer’s blog entries. These will also be graded on a A/B/C/D/F system and will weigh the same as one reading quiz toward the final grade - 10%
• Final Electronic and Physical Portfolio with Reflective Writing – Students will write a reflection of their writing as the “final exam” for the course. Over the semester, students will populate their blog with weekly writing assignments. They will be responsible for turning in a physical copy of their work with comments at the end of the semester. Keep all work. You will be handing this in. 5%
• Weekly Blog Entries – Each week students will write a 2-3 page (800-1000 word) blog entry unless there is another major assignment due (such as near the end of the semester.) I will give you an assignment sheet detailing what I’m looking for in the week’s blog. 30%
• Research Presentation: You will find an argumentative topic which you will extensively research and, ultimately, make a claim about. This can be done individually or in a group of 2, 3, or 4 people. I will give more details on this assignment as the semester progresses, however you will be required to create a proposal, source list, tri-fold, and present your claim to the class as part of an organized presentation. The two best presentations will advance to the University’s Showcase of Student Writing on Wednesday, April 11th from 3:00-4:30 at the Holmes Student Center. The entire class will attend. 30%
• Argumentative Research Essay: This 9-14 page essay marks the culmination of the semester’s efforts as you pool the ideas you’ve gathered in your research to make an argumentative claim about your topic. You should include at least 12-15 quality sources which you critically examine. You are free and encouraged to use any researched gathered during the research presentation so long as you properly cite it. 20%
Paper Specifications:
Many assignments will be handed in by “posting” as a blog. You may also be required to “turn in” assignments via your GoogleDocs account which will be created in class. Documents handed in via GoogleDocs should meet the following specifications:
Use Times New Roman 12 pt. font and double-space. Do note that this is often NOT the default in MSWord. Use 1" margins (standard). Headings and documentation should conform to the appropriate (MLA) style as will be discussed in class. Electronic submissions should be saved in Word (.doc / .docx) or Rich Text Format (.rtf) formats. Other formats will NOT be accepted.
Late Work:
Late papers will be penalized a letter grade for each day late. For example, if a paper was due on Friday, August 27th, and was submitted to Google Docs at 3 in the morning on Sunday August 29th and would have otherwise received a B+ the paper would be counted as a D+. After 4 days, I will not accept the essay and it will be considered a 0% F except in a few extreme situations. These will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
I will often offer extensions on an assignment or two so long as students talk to me at least 24 hours before the assignment is due and explain the situation.
Folder:
Keep all of the informal writing, quizzes, exercises, drafts, graded papers—everything handed back to you. You are required to turn this folder in at the end of the semester.
Grading:
I use the following scale when determining final grades. Do note that the NIU English Department does not distinguish +’s or –‘s in their grading scale.
100-98 A+ 73-71 C-
97-94 A 70-68 D+
93-91 A- 67-64 D
90-88 B+ 63-61 D-
87-84 B 60-0 F
83-81 B-
80-78 C+
77-74 C
B represents solid, readable writing that does what the assignment asks. B-level writing demonstrates sufficient support for claims, logical organization, and thoughtfulness, but it is not rich in specific detail or style. B-level writing is relatively free of grammatical problems or careless mistakes. Students are often in class and notify the instructor of absences. They often do the assigned readings and follow directions on writing assignments.
A represents a writing level of unusual polish and style, often taking a surprising angle in developing the topic. A-level writing is rare, because it shows consistent excellence throughout a piece. A-level writing always surpasses assignment expectations. “A” students are often attentive and in class. When not, they notify the instructor before or on the day of class. They make up all missed work. They read all assigned readings at a retention level. Perhaps one of the most important attributes of “A” work is following the assignment prompts for writing assignments. Not all students who achieve a fine performance overall receive an A.
C represents writing that probably satisfies all the requirements of an assignment. However, such writing lacks sufficient, concrete support needed to illustrate its assertions or prove its point. C-level writing often shows lapses in editing proficiency and contains careless errors, as well. These students either lack clarity in their writing, or fail to follow the directions of the assignment. This work may occasionally be turned in a day or so late. These students may not do some of the reading assignments or may not read closely enough to retain all they have read.
After having read these descriptions consider what your goal for this course is. Write it here: __________. Diligently follow through with the appropriate expectations listed above.
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities:
Students who believe that they may need academic accommodations based on the impact of a disability should contact the NIU Center for Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) to discuss their individual needs. CAAR is located on the 4th floor of University Health Services and can be reached at 815-753-1303. Students are encouraged to inform the faculty of their requests for accommodations as early as possible in the semester or as soon as they become aware of the need for an accommodation.
Plagiarism Statement:
“The attempt of any student to present as his or her own work that which he or she has not produced is regarded by the faculty and administration as a serious offense. Students are considered to have cheated if they copy the work of another during an examination or turn in a paper or an assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else. Students are guilty of plagiarism, intentional or not, if they copy material from books, magazines, or other sources or if they paraphrase ideas from such sources without acknowledging them. Students guilty of, or assisting others in, either cheating or plagiarism on an assignment, quiz, or examination may receive a grade of F for the course involved and may be suspended or dismissed from the university.” Northern Illinois University Undergraduate Catalog.
Also, please read the English Department Plagiarism Statement at: http://www.engl.niu.edu/composition/guidelines/plag.shtml
Anonymous Use of Student Work for Program Assessment:
Student folders, in print or electronic form will be kept by the First-Year Composition program for a minimum of four weeks into the following semester. Occasionally, some work may be kept longer and used anonymously for program assessment. If you wish that your work not be used for program assessment, please inform your instructor in writing as soon as possible.
Attendance Policy:
Attendance and punctuality are required. Illnesses and real life do happen and I am understanding of such situations. If you are ill or have a serious real-life incident (i.e. death in the family, etc.) you must notify me (preferably) before or on the day of class. You will be expected to make up missed work. If you have a legitimate reason for missing class I will excuse you. Illnesses will require a doctor’s note that confirms your absence and real-life situations may require proof on a case-by-case basis.
Each student will be offered 4 unexcused absences (1/8 of the total class meetings.) After that, your final grade will be deducted 1/3 of a letter grade for each unexcused absence greater than 4. Habitual tardiness will begin counting as unexcused absences. If this is the case, I will let you know. Students will sign-in at the beginning of each class. Students caught “cheating” this system (having friends sign them up, signing up on days they were absent, etc.) may automatically fail the course. If there is a discrepancy on the sign up (you sign up on the wrong day, etc.) let me know immediately after class.
Conferences:
We will have two scheduled conferences during the semester. These will take place near the coffee shop in the Holmes Student Center. You will sign up for these conference times via a sign-up sheet in class. Missing these conferences is considered missing the full amount of cancelled class time so do not miss these!
Writing Center:
The Writing Center in Stevenson Towers South, Lower Level is a resource for improving your written work. Contact the tutors and schedule appointments by walking in, by calling 753-6636, or by going to the website at: http://uwc.niu.edu/. I offer extra-credit to those students who utilize the writing center. You will receive 1% added to your final grade for each of your first three trips to the writing center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of English
English 105: Rhetoric and Composition
Spring 2012
Section: OM01 - Monday and Wednesday 2:00-3:15 p.m.
Instructor: Dustin Marquis
Office address: Reavis Hall 313
Office hours: Monday 3:15-4:15 p.m. or by appointment
E-mail: dustin.marquis.niu@gmail.com – this is the best way to reach me
Classroom: Lincoln Classroom D
Lab: Wednesdays - Lincoln Lab (in “the pit” next to the classroom)
Course Description:
The Undergraduate Catalog describes ENGL 103 in the following terms: “Concentrated rhetorical approach to the writing and revising of expressive, expository, and persuasive essays accompanied by the critical reading of various forms of writing. Documented writing required in all sections. Grade of C or better required to satisfy English core competency requirement.”
Prerequisites & Notes
“PRQ: Placement only through English Core Competency Examination or a score of 30 or higher on the ACT combined English/Writing Test.”
(Go to: http://catalog.niu.edu/)
Course Objectives:
• Draft and revise essays appropriate for college academia
• Communicate to a variety of audiences and in various forms
• Engage in active critical reading and questioning
• Explain connections that you see between others’ ideas and your own
• Provide evidence and reasoning that back up your informed opinions
• Please see the attached list for the breakdown of all departmental outcomes
Required Texts:
• Hacker, Diana, Stephen Bernhardt, and Nancy Sommers. Writer’s Help. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2011. Web. 22 Aug. 2011.
• Moore, Kathleen Muller and Susie Lan Cassel. Techniques for College Writing: The Thesis Statement and Beyond. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Grade Breakdown:
• In-Class Work: Active participation in class discussion, activities, and in-class free writing. In-class work will be graded as either + (100%), “check” (75%), or - (0%). 5%
• Reading Quizzes and Peer Reviews: These "pop quizzes" will be given without warning at the beginning of class and will be based on assigned reading assignments for that day's class. Any hand-written notes taken over the reading may be used so long as the notes are the student’s own and are not located in the text being quizzed over. These quizzes do require active reading and retention, however they are not meant to be extremely challenging when familiar with the material. Students will be assigned a grade of A (100%) B (85%) C (75%) D (65%) or F (0%). Peer reviews and blog commenting will require students to read their peers’ work closely and critically while offering helpful and specific feedback. Over the course of the semester all students must offer at least 8 responses of at least 200 words to their peer’s blog entries. These will also be graded on a A/B/C/D/F system and will weigh the same as one reading quiz toward the final grade - 10%
• Final Electronic and Physical Portfolio with Reflective Writing – Students will write a reflection of their writing as the “final exam” for the course. Over the semester, students will populate their blog with weekly writing assignments. They will be responsible for turning in a physical copy of their work with comments at the end of the semester. Keep all work. You will be handing this in. 5%
• Weekly Blog Entries – Each week students will write a 2-3 page (800-1000 word) blog entry unless there is another major assignment due (such as near the end of the semester.) I will give you an assignment sheet detailing what I’m looking for in the week’s blog. 30%
• Research Presentation: You will find an argumentative topic which you will extensively research and, ultimately, make a claim about. This can be done individually or in a group of 2, 3, or 4 people. I will give more details on this assignment as the semester progresses, however you will be required to create a proposal, source list, tri-fold, and present your claim to the class as part of an organized presentation. The two best presentations will advance to the University’s Showcase of Student Writing on Wednesday, April 11th from 3:00-4:30 at the Holmes Student Center. The entire class will attend. 30%
• Argumentative Research Essay: This 9-14 page essay marks the culmination of the semester’s efforts as you pool the ideas you’ve gathered in your research to make an argumentative claim about your topic. You should include at least 12-15 quality sources which you critically examine. You are free and encouraged to use any researched gathered during the research presentation so long as you properly cite it. 20%
Paper Specifications:
Many assignments will be handed in by “posting” as a blog. You may also be required to “turn in” assignments via your GoogleDocs account which will be created in class. Documents handed in via GoogleDocs should meet the following specifications:
Use Times New Roman 12 pt. font and double-space. Do note that this is often NOT the default in MSWord. Use 1" margins (standard). Headings and documentation should conform to the appropriate (MLA) style as will be discussed in class. Electronic submissions should be saved in Word (.doc / .docx) or Rich Text Format (.rtf) formats. Other formats will NOT be accepted.
Late Work:
Late papers will be penalized a letter grade for each day late. For example, if a paper was due on Friday, August 27th, and was submitted to Google Docs at 3 in the morning on Sunday August 29th and would have otherwise received a B+ the paper would be counted as a D+. After 4 days, I will not accept the essay and it will be considered a 0% F except in a few extreme situations. These will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
I will often offer extensions on an assignment or two so long as students talk to me at least 24 hours before the assignment is due and explain the situation.
Folder:
Keep all of the informal writing, quizzes, exercises, drafts, graded papers—everything handed back to you. You are required to turn this folder in at the end of the semester.
Grading:
I use the following scale when determining final grades. Do note that the NIU English Department does not distinguish +’s or –‘s in their grading scale.
100-98 A+ 73-71 C-
97-94 A 70-68 D+
93-91 A- 67-64 D
90-88 B+ 63-61 D-
87-84 B 60-0 F
83-81 B-
80-78 C+
77-74 C
B represents solid, readable writing that does what the assignment asks. B-level writing demonstrates sufficient support for claims, logical organization, and thoughtfulness, but it is not rich in specific detail or style. B-level writing is relatively free of grammatical problems or careless mistakes. Students are often in class and notify the instructor of absences. They often do the assigned readings and follow directions on writing assignments.
A represents a writing level of unusual polish and style, often taking a surprising angle in developing the topic. A-level writing is rare, because it shows consistent excellence throughout a piece. A-level writing always surpasses assignment expectations. “A” students are often attentive and in class. When not, they notify the instructor before or on the day of class. They make up all missed work. They read all assigned readings at a retention level. Perhaps one of the most important attributes of “A” work is following the assignment prompts for writing assignments. Not all students who achieve a fine performance overall receive an A.
C represents writing that probably satisfies all the requirements of an assignment. However, such writing lacks sufficient, concrete support needed to illustrate its assertions or prove its point. C-level writing often shows lapses in editing proficiency and contains careless errors, as well. These students either lack clarity in their writing, or fail to follow the directions of the assignment. This work may occasionally be turned in a day or so late. These students may not do some of the reading assignments or may not read closely enough to retain all they have read.
After having read these descriptions consider what your goal for this course is. Write it here: __________. Diligently follow through with the appropriate expectations listed above.
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities:
Students who believe that they may need academic accommodations based on the impact of a disability should contact the NIU Center for Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) to discuss their individual needs. CAAR is located on the 4th floor of University Health Services and can be reached at 815-753-1303. Students are encouraged to inform the faculty of their requests for accommodations as early as possible in the semester or as soon as they become aware of the need for an accommodation.
Plagiarism Statement:
“The attempt of any student to present as his or her own work that which he or she has not produced is regarded by the faculty and administration as a serious offense. Students are considered to have cheated if they copy the work of another during an examination or turn in a paper or an assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else. Students are guilty of plagiarism, intentional or not, if they copy material from books, magazines, or other sources or if they paraphrase ideas from such sources without acknowledging them. Students guilty of, or assisting others in, either cheating or plagiarism on an assignment, quiz, or examination may receive a grade of F for the course involved and may be suspended or dismissed from the university.” Northern Illinois University Undergraduate Catalog.
Also, please read the English Department Plagiarism Statement at: http://www.engl.niu.edu/composition/guidelines/plag.shtml
Anonymous Use of Student Work for Program Assessment:
Student folders, in print or electronic form will be kept by the First-Year Composition program for a minimum of four weeks into the following semester. Occasionally, some work may be kept longer and used anonymously for program assessment. If you wish that your work not be used for program assessment, please inform your instructor in writing as soon as possible.
Attendance Policy:
Attendance and punctuality are required. Illnesses and real life do happen and I am understanding of such situations. If you are ill or have a serious real-life incident (i.e. death in the family, etc.) you must notify me (preferably) before or on the day of class. You will be expected to make up missed work. If you have a legitimate reason for missing class I will excuse you. Illnesses will require a doctor’s note that confirms your absence and real-life situations may require proof on a case-by-case basis.
Each student will be offered 4 unexcused absences (1/8 of the total class meetings.) After that, your final grade will be deducted 1/3 of a letter grade for each unexcused absence greater than 4. Habitual tardiness will begin counting as unexcused absences. If this is the case, I will let you know. Students will sign-in at the beginning of each class. Students caught “cheating” this system (having friends sign them up, signing up on days they were absent, etc.) may automatically fail the course. If there is a discrepancy on the sign up (you sign up on the wrong day, etc.) let me know immediately after class.
Conferences:
We will have two scheduled conferences during the semester. These will take place near the coffee shop in the Holmes Student Center. You will sign up for these conference times via a sign-up sheet in class. Missing these conferences is considered missing the full amount of cancelled class time so do not miss these!
Writing Center:
The Writing Center in Stevenson Towers South, Lower Level is a resource for improving your written work. Contact the tutors and schedule appointments by walking in, by calling 753-6636, or by going to the website at: http://uwc.niu.edu/. I offer extra-credit to those students who utilize the writing center. You will receive 1% added to your final grade for each of your first three trips to the writing center.
Schedule
This
schedule accounts for the major assignments and is still an estimate. If assignment due-dates change I will give
you adequate notice in class. Also,
shorter assignments will be given in class and can be written here. I will try to keep the course website
up-to-date with reading and other short assignments.
|
Week
|
Topic
|
Day
|
Major Assignment
|
|
|
1
|
Course Expectations
|
Mon: No Class
|
|
|
|
Wed: Introduction to Class; Setting up GoogleDocs
and Blogging
|
|
|||
|
2
|
Writing for College
|
Mon: Expectations for college writing; Blogging;
Thesis statements
|
|
|
|
Wed: Ethos, logos, pathos, and finding quality
sources for academic research
|
Blog: Academic Biography
|
|||
|
3
|
Finding and Evaluating Sources
|
Mon: Library Visit – Tools for fruitful research
|
|
|
|
Wed: Evaluating sources
|
Blog: Objective Summary
|
|||
|
4
|
Analysis in Academia
|
Mon: Analysis strategies
|
|
|
|
Wed: How to use analysis with your thesis
statement
|
Blog: Evaluative Summary/Review
|
|||
|
5
|
Analysis
|
Mon: Discuss analysis; Discuss Research
Presentation
|
Blog: Mini-Analysis #1
|
|
|
Wed: Working with multiple sources
|
Blog: Mini-Analysis #2
|
|||
|
6
|
Working with Multiple Sources
|
Mon: Organizing multiple sources
|
Groups and topics for research presentation
|
|
|
Wed: Research Day / Flex-Day
|
Blog: Three-Source Analysis
|
|||
|
7
|
Presentation Conferences
|
Mon: No Class – Student Conferences
|
Project Proposal
|
|
|
Wed: Flex-Day/ Proposal Work Day
|
|
|||
|
8
|
Class Proposal Presentations
|
Mon: Class Proposals
|
Project Proposal
|
|
|
Wed: Class Proposals
|
Project Proposal
|
|||
|
9
|
No Class – Spring Recess
|
|||
|
10
|
Research Presentations
|
Mon: Research Work Day
|
|
|
|
Wed: Flex/Work Day
|
Source List due
|
|||
|
11
|
Research Presentations: How to use the research
|
Mon: Visual Media / Work Time
|
|
|
|
Wed: Presentation Strategies / Work Time
|
Presentation Outline and Annotated Bibliography
|
|||
|
12
|
Class Research Presentations
|
Mon: Research Presentations
|
Research Presentation
|
|
|
Wed: Research Presentations
|
Research Presentation
|
|||
|
13
|
Switching Gears: Using research in your individual
essay
|
Mon: Research Essay
|
|
|
|
Wed: Research Showcase 3:00-4:30, Holmes
Student Center Duke-Ellington Ballroom – No Regular Class. All students must attend.
|
Blog: Proposal for Research Essay
|
|||
|
14
|
Research Essay
|
Mon: Research Essay
|
|
|
|
Wed: Research Essay
|
|
|||
|
15
|
Individual Research Essay Conferences
|
Mon: No Class - Conferences
|
Polished, first-version of Research Essay must
be done prior to your conference.
|
|
|
Wed: No Class - Conferences
|
||||
|
16
|
Revising Research Essay
|
Mon: Flex/Peer Review
|
|
|
|
Wed: Finish up portfolios
|
Individual Research Essay
|
|||
|
Final
|
Monday, May 7th 2:00-3:50 p.m. –
Computer Lab
|
|||
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)