ALPHABETIC ESSAY | Genres of Knowledge: Hacking “Scholarly” and “Popular”
OVERVIEW
Thus far in class, we have been honing critical reading skills, developing a vocabulary for and awareness of the “scholarly vs. popular” conversation, and learning about the main components of a rhetorical situation. Project 1 asks you to conduct a rhetorical analysis of Fuchs’ “scholarly” article, “Anonymous: Hacktivism and Contemporary Politics,” and Levy’s “popular” article, “Trial By Twitter” while adding your voice to the conversation about genres of academic writing. Specifically, please write an alphabetic text in which you analyze the rhetorical situation of each text and assert a central claim that answers the following question: Which text is more effective at communicating its main argument to its intended audience, and should “scholarly” texts remain the dominant form of academic writing?
Take care to use direct evidence from the Fuchs and Levy texts as you consider such questions about the rhetorical situation of each text: Who is the intended audience? What is the main argument? What is the purpose/agenda? What are the surrounding circumstances? What is the tone? How does the author employ ethos, logos, and pathos?
LEARNING OUTCOMES
- Explain the main components of a rhetorical situation
- Analyze rhetoric across genre
- Use evidence and analysis to support an effective central claim
- Assess feedback about a draft and set revision agenda
- Demonstrate reflective self-evaluation
REQUIREMENTS & GRADING
- Due dates: please see our working calendar of assignments for project due dates
- Length: 1,000 – 1,200 words
- Medium: alphabetic essay
- Citations: MLA in-text citations with an MLA list of works cited
- Evaluation guidelines: I will offer you feedback about your project based on our Project 1 crowdsourced evaluation guidelines and your Project 1 self-evaluation reflection
- Grading weight: 20% of your course grade
SHORTER-FORM RELATED ASSIGNMENTS
Crowdsourced evaluation guidelines: [will be designed in class and posted]
Self evaluation reflection: Using the Project 1 crowdsourced evaluation guidelines, please reflect upon how successful you were at meeting the criteria set forth in the guidelines. Thoroughly explain how you did or did not meet the criteria so that I may, in turn, respond to your reflection by offering my own feedback of your work. I will assign you a letter grade that corresponds to both of our assessments of your work. The length should be 200-300 words. Please email me your reflection as a Word document saved as your last name.
