PREPARATION FOR 3/26 (WIKIPEDIA OUTLINE WORKSHOP)

Hello, Everyone:

In advance of Tuesday's class, I'd like you to register a Wikipedia username and ID. Although we won't start composing directly in the Wiki sandbox until next month, we will be completing some smaller steps online. To register, follow the "create account" link from Wikipedia English's main page. 

By class time on Tuesday, I will have combined your group outlines into a single suggested outline, with designated sections. We'll look at some Wikipedia project pages, but spend most of the class determining if that outline is do-able, and working together in your groups on the structure of each section. So, please just bring (or have access to) the sources your group has collected so far, and feel free to do some pre-reading and summarizing of texts in your Google Drive space. Nothing will be wasted, given that you'll have the opportunity to contribute to other sections as needed.

Based on the outlines your groups have generated so far, I can recommend the following sources from our "Further Reading" list (if you haven't already considered them):

• Bezemer and Kress
• Fraiburg
• Bolter and Grusin
• IP Caucus
• Murray
• Ball
• Multimodal Issues Management Team
• Wysocki

Finally, three of your group outlines suggested listing or linking to multimodal projects, as a way of either demonstrating some of the main characteristics of "multimodal" as you understand it, or as a way of presenting a classification system for different categories of multimodal texts. These are all great ideas, and I thought I would contribute to your brainstorming by sharing some of the texts I understand as "multimodal" according to the definition you have been forwarding:

• Sharon Daniel's "Public Secrets" Essay [click on "view project"]
• The PinePoint Documentary Project
• "In My Language"

Good thinking and problem-solving so far, everyone!

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 3/21 (CORBETT/EBERLY, LAZERE, FINE)

Hello, Everyone:

We may spend a few minutes during Thursday's class blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of Corbett and Eberly's "Becoming A Citizen Critic," Lazere's "Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity," and Fine's "You Can't Just Say ..." (if you decide to read the third piece). As usual, here are some questions to help you read:

1. After studying Fine's descriptions of the "Facing History and Ourselves" class at the Medgar Evers School, and after considering some of the challenges she witnesses in getting students to "talk together," consider a similar experience you have had, personally, or witnessed in print. (You can locate an article in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion" on our <"Course Resources"> page, select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard, or find something else that is explicitly biased.) Unpack and analyze the experience for assumptions, tensions, miscommunications, dis/empowerments, fixations on words, and value terms -- these are the things that Fine's analysis helps us to notice. What seems most difficult (if not irresolvable) about the conversation?  What do you notice about it through the analysis?
2. Is open and productive discussion of controversial issues really possible, for Fine? Based on the last few pages of her article (646-649), what do you think she thinks is possible as a result of argumentative discourse? What conclusions can she draw and/or what observations do you think she is left with?
3. Related to 1. above, if you had to represent -- in an informative way -- this same experience or conversation, how would you do so? In other words, assuming you were not analyzing it for sources of disagreement but were writing about it for a more informative project, what would you focus on and what would you leave out? In what other genre forms might you represent the argument, and why?
4. As you read Lazere's chapter on oversimplification, you may realize that his tone is -- in fact -- quite biased, which leads me to assume that "bias" may be a more complex concept than we think. If Lazere is not necessarily advocating for a removal of bias in writing good arguments, what is he advocating for? What do you think is his method of arguing well, and what in this chapter makes you think that? (Hint: you might begin with Aldous Huxley's epigraph that Lazere quotes at the start of the chapter.)
5. Of all the terms that Lazere introduces -- both the boldfaced terms and the terms in his subheaders -- which 3 or 4 align most closely with Fine's story? Or with Corbett and Eberly's discussion of citizen criticism? Explain the connections.
6. According to Corbett and Eberly, what do spectator culture (or consumer culture) have to do with our ability to argue well in the public sphere, or to not argue well? What are the most compelling reasons that Corbett and Eberly give for why it is important for students to be citizen critics? What does it mean to be a "citizen critic" in their theory? 
7. Do any of these characteristics or aspects of "citizen criticism" reflect readings from earlier in the semester -- especially Miller/Shepherd, Fahnestock/Secor, Grant-Davie, Jones, Kaufer, Killingsworth/Palmer?
8. Of all the "Diversions of Reason" that Corbett and Eberly define, it is highly likely that Williams/Colomb would be interested in "overgeneralization" (Corbett/Eberly 125), "false analogy" (126), and "Equivocation" (128), which may be one reason why their longest chapter in Style has to do with ethical violations of clarity. Can you quickly skim their chapter on "Ethics of Style" and find a statement or passage in their discussion that reflects what Corbett and Eberly have to say about being clear, fair, and transparent with language?

Enjoy the readings!

-Prof. Graban