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

WIKIPEDIA PROJECT PREPARATION FOR AFTER BREAK

Hello, Everyone:

First and foremost, good luck finishing up your <Public Argument projects>! Please remember to submit your peer review sheets in class on Tuesday (3/19).

This serves as a reminder that you will need to be in touch with all members of your <Wikipedia working team> (if you haven't already) and start generating the following in your Google Drive workspace, due by 11:00 a.m. on 3/21/13:

1. A potential outline for our shared topic ("multimodality" for public discourse and/or writing and editing in the public sphere). Please be as detailed as you would like, outlining not only a possible top structure for the article, but possible subtopics as well. If you are uncertain of how detailed the organization can be, feel free to review Wikipedia pages on similar or related topics, as well as the project pages from <SA #4>, from our <Skype discussion> with Dr. Wadewitz, and from our earlier class discussions. (See also Wikipedia project pages on <Article Development>, <Article Creation>, and <Featured Articles>.)
2. A brief reading list or list of sources that represent not only what you have read and what you think will feasibly contribute to the topic, but also sources you may have come across from other classes, from the bibliographies of what we have already read, or new sources you have discovered on your own.

I must be able to review all group contributions on 3/21 so that we can have a working plan in place by 3/26, the following week.

This is part of your process work for the Wikipedia project, and the onus is on all of us to do it well. All phases of the project should involve source gathering and exploration, so that we make the best writing and editing decisions. Work hard, but have fun with it! The more efficiently you work together, the better able I am to work with your team.

Finally, I'd like to check in with team leaders during the week of 3/26, so if your team has not designated a leader yet, please do that soon!

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

(ANOTHER) EXTRA-CREDIT OPPORTUNITY

Hello, Everyone:

There is still time to take part in an extra-credit opportunity if you desire to pick up an extra blog post (10 points), but really, I'm creating this opportunity because I think you will truly benefit from and enjoy some of our upcoming local PD events. I will offer extra credit for a well-rendered blog post that -- obviously -- meets our blogging guidelines, demonstrates a real exigence, and ties one of the following events to what you are learning in the course so far:

1. Claude Pepper Political Cartoon Exhibit
2. "Creative Labor" Colloquium
3. "Whiteness and Social Justice" Teach-In

I also genuinely hope you will find something of interest in one of these sessions -- something to inspire you, to give you a vision for your present (or future), and help you think concretely about some of the implications of what we are doing in this course.

Please complete the post within 1 week of the event you attend, and send me an e-mail signaling that you have done so. (This way, I won't miss the post.) I will be attending some of these, and look forward to seeing some of you there!

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 3/5 (VISUAL ARGUMENTS & OTHER GENRES)

Hello, Everyone:

As a reminder, by 3/5 please make sure you have contacted all members of your Wikipedia working team to do the following:

1. designate a team leader to coordinate the group;
2. decide on when/where you will schedule working time for the remainder of the project;
3. decide on several possible article topics ("pitches"), along with what your group could potentially offer the topic, if we select it for our class project.

Project Wikipedia Working Teams:

• Anneleise Sanchez, Austin Tillery, Morgan Hough
• Lindsey Sullivan, Rachel Cushanick, Shay Morant
• Brittany Stephens, Erik Reed, Jordan Spina, Nick Pelton
• Amanda Diehl, Cassie Hamilton, Joseph Hendel
• Chris Menendez, Danae VanPortfliet, Jenn Gaudreau
• Brittany Morrill, Donovan Todd, Tyler Avery
• Catalina Quintana, Katherine Saviola, Joey Arellano
• Alex Snider, Rachel Young, Stacey Cox

There is no new reading for Tuesday's class, but we will spend the first 25-30 minutes following up Thursday's Wikipedia discussion with Dr. Wadewitz, with the goal of selecting our article topic for the Wikipedia project. I offer you the following links in advance of our discussion:

• a student-produced Wiki Book (not Wikipedia) on <"rhetoric and writing in the public sphere">
• a crowd-sourced book (produced by scholars in one week) on <"hacking the academy">
• a Wikipedia page on <"article development">
• another Wikipedia page on <"featured article candidates">.

For the remainder of the class, we will review Ridolfo/DeVoss on "rhetorical velocity" and Killingsworth on appealing to "place" and "time." Our goal is to better understand embodied arguments--especially to understand how much the success of any public-sphere argument rests on its many embodiments (e.g., place, time, audience, environment). We will also consider how some different visual genres have fulfilled the Public Argument and/or what it is like to argue through alternative mediums.

Looking forward to it,

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 2/28 (WIKIPEDIA PROJECT INTRODUCTION)

Hello, Everyone:

During the first part of Thursday's class, we will discuss the Wikipedia Project Assignment so that you can understand the timing and logistics of its various parts, since it will occupy much of our semester after the Public Argument project is complete. We will also conduct some brief exploration together of Wikipedia's <"Five Pillars"> page, introduce ourselves to the <"Sandbox">, and discuss what it means to write for and within a networked culture. Finally, we will share what you have come up with in terms of article pitches and briefly recap your results from <Short Assignment #4>. It will be another busy day!

As a reminder, during the second part of the class, we will be talking via Skype with <Dr. Adrianne Wadewitz>, long-time Wikipedia editor, and official <Wikipedia Ambassador>. Dr. Wadewitz will share some of her experiences writing, editing, and teaching Wikipedia, and she may provide us some insight into what Wikipedia writers/editors do, who they are, and how they negotiate some unique challenges in building and maintaining such a large, crowd-sourced research tool. She brings much insight to this work, so please bring your questions for her, as she will be the best person to answer them.

Folks, this assignment -- and the entire last unit of our course -- offers you a unique opportunity to apply and demonstrate what you know (or want to learn) about writing and editing in a collaborative, knowledge-making, online composing environment. I hope you will take the fullest advantage of it and am excited to get started on it with you!

Looking forward,
-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 2/26 (LINZEY, LUNG, SAVIO)

Hello, Everyone:

Nice work today on considering a definition of "multimodality" for writing and editing in the public sphere, and starting to apply it to various genres! We will take up the concept and those genres again, but in the meantime, please feel free to send your questions about the <Public Argument> project my way. I am happy to answer any and all of them. (Reminder: the full assignment sheet is in BB.)

The Pinepoint project is linked <here> for your future interest, with some additional context found <here>, and the original commemorative website built by Richard <here> (the site that provided much of the content for the filmmakers' documentary).

Finally, for Tuesday's discussion, please read (thoroughly) the genre samples by Linzey, Lung, and Savio. We will grid again, similar to what we did in the first sphere, and I will probably also include Bullard and Obama in that grid, since we didn't get to finish our discussion of them. So, Tuesday will be a "gridding the public argument genre" day.

I offer you these questions in advance if it helps you to read the genres:

• places where you see conflict and perspective most clearly (esp. where you notice the conflict at one of Kaufer's 5 levels)
• places where you think you are either included or excluded as a reader
• places where you are convinced (as a believing audience) or not convinced (as a skeptical audience)
• places where one or more "ideographs" could be unpacked
• appeals to time (one of Killingsworth's four types)
• appeals to place
• demonstration of rhetorical velocity
• alternate ways that the argument might be communicated.

Please also bring Style and WWC (as usual) because I'm going to explicitly invite us to revisit Williams/Colomb's lesson on "Ethics of Style," and we might want to use Kessler and MacDonald's grammar section in the back of the handbook. In fact, those might occupy the first spaces in our grid.

Added on 2/26 for synthesis activity: Select one of the authors whose argument you analyzed in detail. What kind(s) of relationships do they construct between humans and their environment (where "environment" could be moral, physical, temporal, or spatial)? How do they promote empathy or shared identification, if they do? How does their argument avoid simplification, promote complexity, or otherwise make complex what has often been seen as a simple stalemate of perspectives?

Looking forward to it,


-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 2/19 (BULLARD, OBAMA)

Hello, Everyone:

For Tuesday's discussion, please read (thoroughly) the genre samples by Bullard and Obama. I will give us some analysis questions to work with during class, but for now, I ask you to note the following as you read:

• places where you see conflict and perspective most clearly
• places where you think you are either included or excluded as a reader
• places where you are convinced (as a believing audience) or not convinced (as a skeptical audience)
• places where one or more "ideographs" could be unpacked.

Please also bring Style and WWC (as usual) and, because we did not get to discuss Kaufer and Jones last week, please bring those articles as well. We will use these four texts as our principal tools for unpacking "race" and "policy" in the genre samples.

Added questions for each group:

BULLARD
How does Bullard's lecture present other possibilities for response than just dis/agree? Based on how he uses historical evidence, on what stasis level is most of his argument conducted? What are one or two key terms whose definition you think he means to challenge?

OBAMA

He never explicitly defines "race" for us in this address, though he presents a number of anecdotes about how it plays out in the lives of American citizens. What role do those anecdotes play in conveyin how Obama thinks we should feel about "race"?
 

Looking forward to it,

-Prof. Graban

(TEACHING) LEVELS OF POLICY CONFLICT -- 2/14 WORKSHOP

Hello, Everyone. 

The situation: We are holding Thursday’s "(Teaching) Levels of Conflict" workshop on the blog, which gives you an opportunity to teach some of the concepts from this unit to a reader who is savvy about public discourse, but not necessarily in our class. Teach by explanation, illustration, example, situation, recontextualization, hyperlinking, etc. Write focusedly and clearly, but write specifically and accurately. Cite and reference where needed. Construct an audience who is not in this class, and don’t be afraid to present the complexities of the concept you are teaching. Also, don’t be afraid to take risks with your understanding of what makes the concepts complex.

Your task: I have included four questions, but you only have to respond to three. You will recognize some of these questions from our 2/12 discussion day. Feel free to answer them again and to build on (revise, lengthen, edit) your response from 2/12.

Your post: Please create a new post on your own blog, and include your three responses there. Please give your post coherence (so that it doesn’t look like a list of answers to three questions) by discovering a theme between your responses, or by connecting them in an artful way. Please post by Thursday (2/14) 12:15 p.m.

Question One (conflict and policy)


Briefly recount a specific disagreement or misunderstanding you have had with someone and analyze it on one of Kaufer’s “5 levels” (pp. 58-59). You’ll want to explain the conflict and then determine whether the source of the conflict was level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Please don’t just make something up—the point of this assignment is to reach into your own experience and try to account for it on Kaufer’s terms as accurately as you can. For this to make sense to your audience, you will need to be clear and detailed with your explanation of what happened during the disagreement or conversation. Unpack any terms that carry assumptions, no matter how small they seem or no matter how much you are sure we would share them. Also, remember the difference between "Level 5 Conflict" and "Some Associated Issues" (Kaufer 58, 63). The issue is the topic or the particular example in which the conflict resides, while the conflict itself is the opposing pair of ideologies that clash in order to make the issue.

Question Two (authenticity) 

From our <"Course Resources,"> locate a brief op-ed in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion," or -- if you prefer -- select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard. (Select one that is explicitly biased.) Quickly skim it and decide whether it qualifies as a “simulation” of an argument or whether it qualifies as a real “ethical deliberation” (Jones 158). Justify your choice in Jones’s terms. Also, justify your choice in Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61).

Question Three (logic and ethical style)
 

Read through that same op-ed sample until you find a key statement that you think is pretty close to what Williams and Colomb might call an "ethical violation of style" (e.g., obscurity, misdirection, subversive clarity, opacity) (Style lesson 10) or what Jones might call a violation of “The Usage Rule” (177). Discuss what makes it so. As part of your discussion, be sure to help us know the context in which that statement was made and the argument it was being used to support. Feel free to draw on Style lesson 10, Style pages 23-26 (“Absent Characters”) and 43 (“Avoiding Distractions”), WWC 138-142 (“Clarity and Conciseness”), or WWC on punctuation (end of Chapter 8). 

Question Four (language and ideology)
 

Is there anything in the op-ed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way.

Do well, but have fun with this!

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 2/12 (KAUFER AND JONES)

Hello, Everyone:

We will most likely spend the first few minutes of Tuesday's class blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of David Kaufer's "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments" and Rebecca Jones's "Finding the Good Argument." Here are some questions to help you read (they are long-winded, but not difficult):

1. Jones distinguishes between "simulations" of arguments and real "ethical deliberations" (158). What makes something a simulation vs. an authentic ethical deliberation? Search her entire chapter to see if you can generate a list of qualities, characteristics, principles, or criteria that you think fall under each side of the distinction. For example, based on her dissatisfaction with multi-panel talk shows, we can guess that one of the properties of "simulated" arguments is that the various people who participate are only responding to each other in order to rebut other positions or defend their own (159). Generate as full a list as you can.
2. From our <"Course Resources,"> locate a brief op-ed in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion," or -- if you prefer -- select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard. (Select one that is explicitly biased.) Quickly skim it and decide whether it operates based on inductive or deductive reasoning (Jones 164-165).
3. Notice the difference between "Level 5 Conflict" and "Some Associated Issues" (Kaufer 58, 63). The issue is the topic or the particular example in which the conflict resides, while the conflict itself is the opposing pair of ideologies that clash in order to make the issue. Can you locate the conflict (the opposing pair) in the op-ed piece you selected?
4. Is there anything in the op-ed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way.
5. For analyzing and improving some arguments, Jones suggests a "middle ground" activity (160). However, some issues may lend themselves better to a middle ground than others. Isolate the issue that is at the heart of the op-ed you selected, and see if you can perform Jones' middle-ground activity on that issue. Is it a particularly polarizing issue, or not that big of a deal? What are the difficulties of finding a middle ground, or, what makes it easy to find a middle ground?
6. Apply the Toulmin method (Jones 169, 171) to the argument in the op-ed you selected. Does analyzing the argument this way allow you to notice any complexities in audience construction (i.e., how the text was written to make an audience feel they are being addressed as a kind of specific person or group)? Does analyzing the argument in this way allow you to notice any disruption of coherence or cohesion? Feel free to visualize the argument if you find that easiest.
7. Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (58-59) shows a violation of the Unexpressed Premise Rule (Jones 174), or the Starting Point Rule (Jones 175)?
8. Of the ten rules Jones summarizes, it is highly likely that Williams/Colomb would be interested in The Usage Rule (Jones 177), 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 Jones has to say about The Usage Rule? Can you find connections between The Usage Rule and Williams/Colomb's sections on "Avoiding Distractions"(43)  and "Absent Characters" (23-36)?
9. Jones claims that -- in the history of rhetorical argumentation -- there is a distinction to be made between being logical and being truthful (163). How does this resonate with or differ from Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61)?
10. (Added question) Visit  <http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/> and select any campaign ad from any year, OR visit <http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/> and read about various ways that digital tools can re/present electoral results. Each of these visualizations makes an argument about re/presentation. I invite you to draw on any aspect of today's readings in order to explain how the argument works.

Looking forward to our discussion,

--Prof. Graban