Module 3 / Summer 2023: Academic Writing Purpose: Comparative Analysis of Rheto

Module 3 / Summer 2023: Academic Writing
Purpose: Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Approaches Taken When Constructing Arguments for Expert and Non-Expert Audiences
Introduction:
Projections by climate scientists, warnings from the surgeon general, economists warning about crypto currencies. Have you noticed that people are avoiding the advice of the experts? Why aren’t we hearing them?
Project 3 asks you to create and present a lecture on the topic of how arguments differ when they are created for an expert audience vs a non-expert audience. You have already researched two texts, a peer reviewed journal aimed at academics and some form of text aimed at a non-expert audience.
From a rhetorical perspective,
First, we will work from the assumption that successful authors recognize that they are communicating their messages to specific audiences.
Second, we will contend that the expectations of expert and non-expert audiences are different, thus requiring authors (who want to be successful in delivering their message) to make different rhetorical decisions to meet these distinct audiences’ expectations.
Third, when experts make arguments, there are obstacles that lead to the unsuccessful delivery of their messages to non-expert audiences.
One way to approach this issue is to identify each author’s rhetorical strategies and appeals to the audience. Then, evaluate the effectiveness of those strategies and appeals in reaching their intended audience. Finally, we can argue which strategies experts should adopt when trying to persuade a non-expert audience.
PROMPT AND PRESENTATION FORMAT:
Recording:
Record and submit your presentation: youtube download, zoom record, Microsoft studio, etc.
These recordings must be viewable via Canvas (not a link). Run a test ahead of time.
Recording time 4-6 Minutes.If you have short videos, it might be a bit longer.
Easy to understand (clear audio). This isn’t Communications class, you are being graded for content rather than delivery.
Slide Presentation:
Create a slideshow using an application like Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides, Apply Keynote, Prezi, etc.Submit this presentation along with the recording (not a link). You can make multiple submissions, they aren’t errased.
Your slide presentation should be meet be at least 20 – 21 slides (See the detailed breakdown below).
If you work with a partner, 30 – 31 Slides (Place these extra 10 slides were they will best expand the project). One Partner Only (Optional).
Here’s a description for the content of each slide in the five sections:
Section One: Introduction and Purpose
Slide 1: Title slide for your presentation;
Slide 2: Slide that announces the purpose of your presentation.
Section Two: Non-Expert Audience Text
Slide 3: Introduce the non-expert audience text by providing the author’s name and relevant credentials, title of the text, publication medium and date, and relevant related image;
Slide 4: Summarize the topic addressed by the author, identify the author’s central idea, and present two important supporting claims the author makes;
Slide 5: Present one important rhetorical strategy used by the author, and demonstrate multiples uses of this strategy;
Slide 6: Investigate and explain how the Slide 7 rhetorical strategy makes the author’s argument successful.
Slide 7: Same as Slide 5 but with a second important rhetorical strategy;
Slide 8: Same as Slide 6 but with analysis that focuses on the Slide 7 rhetorical strategy.
Section Three: Expert Audience Text
Slide 9: Introduce the expert audience text by providing the author’s name and relevant credentials, title of the text, publication medium and date, and relevant related image,
Slide 10: Summarize the topic addressed by the author, identify the author’s central idea, and present two important supporting claims the author makes;
Slide 11: Present one important rhetorical strategy used by the author, and demonstrate multiples uses of this strategy;
Slide 12: Investigate and explain how the Slide 11 rhetorical strategy makes the author’s argument successful.
Slide 13: Same as Slide 11 but with a second important rhetorical strategy;
Slide 14: Same as Slide 12 but with analysis that focuses on the Slide 13 rhetorical strategy.
Section Four: Which Combination of Rhetorical Strategies Works Best with…Your Close Friend?
Slide 15: Present a short biography of a close friend that features relevant information (Perhaps include what appeals to them and their thought process).
Slide 16: Using comparison, develop one reason that explains why one text will be more successful with your close friend. Go beyond superficial explanation (“my friend is a non-expert,” “TLDR,” “they don’t research,” etc… so obviously the non-expert text is best) and help your viewers understand why the rhetorical strategies you featured in Sections Two and Three will work/won’t be successful for this person.
Slide 17: Using comparison, develop a second reason that explains why one text will be more successful with your close friend.
Slide 18: Consider the implications of your comparative rhetorical analysis for American society today (and moving forward through the rest of 2023). Explain the changes that you’d like to see experts adopt when they design arguments for a non-expert audience.
Section Five: Works Cited & Image Credits
Slide 19: Works Cited and image credits (this may be multiple slides depending on how many entries there are)
Course Learning Objectives emphasized in this assignment:
Analyze and evaluate complex print, digital, and multimodal texts that engage significant academic, professional, or civic issues.
Apply rhetorical principles appropriate to different purposes and goals, within specific disciplinary, professional and civic communities.
Research and contribute to specific areas of inquiry by evaluating, synthesizing, and integrating strategies and sources appropriate to genre.
Adapt and employ conventions to communicate with diverse audiences who are members of or affected by a specific area or discipline.
Compose a variety of texts, working individually and collaboratively, through processes of drafting, critiquing, reflecting, and editing.
Rubric
RWS 305W Project 3
RWS 305W Project 3
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecording Format/Length
5 to >0.0 ptsFull Marks
-Viewable via Canvas and not a link to an external site. -Recording time 4 to 6 Minutes. -Easy to understand (clear audio/video). -Practiced, but doesn’t need to be perfect.
0 ptsNo Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides Format/Length
5 to >0.0 ptsFull Marks
-Viewable via Canvas and not a link to an external site (multiple submissions are accepted prior to the deadline) -20 to 21 slides (Following the detailed breakdown). -If you work with a partner, 30 – 31 Slides and the extra 10 slides located to best expand the project. -One Partner Only (Optional). -If you need to include an extra slide, label it with a “.5” (e.g. 11, 11.5, 12)
0 ptsNo Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlide DesignThis is visual rhetoric as much as spoken.
5 to >0.0 ptsFull Marks
-Includes engaging visuals. -Follows an organized, numbered, structure. -Not overloaded with too much information (I know, look who’s talking). -Reflects creativity and thoughtfulness.
0 ptsNo Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSection One: Introduction and PurposeSlides 1 & 2
5 to >0.0 ptsFull Marks
Slide 1: Title slide for your presentation: -Clearly states an appropriate main title, of your choosing. -Clearly states the subtitle “Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Approaches Taken When Constructing Arguments for Expert and Non-Expert Audiences.” -Name(s), Date, and Class. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Slide 2: Concisely explains the context, relevancy, method, and goal of the presentation.
0 ptsNo Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSection Two: Non-Expert Audience TextSlides: 3 to 8
25 to >19.0 ptsFull Marks
Slide 3: -Provides the author’s name, relevant credentials, title of the text, publication medium and date, and relevant image. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 4: -Concisely summarizes the context for an unfamiliar audience, explains the author’s central argument, and demonstrates two of their supporting claims. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 5: -Sites multiple uses of a single rhetorical strategy, with direct quotes from the author, and clarifies the context of the quote. -Clearly explains the strategy and its appeal to Ethos, Pathos, or Logos. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 6: -Regarding Slide 7’s rhetorical strategy: -Determines the author’s assumptions regarding the audience. Evaluates the author’s argument given these assumptions. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 7: -Same as Slide 5, but with a second important rhetorical strategy; …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 8: -Same as Slide 6, but with analysis that focuses on the Slide 7 rhetorical strategy.
19 to >9.0 ptsPartial Points
Common issues: -Missing author’s information, topic’s context, claims, direct quotes. -Advances/rebuts the author’s argument rather than analyzing the argument’s composition (rhetorical strategies and appeals). -Skips evaluating in terms of audience. -Missing a slide.
9 to >0 ptsLimited Credit
-Not a valid source or is far from meeting the assigned goals of this project.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSection Three: Expert Audience TextSlides 9 to 14
25 to >19.0 ptsFull Marks
Slide 9: -Provides the author’s name, relevant credentials, title of the text, publication medium and date, and relevant image. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 10: -Concisely summarizes the context for an unfamiliar audience, explains the author’s central argument, and demonstrates two of their supporting claims. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 11: -Sites multiple uses of a single rhetorical strategy, with direct quotes from the author, and clarifies the context of the quote. -Clearly explains the strategy and its appeal to Ethos, Pathos, or Logos. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 12: -Regarding Slide 11’s rhetorical strategy: -Determines the author’s assumptions regarding the audience. Evaluates the author’s argument given these assumptions. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 13: -Same as Slide 11, but with a second important rhetorical strategy; …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 14: -Same as Slide 12, but with analysis that focuses on Slide 13’s rhetorical strategy.
19 to >9.0 ptsPartial Points
Common issues: -Missing author’s information, topic’s context, claims, direct quotes. -Advances/rebuts the author’s argument rather than analyzing the argument’s composition (rhetorical strategies and appeals). -Skips evaluating in terms of audience. -Missing a slide.
9 to >0 ptsLimited Credit
-Not a valid source or is far from meeting the assigned goals of this project.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSection Four: A Friend as the AudienceSlides 15 to 18
25 to >19.0 ptsFull Marks
Slide 15: -Presents a short biography of a close friend that features relevant information relating to argumentation. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 16: -Develops a thoughtful reason for why one text will be more persuasive to your friend than the other. -Goes beyond a superficial explanation. -Evaluates the appeal and rhetorical strategies in relation to this specific audience. -Cites evidence. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 17: -Develops a second thoughtful reason for why one text will be more persuasive to your friend than the other. -Likewise, goes beyond a superficial explanation. -Evaluates the appeal and rhetorical strategies in relation to this specific audience. -Cites evidence. (The slide’s visuals and text are supportive of what is verbally presented) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Slide 18: -In summation, considers the implications of your comparative rhetorical analysis. Explains the changes that you’d like to see experts adopt when they design arguments for a non-expert audience.
19 to >9.0 ptsPartial Points
Common issues: -Missing friend’s bio or characteristics relevant to argument influence. -Sites superficial reasoning for why a text would influence your friend. -Doesn’t offer insight into your stance on experts reaching non-expert audiences.
9 to >0 ptsLimited Credit
-Not a valid source or is far from meeting the assigned goals of this project.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSection Five: Works Cited & Image CreditsSlide 19 to 21 (including bonus slides)
5 ptsFull Marks
Slide 19: Works Cited and Image Credits. Links directly to articles. MLA. Working Permalinks. (this may be multiple slides depending on the number of entries).
0 ptsNo Marks
5 pts
Total Points: 100