S y l l a b u s

Weeks:   1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8
9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  13  |  14  |  15

This is a tentative schedule by week for readings, assignments, and activities. Tentative means I can vary it as much as seems appropriate. However, plan on sticking very close to this outline especially on major due dates. I will post all revisions of/additions to the syllabus on this web page. The updated web version will always override the printable PDF version.



Week 1 (Jan 22): Introductions to Course

In Class:

    Go over syllabus; introduction to blog; set up blog.
    Write a blog post: introduce yourself to the class—state why you are interested in this class/program and what background you have in professional, technical, or editorial work.
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Introduction to Rhetoric

Week 2 (Jan 29): What is Rhetoric?

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Define rhetoric and speculate on its implications for professional writing and editing. (See Peeples 1-6)
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 3 (Feb 5): Professional Writing as Rhetoric

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    Set up peer review groups.
    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Discuss a passage from Faigley, Miller, or Regli as compared with your experience as a writer and/or editor, academic or professional. (Also see bulleted prompts on Peeples 45).
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 4 (Feb 12): Short Papers

Required Writing:

    Pick one of these as a jumping off point for short paper #1:
    • Peeples p.44 #1 (rhetoric as audience-centered). Write an academic argument focused on definition.
    • Peeples p.44 #2 (defining rhetoric). One scenario could be explaining to your boss the distinction between "rhetoric" and "editing" and showing why your boss should continue to fund your coursework. Genre is open, though dialogue might work here.
    • Peeples p.99 #1 (defining professional writing as rhetorical). Instead of a long and short report, write a one-page academic paper and a one-page memo.
    • Do a genre analysis of documents from work (see Using Genres and Genre-List for examples and a model to follow). Genre could be a short report.
    • Summarize some key points from the readings and then apply that theory to an object (any print document, media text, or workplace context). This would be an academic argument.
    See CGTC ch.10, ch.11, or ch.12 for info on the genre requested by your chosen prompt (if applicable).
    Or, examine the genre and definition handouts.
    Print out enough copies of the paper for your peer review group.

Suggested Reading: Argument

In Class:

    Exchange papers and emails with group.
    Read papers outloud.
    Comment orally on content and delivery.

After Class:

    Examine and download the peer review sheet.
    Write a brief summary of your essay and email it to the people in your group.
    Examine the genre and definition handouts.
    Comment on the papers, looking at content, argument, form, language, style, and grammar.
    Using the brief summary from the author and your comments on the paper, fill out the peer review sheet, thinking more broadly about the rhetorical effectiveness of the paper. (Use CGTC, the argument links, and the genre handouts as references for giving feedback.)
    Give the paper and review sheet back to the author in the next class.

Back to the Top

Professional Writing as Rhetorical Action

Week 5 (Feb 19): Organizationally Situated Social Practice

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Briefly interview a practicing professional writer in your workplace and post a comment on how some aspect of his or her work relates to this week’s readings. (This can be as simple as an informal chat or a couple of emails. Just fish for some information on organizational context and/or writing practices.)
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 6 (Feb 26): Professional Writing and Ethical Action

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

    Reynolds, John Frederick, Carolyn B. Matalene, Joyce Neff Magnotto, Donald C. Samson, Jr., and Lynn Veach Sadler. Professional Writing in Context: Lessons from Teaching and Consulting in Worlds of Work.
    Porter, James E. Rhetorical Ethics and Internetworked Writing.
    Lucas, Brad E. "Rev. of Rhetorical Ethics . . . ."
    Marx and Engels. "The Communist Manifesto."

In Class:

    Class visit by E. Shelley Reid.
    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Reread the memo from Katz against the backdrop of Porter's discussion of ethics. Post commentary on Just’s purview and ethics as culturally driven.
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 7 (Mar 4): Short Papers

Required Writing:

    Pick one of these as a jumping off point for short paper #2:
    • Peeples p.169 #1 (white paper)
    • Peeples p.169 #3 (manifesto)
    • Peeples p.218 #2 (ethical action plan--focus on the first bullet under #2 but you might also follow the principles set out in Porter as suggested by #1).
    • Following Driskill and Spinnuzi, attempt to map out the organizational context around a document in your workplace. In tracing its circulation, also discuss the ethical effects of the actions it creates. This would be an academic argument.
    • Summarize some key points from the readings and then apply that theory to an object (any print document, media text, workplace context, a memo or white paper). Focus the relation between words (Ornatowski) and rhetorical and textual features (Katz) and their ethical effects. This would be an academic argument.
    See CGTC ch.10, ch.11, or ch.12 for info on the genre requested by your chosen prompt (if applicable) or see the white paper links below.
    Print out enough copies of the paper for your peer review group.

Suggested Reading: White Paper

In Class:

    Exchange papers with group.
    Read papers outloud.
    Comment orally on content and delivery.

After Class:

    Examine the peer review sheet.
    Write a brief summary of your essay and email it to the people in your group.
    Examine the policy and white paper handouts.
    Comment on the papers, looking at content, argument, form, language, style, and grammar.
    Using the brief summary from the author and your comments on the paper, fill out the peer review sheet, thinking more broadly about the rhetorical effectiveness of the paper. (Use CGTC, the white paper links, and the genre handouts as references for giving feedback.)
    Give the paper and review sheet back to the author in the next class. (If you *have* to take longer, please email your group and notify them.)

Back to the Top

Spring Break March 10 - 16

Back to the Top

Rhetoric and Technology

Week 8 (Mar 18): Technologically Situated Action

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Examine a web site and comment on design, or discuss your use of online texts from the perspective of copyright and ethics.
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 9 (Mar 25): User-Centered Documents as a Productive Art

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    Class visit by Doug Eyman.
    In groups of three, pick a web site and plan a re-design. Discuss as a class.
    Write a blog post: Apply web design principles to a web site of your choice and evaluate it.
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 10 (Apr 1): NO CLASS

Required Writing:

    In addition to writing your short paper (see prompts under week 11) students should incorporate technology into the next presentation either via web pages, PowerPoint, mapping software, or some other technology or genre appropriate for your topic. Use some of the general web and page design rules to construct your presentaiton, but also see the PPT links below for some other ideas.
    Also use this extra week to get caught up on blog posts, blog comments, peer reviews, and paper revisions for the final portfolio.

Suggested Writing:

    I'm interested in having you get together with your peer review groups and discuss papers and writing. Rather than requiring it, I'd like to leave it up to individual groups. You can decide to meet during regular class time in our room or in a coffee shop or library room on campus. You can decide to meet off campus at a different time. You can decide to meet online, synschonously (via chat or IM), or asychronously (via email or the class blog). Or, you can decide not to meet at all. It's up to you, but do discuss it as a group and decide collaboratively what works best for you.

Suggested Reading: General

    • CGTC. Ch. 9 Visual Info
    • CGTC. Ch. 10 Everyday Comm (oral comm)

Suggested Reading: PowerPoint

Back to the Top

Week 11 (Apr 8): Short Papers

Required Writing:

    Pick one of these as a jumping off point for short paper #3:
    • See Peeples p.265 #3 (navigation and usability--just pick 4 in one category or one each across 4 categories; develop a memo/short report/handout that outlines critical navigational schemes based on usability and design rules along with a PPT presentation that discusses the schemes with examples)
    • See Peeples p.318 #1 (revision plan--write up a proposal for a revision plan and a mock up of the redesign; skip the group part; show and discuss the redesign in class for your presentation)
    • See Peeples p.318 #2 (revision of visual design--produce good and bad versions and write up a short paper that analyzes and discusses them; this would be an academic analysis/paper; read the paper and show the versions for the presentation)
    • See Peeples p.318 #3 (develop documentation--identify a technology that needs a tutorial or instructions; include screen shots; for a class presentation arrange a brief usability "study" using the instructions and the technology; see brief instructions and procedures in CGTC)
    • Extend an earlier blog prompt into a more formal paper and create an accompanying PPT presentation.
    • Summarize some key points from the readings and then apply that theory to an object (any print document, a brochure, a flyer, a web site, and/or a workplace context). This would be an academic argument with an accompanying PPT presentation.
    • Or, select a technology that intersects with a community or set of communities (this can be something from your workplace or daily life such as an intranet site, production software such as Dreamweaver, an X-box game system, P2P software, a cell phone, an interactive kiosk at a science museum, even the DC Metro). Discuss this technology as a boundary object. Use some basic ethnographic methods--such as interviewing and observation--to capture the many different ways that the technology is understood or known by various communities (i.e., the accounts/observations of users, user instructions, popular representations/accounts, corporate descriptions, etc.). For example, how does a group of teenagers use/know/understand an X-box? How is that knowledge built and taught and shared? What information does SONY provide? What global communities exist? Or, how does P2P technology both connect and divide users, artists, publishers, lawmakers, the general public (think in terms of Wilson/Herndl's gene analogy). With a technology of your choice, create a knowledge map for this rhetorical situation. This would be an academic analysis. Show your knowledge map for the presentation and read your analysis.
    See CGTC for info on the genre requested by your chosen prompt (if applicable) or see the PPT links below.
    See Freemind for a freeware mapping program.
    See GraphViz for another nice program.
    Also check out Many Eyes for an interesting take on social data visualization.
    Print out enough copies of the paper for your peer review group.

In Class:

    Exchange papers with group.
    Read papers outloud.
    Comment orally on content and delivery as well as technology design and use.

After Class:

    Examine the peer review sheet.
    Write a brief summary of your essay and email it to the people in your group.
    Comment on the papers, looking at content, argument, form, language, style, and grammar.
    Using the brief summary from the author and your comments on the paper, fill out the peer review sheet, thinking more broadly about the rhetorical effectiveness of the paper.
    Give the paper and review sheet back to the author in the next class. (If you *have* to take longer, please email your group and notify them.)

Back to the Top

Writing Social Space and Workplace

Week 12 (Apr 15): Producing Social Spaces

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Analyze your organizational position. If you are not employed, interview a professional writer or editor to discern where s/he fits in the organizational hierarchy and how different departments or divisions collaborate in "producing social spaces."
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 13 (Apr 22): Becoming-Professional-Writer

Required Readings:

Suggested Readings:

In Class:

    In class visit by Susan Lawrence.
    Discuss readings.
    Write a blog post: Think about your experiences with the transitions between school and work, company and company, and old position and new position within the same company.
    Comment on other blog posts.

Back to the Top

Week 14 (Apr 29): Short Papers

Required Writing:

    Pick one of these as a jumping off point for short paper #4:
    • See Peeples p.265 #2 (value of professional writers--you could also see outsourcing as one of the exigencies; don't forget to pick a specific audiene and purpose as suggested at the end of the prompt, which will direct your choice of genre)
    • See Peeples p.383 #2 (research plan or report on social space--write up a proposal for a future research project or write a short report on some initial research based on the readings from class and focus on what it might take to change the social space in your workplace as one case study)
    • See Peeples p.383 #3 (redefining professional writers--think of this option as an academic argument that you might deliver at a professional conference, and/or as a response to the people outside of the field discussed in Giammona's article)
    • See Peeples p.441 #3 (internship plan--write a proposal to create an internship position at your workplace, if you can't find an outside client as the prompt suggests)
    • Or, summarize some key points from the readings and then apply that theory to being a professional or technical writer in your workplace context and approach it as an academic argument.
    See CGTC for info on the genre requested by your chosen prompt (if applicable) or see the Proposal links below.

Suggested Reading: Proposal

In Class:

    Exchange papers with group.
    Read papers outloud.
    Comment orally on content and delivery.

After Class:

    Examine the peer review sheet.
    Write a brief summary of your essay and email it to the people in your group.
    Comment on the papers, looking at content, argument, form, language, style, and grammar.
    Using the brief summary from the author and your comments on the paper, fill out the peer review sheet, thinking more broadly about the rhetorical effectiveness of the paper.
    Give the paper and review sheet back to the author in the next class. (If you *have* to take longer, please email your group and notify them.)

Back to the Top

Finals Week/Final Portfolios

Week 15 (May 6): Reading Day--no class

Required Writing:

No Class:

    Final Portfolios due by _____ at 7:00 in my box, RobA 487, or email me the URL if you do a web based portfolio.

Back to the Top