UC Davis My Bondage and My Freedom Rhetorical Analysis
UC Davis My Bondage and My Freedom Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetorical Analysis + Midterm Portfolio Rubric Exceeds Expectations Good Competent Below Expectations The essay presents and carefully develops an arguable claim about genre conventions and/or the rhetorical situation of the chosen text(s). Arguments rely on specific details and persuasive reasoning, and show consistent insight, originality, and sophistication. The essay presents and develops an arguable claim about generic conventions and/or the rhetorical situation of the chosen text(s). Arguments generally employ specific details and sound reasoning, and show some success at crafting original, thoughtful ideas. The writer carefully selects and analyzes compelling evidence in support of the main arguments. Consistently specific analysis accurately examines relationships between genre conventions, rhetorical appeals, audience, and/or historical/cultural context. Summaries are purposeful and support analytical thinking. The writer seamlessly integrates sources for different purposes: to introduce accepted facts; to interpret evidence and ideas (“exhibit” sources); and to engage key concepts (“argument” sources). Sources are clearly introduced and accurately portrayed; credibility or relevance is consistently described or implied as needed. The writer makes nuanced choices about when
ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW
to quote and paraphrase and cites more than the required number of sources. Other voices do not overshadow the writer’s own argument; instead, the sources amplify and enhance the argument. All uses of evidence are documented and formatted correctly in MLA style. The writer’s ideas and evidence are wellbalanced and coherently structured. As a whole, the essay shows sophisticated skill at presenting ideas in a logical and engaging sequence of paragraphs and sentences. Each paragraph carefully develops one main idea and relationships between paragraphs are explicitly or implicitly signaled through effective transitions and topic sentences. Key ideas are developed over multiple paragraphs and the reader can easily follow the writer’s logical progression from one point to the next. The essay anticipates its reader and stimulates intellectual curiosity and engagement. The writer selects and analyzes credible evidence in support of the main arguments. Generally focused analysis accurately examines relationships between genre conventions, rhetorical appeals, audience and/or historical/cultural context. Summaries usually support analytical thinking. The essay presents an arguable claim about genre conventions and/or the rhetorical situation of the chosen text(s). Arguments may rest on vague, broad, and/or inadequate details; logic may be uneven or obvious. Development of ideas shows understanding though not much originality. The writer usually selects and analyzes relevant evidence in support of the main arguments. Analysis sometimes addresses relationships between genre conventions, rhetorical appeals, audience and/or historical/cultural context, but may be too broad or incomplete. Passages may fall into aimless summary or lack sufficient support. The writer usually integrates sources appropriately for different purposes: to introduce accepted facts; to interpret evidence and ideas (“exhibit” sources); and to engage key concepts (“argument” sources). Some sources may appear without enough context to indicate why they are being used, though they are still pertinent to the discussion and accurately portrayed. The writer quotes and paraphrases correctly and cites the required number of sources. The writer may struggle to maintain an individual voice, but usually succeeds at using sources to make a clear point. Most uses of evidence are documented and formatted correctly in MLA style. The essay may present a claim about genre conventions and/or the rhetorical situation of the chosen text(s)—however, this claim is inarguable or too simplistic. Arguments may not adequately address the prompt, or are generally unclear, vague, illogical, convenient, and/or insufficiently developed. The writer selects ineffective and/or insufficient evidence in support of the main arguments. There is little, if any, analysis of relationships between genre conventions, rhetorical appeals, audience and/or historical/cultural context. Summaries, rather than analytical development, dominate the essay. The writer may use sources to introduce accepted facts and to present evidence and ideas, but often fails to interpret evidence and ideas from “exhibit” sources, and/or engage key concepts from “argument” sources. Sources are rarely or ineffectively introduced or inaccurately portrayed; they may lack credibility or relevance. The writer struggles to quote and paraphrase correctly; the essay may feature long passages of summary or patchwriting. The writer’s own argumentative voice may be overwhelmed by sources or the writer may not cite the required number of sources. Evidence is rarely or never documented and formatted correctly in MLA style. Evidence and ideas are usually jumbled, illogical, and/or incomprehensible. The essay is dominated by paragraphs containing more than one main idea, resulting in long disorganized passages, and/or overly short paragraphs in which ideas are not sufficiently developed. Topic sentences and transitions are ineffective or absent. The reader has difficulty figuring out the writer’s logical progression from one point to the next. The writer’s arguments may be presented in the bland, laundry-list style of a five-paragraph essay structure. Rhetorical Analysis Thesis & Argument Evidence & Analysis Source Integration & Citation Organization & “Flow” The writer integrates sources appropriately for different purposes: to introduce accepted facts; to interpret evidence and ideas (“exhibit” sources); and to engage key concepts (“argument” sources). Sources are effectively introduced and accurately portrayed; credibility or relevance is described or implied as needed. The writer makes effective choices about when to quote and paraphrase and may cite more than the required number of sources. The writer may rely somewhat heavily on outside sources, but other voices do not overshadow the writer’s own argument. Most uses of evidence are documented and formatted correctly in MLA style. The writer’s ideas and evidence are usually balanced and sensibly structured. As a whole, the essay shows reliable skill at presenting ideas in a logical and engaging sequence of paragraphs and sentences. Each paragraph develops one main idea and relationships between paragraphs are signaled through clear transitions and topic sentences, though these are typically less sophisticated than in the superior essay. The writer may struggle to craft complex sections that explore key ideas over multiple paragraphs. The reader can determine without too much effort the writer’s logical progression from one point to the next. The writer’s ideas and evidence are arranged in an adequate logical structure. As a whole, the essay shows sufficient skill at presenting ideas in a sequence of paragraphs and sentences. The writer makes a reasonable effort to develop a single main idea in each paragraph, but may also struggle to craft complex or effective topic sentences and/or transitions between paragraphs. The reader can determine without too much effort the writer’s logical progression from one point to the next; however, the essay shows little attempt to anticipate its reader or stimulate intellectual curiosity and engagement. Style & Readability The writer’s style is eloquent, characterized by precise and nuanced word choices and purposeful, varied sentences. The writer’s voice is objective and formal, without being awkward, wordy, or stilted. The effect is writing that is lively, interesting, and a pleasure to read. The writer’s style is clear and characterized by appropriate word choices and purposeful sentences. The writer’s voice is objective and formal, though at times it may fall into wordy “academese.” The effect is writing that is nice and easy to read. The writer’s style is usually clear, featuring functional word choices and sentences. The writer’s voice is objective and formal, though it may fall into wordy “academese”; the writer may also struggle with sentence variety and complex vocabulary. The effect is simple but serviceable writing. The writer’s style is vague or otherwise unclear, featuring inappropriate or strange word choices and/or rambly or repetitive sentence structures. The writer’s voice may not always be objective and formal. The effect is writing that is difficult to read and/or distracts from the writer’s arguments. 2 Portfolio Portfolio Introduction: Arguments & Analysis Artifacts, Captions, & Organization Critical Reading & Rhetorical Awareness Research Skills The portfolio introduction carefully analyzes the writer’s progress through drafting and revision, in-class workshops and peer review, and profitable engagement with the course materials. Relationships between different assignments are consistently emphasized and the writer crafts persuasive arguments about their learning so far, based on specific, direct evidence from their work. The writer shows nuanced awareness of current strengths and weaknesses and insightfully addresses connections with life and work beyond WR39B. Process work effectively documents key learning moments. The writer’s selections are purposeful and inspired by her/his individual learning process; detailed annotations for each artifact carry forward analytical reflection from the intro essay. Overall organization is creative, thoughtful and easy to navigate; sections narrate the writer’s progress and formatting is consistent, clean and attractive. Images persuasively illustrate the writer’s process and individuality. The writer reads purposefully; responds to various texts with clear, detailed and nuanced attention; and adds thoughtful written and verbal commentary that enlarges the class conversation about genre and rhetoric. The writer consistently describes and limits their specific target audience and make identifiable, purposeful rhetorical choices to connect with and persuade that audience. Working Bibliography contains more than the required number of sources; annotations are full with specific details on author credentials and arguments, and how the writer used each source. Sources are of high quality; annotation language is thoughtful and avoids formulaic repetition throughout. The portfolio introduction analyzes the writer’s progress through drafting and revision, in-class workshops and peer review, and productive engagement with the course materials. Relationships between different assignments are often emphasized and the writer crafts effective arguments about their learning so far, based on evidence from their work. The writer recognizes current strengths and weaknesses and considers connections with life and work beyond WR39B. Process work documents key learning moments. The writer’s selections are purposeful, though somewhat predictable; reasonably detailed annotations for each artifact mix description and analytical reflection. Overall organization is thoughtful and easy to navigate, if somewhat predictable; formatting is consistent, clean and attractive. Images effectively illustrate the writer’s individual process. The writer usually reads purposefully; tries to respond with detailed and nuanced attention; and often adds thoughtful written and verbal commentary that enlarges the class conversation about genre and rhetoric. The writer is usually able to describe and limit their specific target audience and make identifiable, purposeful rhetorical choices to connect with and persuade that audience. Working Bibliography contains more than the required number of sources; annotations may be somewhat brief but do explain author credentials and arguments, and how the writer used each source. Sources are relevant and appropriate; annotation language may be occasionally repetitive and formulaic. The portfolio introduction describes and occasionally analyzes the writer’s progress through drafting and revision, in-class workshops and peer review, with some signs of engagement with the course materials. Relationships between different assignments are sometimes highlighted, though reflection often summarizes or narrates assigned work. Arguments about the writer’s learning may be vague or insufficiently supported by evidence from their work. The writer acknowledges strengths and weaknesses, but struggles to connect with life and work beyond WR39B. Process work documents specific learning moments. The writer’s selections are useful though somewhat casual and predictable; brief annotations are present for each artifact, but may not consistently reflect or analyze the significance of assignments to the writer’s learning process. Overall organization is navigable without too much difficulty; formatting is usually consistent and clean. Images illustrate some elements of the writer’s process, perhaps vaguely. The writer sometimes reads purposefully and responds with some attention; while written and verbal commentary may tend to be broad, vague, or simplistic, the writer contributes usefully to the class conversation about genre and rhetoric. The writer can limit and describe their specific target audience to some degree and makes some rhetorical choices to persuade that audience, with varying success. Working Bibliography contains the required number of sources; annotations briefly list author credentials and arguments; details on how the writer used each source may be incomplete. Sources are of acceptable quality. Annotation language is frequently repetitive and formulaic. The portfolio introduction fails to analyze the writer’s progress through drafting and revision, in-class workshops and peer review, and shows few signs of productive engagement with the course materials. Reflection mostly summarizes or narrates assigned work, rather than exploring relationships between different assignments. Discussion of some assignment types may be missing or superficial. Arguments about the writer’s learning are largely absent or contradict evidence from the writer’s work. Process work inadequately documents specific learning moments. The writer may not include enough artifacts, or selection itself may be haphazard. Annotations may be missing for some artifacts and tend to be purely descriptive, without much meaningful analysis or reflection. Overall organization is inconvenient or hard to navigate; frequent formatting issues undermine coherence and unity. Images may not be immediately relevant to the writer’s process. The writer often does not read purposefully and responds with less than careful attention; written and verbal comments are often obvious or clichéd and usually fail to enlarge the class conversation about genre and rhetoric. The writer struggles to limit and describe specific target audiences and/or to make effective rhetorical choices to connect with and persuade that audience. Working Bibliography contains less than the required number of sources; annotations are missing and/or too brief to give a clear sense of source information and how the writer used it. Sources may be inappropriate or irrelevant. Annotation language is repetitive, formulaic, and generally superficial. Writing & Revision Process Academic Ethos & Benchmarks The writer has learned to apply thoughtful self-evaluation as well as instructor and peer feedback, class models and supportive texts to revise her/his work. Strong revision skills produce original, clear, thoughtful, complex and polished final products. The prose is mechanically correct and free of errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling, and usage. The writer far surpasses the minimum standards for all process work in the first half of the quarter, turning in all drafts on time and exceeding minimum page/word lengths and other requirements. The writer is learning to apply self-evaluation as well as instructor and peer feedback, class models and supportive texts to revise her/his work. Revision is usually thoughtful, purposeful and productive. The prose is usually mechanically correct and free of errors in spelling, usage, punctuation, or grammar. A few errors or typos may appear, but do not impede readability or meaning. The writer goes beyond the minimum standards for all process work in the first half of the quarter, turning in all drafts on time and meeting or exceeding minimum page/word lengths and other requirements. The writer may exercise some revision skills, but relies heavily on instructor and/or peer feedback and may not have brought to bear the effort needed to push the writing beyond the level of competency. The prose is usually mechanically correct and free of errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling and usage. Minor errors or typos may be somewhat frequent, but do not impede meaning. The writer meets the minimum standards for all process work during the first half of the quarter, turning in final drafts on time and meeting minimum page/word lengths and other requirements. The writer has not learned to apply selfevaluation to the revision process; revision is generally not very thoughtful, purposeful, or productive. The prose exhibits pervasive structural problems and/or patterns of error in mechanics, punctuation, grammar, spelling, or usage. These errors make the essay difficult to read and distract from the writer’s ideas and arguments. The writer often does not meet minimum standards for process work during the first half of the quarter, turning in final drafts late or not at all, and failing to meet minimum page/word lengths and other requirements. Rhetorical Analysis Essay This assignment asks you to produce a thesis-driven analysis, complemented by secondary sources, of an aspect of rhetoric in an assigned text. Outcomes • Develop clear cogent analyses and convincing arguments about rhetorical choices • Identify and articulate genre expectations, situating the text at hand within a larger conversation in a particular rhetorical situation, with a particular audience • Select credible and pertinent material from readings and outside texts to support a point or argument and illustrate awareness of viewpoints and competing arguments • Situate, integrate, and contextualize different types of evidence effectively while distinguishing the writer’s voice from those of sources. • Demonstrate effective organization and style – for a particular purpose, within a particular genre, to a particular audience • Develop understanding of and mastery of rhetorical choices within genre conventions, and develops an awareness of how writers must make careful decisions based on purpose, audience and argument to execute project/writing professionally across writing situations • Rewrite and edit language, style, tone, and sentence structure according to genre and audience expectations • Practice applying citation conventions systematically in your own work • Plan and execute a revision process that does not rely only on direction from the instructor, developing ownership of both process and product to revise purposefully Assignment Consider this assignment an opportunity to further explore and expand a line of analysis that you began with your Critical Reading exercises and then develop that analysis into a more complete and complex argument. You will now write a more expansive rhetorical analysis of your primary text. Your rhetorical analysis can delve into message, audience, rhetor, historical and/or social context or even a combination of these aspects. Include secondary sources to strengthen your argument as part of the academic discourse community. Show that you can situate and integrate credible sources into your argument so that it exists as part of an ongoing dialogue among multiple parties involving the text being analyzed. Your task is not to only restate what these sources have said, but to engage and provide insightful responses as a member of this academic discourse community. Basic Requirements • Length: 1500-1800 words, typed, double-spaced, and presented in MLA format. • A minimum of three (3) secondary sources, not including the primary text being analyzed, must be used to develop the essay. A works cited page with source annotations will be required as part of the final draft. • Process work must be submitted to your instructor in order for the final draft to be graded. Rhetoric of Travel Writing: Select ONE of our assigned readings of Thoreau, Apess, Douglass, and Austin for your essay. You may NOT compare two or more texts. • • You may choose to develop one of your Critical Reading Exercises into a longer, more complex argument. Or you can develop your own topic about nature writing and the pastoral, in consultation with me. Additional Guidelines: • • Your essay should not just focus on what your chosen text means, but HOW the text communicates this meaning to a particular audience, for a specific purpose. In other words, you’ll need to connect specific rhetorical strategies and/or genre conventions in your chosen travel essay to audience, context, genre, or some combination of these. Your RA thesis should make an arguable claim (one that another wellinformed person could reasonably disagree with). Refer to the WR39B chapter in the AGWR for additional information on the types of arguments you might make, how to develop your main thesis, and how to organize and contextualize your ideas. • Keep in mind that you will not be able to discuss every single aspect of your chosen text’s rhetorical situation in only 1500-1800 words. Narrow your focus. • To locate appropriate secondary sources, start with our Nature Writing Bibliography. You may need to conduct some basic research to find additional sources that are directly relevant to your specific arguments. Ask for research help as soon as you know you need it–do not wait until the last minute to find your sources! • Refer to Chapter 4 “Citing and Integrating Sources” in the AGWR on how to cite sources properly in your RA and how to write write your annotations (see Midterm ePortfolio Submission Guidelines). Schedule for Completion: Weeks 1-3: Practice critical reading, argumentation, analysis and source integration in the CR Exercises and other process assignments Week 3: RA Invention and Prewriting + Q&A Week 4: RA Revision workshop + RA Peer Review workshop Week 5: Individual RA conferences; submit final RA draft Beginning of Week 6: Midterm ePortfolio submission
Purchase answer to see full attachment
