I. Collaborative Rhetorical Analysis Exercise

Let’s all take about 10 minutes to quickly read through this piece quietly. When we’re finished, we’ll walk through the following questions together:

• What is the title of the article? Who is the author?
• What is the article about? What is the author’s central claim?
• How does the author make that claim?
  • Think about the terms of rhetorical analysis that we discussed last week.
• What other, larger conversations does this article connect to? What is the extended meaning of the piece?

Does it seem like we have enough to get started on our collaborative analysis, or would skimming through a second article help us out by giving us a comparison?

Next, let’s organize an outline of our collaborative analysis paper in this Google doc.

• First, what do the readers have to know about those larger conversations/extended meanings? (building context/exigence)
• Then, what should our argument about this article be?
  • Remember, our argument should center around the ways that the author makes their argument (think of the way that’s framed as a sentence in the assignment guidelines)
• Next, we’d probably have a short summary of the article, yes? To give the reader more context?
• Then what?
  • What elements of rhetorical analysis are most important to our argument?
    • Think of the canons and appeals
  • What do we want the audience to take away from our paper? What is our point? Why is it important for people to read our paper about this article and this topic?
• What explicit details from the article should we bring up to support our analytical claims?

II. Reflective Letters to Your Peers

We’re going to do peer review a bit differently this time around. At the end of your first draft, on a fresh page, I want you to write a letter to your peer reviewer. Take about 15 minutes to compose that short letter, responding to these questions:

• First, describe how you approached the assignment (what was your writing process?)
• Next, explain some of your problems in greater detail
  • Did you have trouble coming up with search terms or finding an article?
  • Did you have trouble understanding the article?
  • Did you have trouble developing a main idea?
  • Did you have trouble organizing the essay?
  • Did you struggle to use the rhetorical terminology we went over in class?
  • What other issues might you have had?
• Then, ask the recipient of your letter two questions to which you’d like them to respond

III. Peer Review

If you do not have a draft with you, please let Dr. Andersen know. If you do have a draft with you, pair up with your assigned partner and share drafts. We’re going to continue our letter writing today; in addition to leaving marginal comments for your peers, you’ll be writing a letter in response to the one they’ve written at the end of their draft. (This will take the place of your usual summative comment.) Your letter should follow the four question-guidelines in this Daniel Dennet piece:

• Summarize your partner’s thesis statement or main idea in your own words. You should attempt to re-express your partner’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your partner says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
• You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
• You should mention anything you have learned from your partner.
• Only then should you offer a rebuttal or criticism. What would you change or improve? How?
• Be sure to respond to the two questions your peer asked in their letter to you.