CRR Week 7: Reading Like a Writer
Now that you’ve selected your final research topics that you will build upon for the last 4 weeks of this course, we are going to take a deep dive into research and source evaluation. To this point, you’ve had experience evaluating other author’s arguments, sources, logic, and claim types and now it’s your turn to try your hand at crafting a multidimensional and hybrid argument of your own.
The choices we make surrounding what kinds of source material help us form our arguments are rhetorical choices. Selecting high quality source material and practicing ethical and sound research is not only important in the context of academia but can tremendously increase your writerly ethos when done well. Using research strategies and techniques outlined by our authors alongside practicing important source annotation techniques will be the first and most vital step in crafting your final hybrid argument and extended research pa.per.
· Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings 11e. Chapter 6: Responding to Objectives and Alternative Views p. 83-98
· Reid, Shelley. “Ten Ways to think about Writing.”Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, vol. 2, pp. 71-86
· Bunn, Mike. “How to Read like a Writer.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, vol. 2, pp. 3-23.
· Lamott, Anne. “Shitty First Drafts.” Language Awareness: Readings for College Writers. Ed. by Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005: 93-96.
· Elbow, Peter. “Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgement.” College English, Feb 1993, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 187-206.
1. Identifying claim key claim types in another student’s draft
2. Distinguish intended audience for peer hybrid arguments
3. Provide suggestions on strengthening appeals through peer response
4. Identify the difference between higher and lower order concerns
5. Demonstrate higher order peer response using another student’s writing.
6. Demonstrate MLA formatting and lower order editing concerns using another classmates’ draft
You will need to post initial responses and peer responses in a timely manner, responding to instructor discussion threads/prompts or posting uniquely generated content.
Instructor Prompt #1:
Shelley Reid and Mike Bunn offer a revisioned way to think about audience, purpose, and rhetorical intent. The concept of “thinking like a reader” is not a new one is nascent to this course’s objective to think dialectically and to hone rhetorical awareness. I want you to imagine you are attending a private lecture with Shelley Reid and Mike Bunn. Hypothetically reflect on what aspects of writing both scholars would agree upon and what aspects of writing might they deviate? What would this joint presentation be titled? What questions might you ask them individually or together if you were a student experiencing this lecture?
Instructor Prompt #2:
Anne Lamott’s seminal work, “Shitty First Drafts” is among my favorite to have students read during peer review and revision week. Similarly, famous expressivist writer and compositionist, Peter Elbow’s seminal work, “Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgement” is a staple for teachers of writing to read during revision week. The audience for each text is different but Lamott and Elbow share similar conceptions surrounding the writing process and how students should approach the radical act of revision. In your response, I want you to first describe your experiences with revision and peer review and then I want you to invite Lamott and Elbow into your discussion. How do these different texts inform your understanding of the writing process? What aspects resonate with you?