Computer Writing and Research Lab | University of Texas at Austin

Seeking Suggestions

Submitted by SarahJett on April 13, 2006 - 2:22pm

Posting on blogs makes me so nervous that I've been torturing Mary Tang for ten minutes whining about it. To shut me up, she finally suggested that I post under someone else's name. I pointed out that everyone uses their own name...unless somebody is using the name of someone else in the department. I like that idea, and I'm hoping that it's made everybody suspicious of my own entry, and now nobody thinks I'm really me.

You probably think I'm completely off topic, but actually, I'm about to ask a question about anonymity. My class is doing peer review next Friday, and I've noticed in the past that after a period of peer reviewing, everyone looks like they're suffering from various ailments that could have been contracted on the Oregon Trail. I feel like I'm fairly good at generating a dangerous excitement in the classroom, but not when it comes to peer review. No matter what I do, my classes always hate peer review. I've often made it anonymous in the past because I've noticed that students are reluctant to critique one another's work. But I think the anonymity prevents helpful communication. I'm trying to think of a way to enhance peer review and relate it thematically to the course--Criminal Rhetoric.

So far I have one idea. Basically, I want to know two things. 1) Is it crazy? 2) Is it stupid? 3) Will it benefit them at all? I actually care most about number three. I'm thinking of having students pretend to be forgers. I want them to work in pairs and trade papers. They're given the first two pages of a paper, then asked to sketch out how they would complete the paper in order to convince people that it had one author. That means, they'll have to figure out what the paper is trying to say, predict where it will go, and pick up on key phrases the author uses repeatedly, notable mistakes he or she makes frequently. Then when each student has written the missing portion, the two will get together and review each other's forgeries. As I'm typing this, it's beginning to sound remarkably stupid and like it might encourage plagiarism. Let me know if anyone has other suggestions.

»

"Forgery" in the Classroom

Submitted by dfreeman on April 18, 2006 - 8:02am.

I think this is a great idea too Sarah, although I have to admit that I am a pretty big fan of forgeries (on a theoretical level anyway). The thing about an activity like this, and forgeries in general, is that they force the creator to inhabit an unfamiliar context. We might even go so far as to say inhabit the voice and viewpoint of another in ways that would be really productive for rhetoric. (Note that I say inhabit rather than appropriate, which would be the key difference between malicious forgery meant for deception and a productive forgery like this class activity).

Of course, we could also open the whole debate about the ethics of speaking for another, of presuming to be able to make their argument (basically to "know where they're coming from" in the humanist, identity politics quagmire), but I think in the class it would great.

»

Creative (re)visions

Submitted by Rodney Herring on April 15, 2006 - 12:09am.

Sarah, welcome aboard; I'm glad you overcame your nervousness.

I think this could be a great idea. Jim mentions that I floated a similar idea around on this site many weeks ago, and I've actually put it into action. I've been contemplating posting the assignment here, but much of it is so specific to my class that it won't matter. However, the revision part is relevant, so I'm going to post the excerpts of interest here and otherwise link to the original on my site. (I'm also going to add the category "Paper Assignments" to this post...)

Major Paper Three: Recognizing and Playing Homo Rhetoricus

This assignment will require you (1) to write a paper that analyzes the use of rhetoric (even to construct serious world views), (2) to revise a peer’s paper, demonstrating your own rhetoric, and (3) to write a one-page reflection on what revising someone else’s work has taught you—about rhetoric and about the individual. In other words, after you turn in paper 3.1, you will not work on it again; instead, you will work on your peer's paper.

Due dates
1. Topic Proposal Due: Email me your thesis question before class on Monday, April 17
2. First Submission Due: Two copies, At beginning of class, Wednesday, April 19
3. Peer Review Due: Two copies, at beginning of class, Wednesday, April 26
4. Second Submission Due: At beginning of class, Wednesday, May 3
* * *
Evaluation rubric
Grading will be a bit different on this paper. We will work with a similar rubric on this paper; the main categories are (1) Thesis, (2) Introduction, (3) Conclusion, (4) Proof, (5) Organization, and (6) Ethos. (If you do not understand any of these categories by now, you should ask me or another student.) You will receive a score in each of these categories for the paper you turn in as paper 3.1. These categories will count as 60% of your grade for paper 3.

Additionally, 10 % of your grade will be determined by your peer review. That’s right: you will still peer review the paper that you are going to revise—before you begin to revise it.

You will also be graded on your revision, which will count for 20% of your grade on this paper. To determine this grade, I will look at how you revised your peer’s paper 3.1. In other words, all the work that happens between the first submission and the second submission on your peer’s paper will count as your revision grade.

Finally, I will grade your one-page reflection, and this grade will count as 10% of your overall paper grade.

»

you should totally do this

Submitted by Jim Brown on April 13, 2006 - 8:14pm.

Okay, so I completely dig this idea. It's not too different from something I did last semester, and it's also related to something Rodney posted about a little while back. Here's our exchange about it.

My assignment was a paper swap, so it was encouraging students to take the entire paper and make it their own. They could change the argument, keep the same argument but change evidence, etc. I don't think you should worry about encouraging plagiarism. Students will immediately be sensitive to these issues (they'll worry about keeping the "voice" of the paper the same), and the assignment will probably open up a great discussion about intellectual property (and maybe even criminal rhetoric).

»