End of Quarter Procedures:

On Tuesday March 10 you'll hand in 1) your final research paper (instructions below) and a partner will use the term paper evaluation sheet (handed out, but also on course website) to assess how rhetorically effective your argument is. 2) If possible, you'll also hand in a portfolio of all the paper generated by this class, along with your assessment of your work ( on the portfolio evaluation sheet, which can also be emailed). You can also turn in the portfolio at the last regular class meeting on the 12th, but it's really important not to forget. Please include everything except course handouts (including your classmates' comments on your drafts).  

Final Revision Tips

The final paper for the course has a number of objectives, but at bottom it gives you the opportunity to do the best writing you can now do by dealing with the natural short-comings in earlier papers, such as not having a clear purpose and audience (often the earlier papers were exploratory or not terribly analytical), insufficient feedback or cooling off time, lack of information on specifics or context etc. To do the best writing you're capable of means taking on the most difficult writing there is, and that's argument. Argument is the toughest because your goal is to change someone else's thinking, even their actions, and thus literally one wrong word can be a disaster (for example, referring to your audience of gun enthusiasts as "nuts"). But as Von Oech points out about the creative process, you can't know if your explorer, artist and judge are any good until your warrior actually takes your idea and tries to make it happen in the world. Similarly, you can't know that your writing process is working, especially the revision part, which is the most important, unless you can persuade someone. Remember Murray: revision is the increasing of strength, not the elimination of error. It's not punishment for bad work. All real writers know that writing is rewriting; it's where the unexpected and magical happens.

How- To

Now that we're clear on the objective, we can think about how to go about it. Look over the four papers we've done and see if one of them just sort of jumps out at you. See the Murray handout on revision for how to spot potential in a draft. Don't concern yourself with anyone's evaluation of the paper as it stands, rather think in terms of potential. Do you feel any passion for this subject? Do you know quite a bit about it, or would you like to? Do you have a genuine "stand" on this? You might want to do a fast Cruzcat or Melvyl/CDL search to assure yourself that there's information available (or if there's not and you really want to do it anyway, make a note to allow yourself extra time to research and get a hand from the reference librarian. You might also consider field research, for example interviews). Hitting the specialized encyclopedias (like the ones we saw in orientation) in the McHenry Reference area to get the Big Picture, context, and standard readings on the topic is a good move at this point as well.

Dialogue: Another important question is Is there someone who needs to hear about your position? Take 3-5 minutes and create a person who would oppose you on this subject. Jot some notes about this person's age, occupation, family, where they live, what TV shows they watch, what they eat for breakfast etc. Be careful to make the person as real as possible, not some cardboard stereotype. Now imagine being in some Department of Motor Vehicles line from hell, bored out of your mind, and this person is next to you. You needn't spend any time making the broaching of the subject plausible, just make some statement about your subject, and then write your opponent's response. Freewrite a dialogue for fifteen minutes or so, making sure you keep it from degenerating into name calling. After taking a break, (even better if you can get someone else to do this part, especially from class) put a plus next to strong arguments on both sides, a minus sign next to weak arguments, and then put a star next to any very strong arguments, especially those by your opponent that you think would invariably come up in a discussion of your topic. Here's a bit of a stretch, but can you see anything you both agree on or value? For example, people for and against gun control both value safety, they just have different ideas about how to be safe.

After taking a break, imagine another character, not an opponent but someone who could represent your audience. Your audience is someone who needs to hear your position, if at all possible someone who can help make the change in the world that you're advocating. Don't pick someone who already agrees with you, nor someone like your first character who could never be persuaded no matter what you say. Again, in describing this person, avoid the easy stereotype; if she's not real, you're wasting your time. Now, drawing on some of the strong arguments you generated on your side in the last dialogue if you like, freewrite another dialogue in which you try to convince her of your position. Your goal here is not to win but to get real reactions to your arguments. Do this till you run out of steam, then take a break. Now look over your responses (or again get a partner to do it) and see if you can see any pattern that reveal her values and concerns. Do you share any of those values?

You've probably already noticed that what you've accomplished is to create your logos and pathos. Now review (the bottom) of the rhetoric page for how to make an argument, and the Hacker handbook. Think especially about ethos. What kind of person will your audience listen to? What is it about you that makes them comfortable, respectful, nervous or skeptical? At the bottom of the page there's a workable structure for an argument, but think if it more like steps or phases. You can't just walk up to someone you've never met and make a demand. No, you have to get their attention, establish common ground, make your proposal, and show why it's a good idea. Now turn to Hacker page 15; it gives you half a dozen ways to write an introduction that accomplishes these steps. I suggest you try several that establish your ethos and perhaps addresses pathos (if you know what attracts or scares your audience, you can make a startling statement). If you have trouble, you can skip the intro and write the paper. Now might be a good time to knock out a rough outline for the body of your paper.

In doing the dialogues above, you might have felt a lack of specific information to support your claims. In writing the body of your paper, you'll no doubt find these same gaps. Now that you know what info you need, you can efficiently do your research. Be sure to keep careful track of sources; I suggest two sets of 3x5 cards: one for notes, the other for complete bibliography info. If you put ideas from your research in your own words on the cards and number/label the cards according to your outline, the paper will essentially be already written when you sit down to do the first draft ( Think about it!). After you have a rough draft, see Lunsford handout and Hacker [p.15 in latest edition] again, the same techniques can be used) for tips on conclusions. Find someone to read the paper, preferably impersonating your audience. Fine tune based on their feedback. Do the bibliography in MLA format (see "M" section of Hacker handbook), print out a final draft, and sleep the sleep of the righteous. The standard length for undergraduate term papers is 10-12 pages, but I'm only looking for 6-8 pages, with a minimum of five sources (many of you have discovered the hard way how limited popular sources are, so use Melvyl/CDL to go for scholarly sources, preferably from a variety of media--books, journals, newspapers, specialized encyclopedias etc). Email me if you get stuck or have questions.