|
Step 1 (of 4): Discussion replies (ethos)
DUE THURSDAY, 2/20 by 11:59 pm
In your replies this week, start with a general synopsis of the article's strengths & weaknesses (you must address BOTH) as it pertains to ETHOS:
How does the journalist aim to establish credibility or trust with the audience? How do they present themselves (yes, the journalist's personality is present in the article, or should be) as a person of goodwill and character? Pay special attention to their tone/voice as the "narrator" for the piece AND their use of sources. Be specific. After you mention strengths and as you begin to mention opportunities for improvement, make specific suggestions for how they might improve/boost their ethos. Follow up your synopsis with a short list of ideas for the types of EXPERT perspectives they might seek to include in order to boost their ethos, overall... read my explanation below to help you, help others, brainstorm possible experts to include in their argument.
|
Most journalists build their arguments on that backs of other journalists. Why? Because one article written by a journalist often represents or summarizes the work of various other individuals. In other words, when you bring a piece of journalism into your own source list it is equivalent to getting 10 sources for the price of 1. This can be really helpful when you are wanting to establish deep knowledge and complexity in an argument. However... Journalists are secondary, not primary, sources; they often lack direct expertise or experience. Even if they are specialists in specific kinds of writing topics, they are not content experts in the same way that scholars may be, or other knowledgeable resources related to your issue. Therefore, you'll want to seek out "expert" perspectives relevant to your unique argument: a politician, a doctor of some specialty, an environmental scientist, a military official, a psychologist, someone who works as a first responder, etc. What perspective is missing? What perspective might enrich the argument's value and make things more interesting and compelling? |
Step 2 (of 4): Research / source evaluations (2 experts!)
DUE SUNDAY, 2/23 by 11:59 pm
Last week, you re-reviewed and revamped your initial list of FIVE sources. This week, you'll add TWO *expert* sources for a running total of SEVEN SOURCES TOTAL, listed alphabetically, formatted using MLA 8 Citation style, and including thorough source evaluations for each.
If you're wondering what I mean specifically by "experts," review Step 1 above... refer specifically to what is said about the strengths and limits of journalism. This would be a good time to lean on your resources as a college student and access research through the Library Databases. |
Refer to the following resources as you complete this step:
- Click here to study the "RESEARCH" resource (which includes access to the LIBRARY DATABASES).
- Click here to review the Source Evaluations project, and learn more about EVALUATING.
- Critique your SEVEN sources, according to the "RESEARCH" resource.
- Upgrade for more credible/strong sources if necessary, and as you go along.
- Develop thorough and specific source evaluations (these should be a part of your Works Cited list at the end of your article copy in the shared Google Doc). *See the samples on the Source Evaluations project page.
Step 3 (of 4): Revise & edit article copy
DUE SUNDAY, 2/16 by 11:59 pm
Last week, we worked on background. I asked you to open up your own Google Doc/ Article Copy, highlight parts of your draft, and make "comments" (click on the plus sign to the right) asking yourself four kinds of questions (inch, foot, yard, mile) about your own argument. If you haven't done this yet, or if you haven't finished answering your own questions/the questions from our group discussion, be sure to follow up on those steps. I won't be micro-managing your progress.
This week, open up your own Google Doc/ Article Copy and COLOR-CODE SIP FORMAT. Choose ONE font color that will stand out from your black and white draft, and apply this single new color to any information you need to give credit for (rather than take credit for); this includes ALL summarized, paraphrased, and quoted information. By color-coding, you give yourself (and others, and your editor) the chance to evaluate your information based on these upcoming expectations (from the final rubric): |
- INFORMATION from relevant, accurate, credible sources, representing diverse points of view (including diverse perspectives and lenses) is balanced evenly with the writer's original ideas and own voice; the author uses MULTIPLE, varied sources to back up/illustrate each point before moving on to the next.
- SIGNAL PHRASES are used, in variety, to introduce source ideas (SIP format) and establish ethos/credibility (these emphasize the most "impressive" elements of each source, revealing why it is a source worth including in the argument).
- PARENTHESES are used to conclude source ideas and these correspond with Works Cited citations (SIP Format).
This week, and in the remaining weeks, as you work on expansion, in general (to meet the 3,500 word minimum requirement)... remember, remember, remember to add depth and not breadth! Don't just add points and topics to your argument. Instead, add support, add perspectives, add detail and nuance and critical explanations.
- Add SIP to your draft by referring to new sources.
- Expand to include new perspectives/lenses from which your argument can be approached.
- Add explanations to make the reasoning more evident, in your own words.
- Break paragraphs down into multiple paragraphs to make room for more SIP and explanations.
- Etc.
Step 4 (of 4): Post/share new copy
DUE SUNDAY, 2/23 by 11:59 pm
You already shared your Google Doc with me, so I should be able to see your changes from Step 3 without you needing to do anything. Check your emails in case I reach out or have any trouble opening up your article copy.
To share your newest *revised/improved* copy with the team for next week's discussion/expansion tasks, click on the button below. |