The Rhetorical Analysis and “Peer Profile” Assignment

(View Phase 2 Calendar)

Assignment Overview:

There are two parts to this assignment. For each part, you’ll decide and craft the order, tone, style, and language best suited to reaching your audience. I encourage you to draw on your “native,” “home,” or “other” languages, literacies, and ways of being as you so choose.

Part One:

You will study and write about one specific rhetorical strategy (or set of related strategies) that you observed in one of your peer’s Language and Literacy Narratives.

Part Two:

You will transform and extend what you wrote for Part 1 into magazine-style “profile” wherein you tell a story about your peer as a writer.

Length:

Part One: 3 paragraphs (approx. 1 page)                  

Part Two: 2 – 3 pages  

Due Dates:

• Part One is due Thursday, Oct. 5.

• Full draft of Part Two (for peer review) is due Tuesday, Oct. 17.

• Final draft of Part Two (with cover letter) is due Thursday, Oct 19.

• PORTFOLIO VERSION of Part Two (with cover letter) is due Thursday, Nov 16.

Part 1 Assignment Prompt:

Observing Rhetorical Strategies in a Peer’s LLN

You will study and write about one specific rhetorical strategy (or set of related strategies) that you observed in one of your peer’s Language and Literacy Narratives. During class, we will figure out together who will analyze whose narrative.

Your task is to analyze your peer’s writing, inferring your peer’s intentions and discussing how readers are likely to experience the text, and why. This should be written in paragraph form, but it does not need to be essayistic, and does not require formulating a thesis.

Requirements:

• Introduce and briefly summarize the text in which you have observed an interesting rhetorical strategy (~100 words). (See the Rhetorical Precis handout for help.)

• Analyze the rhetorical strategy (or two) you found of interest. To do so, you will:
  • name and describe the strategy (~100 words), and then
  • explain what you found interesting about it (~100 words).

Some things to consider while you’re writing:

• Your purpose is not to critique or evaluate your peer’s writing or strategies (so no judging of “good” or “bad”).

• As you explain the significance of the rhetorical strategies that you have observed, follow the “10 on 1” rule of thumb:
  • It is better to make ten different observations or points about a single representative issue or example (10 on 1) than to make the same repeated point about ten related issues or examples (1 on 10).
    
• As you explain what you found interesting, discuss what you suspect the author was trying to accomplish with this strategy.
  
  Consider:
  
  • Who is their intended audience and how did they attempt to appeal to them?
    
  • How was their selection of genre, mode, language, style, and/or other strategies a good fit given their rhetorical situation?
    
  • Consider what evidence you can use (e.g., examples/quotes from the text) to show your readers your analysis is valid.
    

You will transform and extend what you wrote for Part 1 into a 2-3 page (double-spaced) magazine-style “profile” wherein you tell a story about your peer as a writer.

This consists of two parts. You will:

1. introduce who your peer is as a writer (see “Interview” below) and then
   
2. analyze different rhetorical strategies (aka “writerly choices”) present in their language and literacy narrative (drawing on and extending what you already wrote for Part 1).   

Some things to consider as you’re writing:                 

1. Interview. You will have the chance to interview your peer to learn more about their language and literacy background and to inquire about their rhetorical strategies in their Language and Literacy Narrative. Thus, you can share with your peer what you wrote in Part 1 and ask whether it accurately describes their writerly choices (or not).
   
2. Audience. You will decide who is the audience for this profile. Ask yourself: Who needs to hear your message most? By choosing your audience, you will also decide where this profile should be “published.” Would an existing platform or publication reach your audience, or will you need to create a new one?
   
3. Genre. You can learn about writing “profiles” by viewing this instructional video from The New York Times. We will also read and discuss sample profiles together in class, so you will come to learn the typified features of this genre. But you are invited, as always, to push the boundaries of what this genre “can” or “should” look like.

“A” Option:

If pursuing an “A” in the course, you will write an extended “Peer Profile” (Part 2) that is 4-5 double-spaced pages. Your extension can include more analytical details, more contextual analysis (based on information gathered in the interview), and/or more examples from additional rhetorical strategies you identify.

Cover Letter:

Your Rhetorical Analysis Assignment should be preceded by a Cover Letter when you submit the final version. Refer to the Cover Letter assignment sheet.

Assessment Rubric for the Rhetorical Analysis Assignment

Assignment Goals and Evaluation Criteria

1. Analyze the relationship between a peer author’s rhetorical strategies and the rhetorical situation of their Language and Literacy Narrative. How effective are the observations of rhetorical strategies in the peer’s narrative? How effectively are these observations connected back to elements of the rhetorical situation (i.e., information about the author, text, context/exigence, purpose, and audience)?

2. Compose a “Profile.” How effective is the peer profile in meeting (or purposely challenging) the typified conventions of a magazine profile?   Organization: Is the profile written in a way that is clear and relevant for your intended audience? Did you connect the peer profile to a larger issue related to the politics of language? Did you come up with a creative, fitting title? Interview Integration: Did you integrate paraphrases and quotes from your interview in a way effective for your purpose and audience? Were interview quotes introduced successfully (not left hanging)?   Audience: Did you consider your tone, title, voice/perspective, and choice of publication? Does the profile’s message connect effectively with the intended audience?

3. General Requirements. Were all requirements for length and due date met?