Short Writing Task and Final Essay Instructions
Short Writing Task and Final Essay Instructions
In WRIT1001 you complete four Short Writing Tasks (SWTs) worth 10% each of your final grade. These tasks are cumulative meaning that completing one will help you complete the next, and three of the SWTs will help you complete the Final Essay worth 40% of your final grade. On this first page is a very simple overview of the SWTs and Final Essay. The rest of the document contains more detailed instructions for each task.
SWT1: Early feedback Quiz: due 12-16 Aug 2024 (Week 03)This quiz is to provide students with an opportunity to engage in a stress-free assessment so you can gain an early indication of the skills we are developing in WRIT1001. This Quiz will consist of 10 questions that respond to the first lectures about Rhetoric.
SWT2: Biography and proposal, due Friday 23 Aug 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 04)
Describe someone you know (in your family or community) and the rhetorical traditions that influence their communication. Define a contentious topic they are passionate about and how you think they use rhetoric to argue about that topic.
SWT3: Rhetorical Analysis, due Friday 06 Sep 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 06)Develop two significant paragraphs that analyse the rhetoric of your chosen topic in depth. These paragraphs should be well-crafted, cite scholarly sources on rhetoric, and apply rhetorical concepts to better understand how communications work in your chosen topic.
SWT4: Narrative Bibliography, due Friday 20 Sep 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 08)Write a narrative bibliography in the style of Daniel Heath Justice. Choose three academic sources which you might use for your final essay (this may include sources which you have referred to in previous SWTs). At least two of your sources should be about rhetoric.
Final Essay: Rhetorical analysis, due Friday 18 Oct 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 11)Present a well-crafted scholarly essay that analyses the rhetoric used in arguments about the contentious topic you have discussed in your SWTs.
Apart from SWT1 (a quiz), each SWT requires 500 words. The Final Essay requires 1500 words. Reference lists are not included in these word counts. There is 10% leeway with the word count.
You are expected to refer to scholarly sources in all assessment tasks. You should refer to scholarly sources from the reading list and sources that you have found independently. You should quote, cite and reference using MLA or APA style. More information on Referencing Style guides can be found from the library: https://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/citation
If you use Artificial Intelligence such as ChatGPT, Elicit, Quillbot, or Copilot to assist with your writing, you must provide a footnote that acknowledges the AI used and describes how you used it.
You cannot use work submitted for any other unit of study in WRIT1001. You can use work from WRIT1001 in subsequent assessments (eg, sentences or phrases from SWT2 can be used in SWT3).
You can apply for simple extensions (short extensions without supporting documentation) or special consideration (longer extensions with supporting documentation) using the University system: https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/special-consideration.htmlThe Unit Coordinators are very understanding when it comes to late work. Please contact them for advice. The Faculty rule is that late work is penalised 5% of the available marks per day, and will not be accepted after 10 days. If you miss a task, please contact a unit coordinator for advice.
SWT1: Early Feedback Quiz:
Due: 12-16 August 2024 (Sydney time) (Week 3)
Length/Weight:10 questions, worth 10% of the final grade for the unit
Submit:Available in Canvas during week 3 (9am 12 Aug until 5pm 16 Aug)
Main requirements:
In accordance with the Higher Education Support Act (HESA), we will provide a stress-free early assessment before the census date. Every student must complete this quiz and every student will receive 10 marks of their final grade simply by completing the quiz (regardless of how many questions you get right).
The quiz will consist of 10 multiple choice questions and students can have two attempts. The questions will be thought-provoking but not difficult. Students who have engaged with the first two lectures and completed the required readings for the first two weeks should do very well in the quiz without needing to study.
Expectations:
In completing this task, you are expected to
Engage meaningfully with the first two lectures and complete the first two weeks readings.
Log into the quiz at any time during Week 3 and complete the quiz.
Outcomes:
The quiz will be automatically marked but you will receive feedback about your early understanding of rhetoric based on those scores. The early feedback quiz aligns with the expectations (above) and the following unit outcomes:
LO2. demonstrate an increased awareness of how to produce effective arguments
Generative AI support:
An AI agent will be provided on Canvas to support your learning in this task. You will be able to ask it questions about key concepts discussed in the quiz (for study), and you will be able to ask it for advice about your quiz results (feedback).
Professional relevance:
This task builds your early understanding of how rhetoric operates in everyday communications and the world around you. The ability to see how other people (and other brands and companies) use persuasive techniques is a vital skill in the workplace, providing insights about commercial communications. Stakeholders, employers, customers, etc., will all try to convince you of things, for good or ill, and you will need to convince others.
SWT2: Biography and proposal
Due: Friday 23 August 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 04)
Length:500 words, worth 10% of the overall grade for the unit
Submit:as a Word document or PDF, via Canvas Assignments
Main question:
Describe someone you know in your family or community and the cultural traditions that influence their communications. What is a contentious topic they are passionate about and what rhetorical strategies do they use to discuss or argue about that topic?
This contentious topic might be a community, political or professional issue they care about.
Expectations:
In completing this task, you are expected to:
1. Provide a short, clear biography of a person
2. Consider the connection between cultural traditions and rhetorical preferences
3. Identify rhetorical tactics or strategies drawn from the readings or class discussions, and connect it to this real person. For example, lectures on cultural rhetorics mention strategies such as storytelling and personal anecdote; lectures on classical rhetoric mention appeals like ethos, pathos and logos; other tactics are described elsewhere in course material.
4. Clearly describe a contentious topic that might interest the person you write about
5. Include accurate references to ONE or more academic sources on rhetoric (including page numbers for every citation) and on a separate page at the end of your submission you must include a Reference list or Works Cited list using either APA or MLA style conventions.
*In SWT3, you will analyse the contentious topic you have discovered via inventio in SWT2. In some cases, you might not write about the person who has inspired your work on this topic in later SWTs; in other cases, you might include anecdotes or stories about the person to frame your scholarly engagement with the topic.
Outcomes:
Your work will be graded using a marking rubric that will be discussed in the unit. The rubric will
align with the expectations (above) and the following unit outcomes:
LO1: communicate confidently in a range of modalities
L05: edit your own work
A marking rubric is included at the end of this document.
Generative AI support:
An AI agent will be provided on Canvas to support your learning in this task. You will be able to ask it to list possible topics for scholarly analysis based on information about the person you are writing a biography for, and you will be able to ask it for advice about writing style for this task (which combines personal voice, anecdotal writing, and scholarly discussion - a challenging mix of genres).
Professional relevance:
This task builds your understanding of how rhetoric works in the world around you. The ability to
see how other people use persuasive techniques is a vital skill in the workplace. Stakeholders,
employers, customers, etc., will all try to convince you of things, for good or ill; you will need to
convince others. The knowledge needed for this task includes lifelong skills.
SWT3: Rhetorical Analysis
Due: Friday 06 September 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 06)
Length:500 words, worth 10% of the overall grade for the unit
Submit:as a Word document or PDF, via Canvas Assignments
Main question:
Develop two detailed paragraphs that analyse the rhetoric of your contentious topic in depth. You should quote real people or companies who have published statements about the contentious topic (you no longer need to refer to the person you mentioned in SWT2). You should use rhetorical terms to describe the rhetoric operating in the statements or visual communications you analyse and correctly cite the sources of these statements as well as two scholarly sources on rhetoric to support your analysis.
Expectations:
In completing this task, you are expected to:
Briefly introduce some context for the contentious issue you will analyse.
Quote statements published by real people or companies about the contentious topic (for example, you might quote comments about online trolling as a contentious topic, or quote a medical website about vaccine hesitancy as your contentious topic).
Propose what type of rhetoric is operating in the published statements you analyse (for example, you might identify ethos appeals or a strawman fallacy or the deliberative branch).
Include critical statements about how this rhetoric operates or interacts with other forms of rhetoric, aiming to evaluate the significance of this rhetoric to the communication.
Include accurate references to TWO or more academic sources on rhetoric (including page numbers for every citation), correctly formatted.
On a separate page at the end of your submission you must include a Reference list or Works Cited list using either APA or MLA style conventions.
Outcomes:
Your work will be graded using a marking rubric that will be discussed in the unit. The rubric will align with the expectations (above) and the following unit outcomes:
LO1: communicate confidently in a range of modalities
LO3: understand more about academic essay conventions
LO5. edit your own work and the work of others effectively and consistently.
Generative AI support:
An AI agent will be provided on Canvas to support your learning in this task. You will be able to test your knowledge of rhetorical concepts and ask for advice about readings that can support your discussion of rhetorical concepts (for study), and you will be able to ask it for feedback on whether your draft is demonstrating key features of a rhetorical analysis (a core criteria for the final essay).
Professional relevance:
There are many professional settings where you will be asked to analyse (unpack and explain) how things are operating while applying relevant concepts or frameworks. This task produces paragraphs you might use in your final essay and builds your ability to interrogate ideas using certain criteria and independent insight.
SWT4: Narrative Bibliography
Due: Friday 20 September 2024 at 23:00 (Sydney time) (Week 08)
Length:500 words, worth 10% of the overall grade for the unit
Submit:as a Word document or PDF, via Canvas Assignment
Main Question:
The goal of this task is to write a narrative bibliography in the style of Daniel Heath Justice (Bibliographic Essay: Citational Relations, from Why Indigenous Literature Matters 2018: 241-264). This reading will be available via the Reading List in Canvas. Your SWT4 will be a short example of the style of writing that Justice uses. Choose three academic sources which you might use for your final essay (these may include sources which you have referred to in previous SWTs). At least two of your sources should be about rhetoric.
Expectations:
In your narrative bibliography, you need to:
Connections - Describe your connection to the source and which ideas in your sources could be useful in your final essay. Explain how your sources relate to each other and what scholarly networks they represent, as well as your own relationship to that network. Scholars' last names should be in bold.
Engagement - Show an ability to quote and summarise. You might quote from one source and summarise two others, or quote from two sources and summarise one. Your reader will look to see both of these methods for engaging with a source in your submission.
Evaluation - Distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly sources. The three sources you engage with in SWT4 must be unquestionably scholarly, according to criteria discussed in WRIT1001 lectures.
Citations - Correctly cite your research and provide page numbers. On a separate page at the end of your submission for SWT4 you must include a Reference list or a Works Cited list. You should follow APA or MLA style requirements.
Outcomes:Your work will be evaluated based on the standard at which it meets the following learning outcomes:
LO1: communicate competently in a range of modalities and contexts
LO3: understand more about essay conventions in academic contexts
LO4: construct written arguments appropriate for multicultural audiences
Generative AI support:
An AI agent will be provided on Canvas to support your learning in this task. You will be able to brainstorm connections between your research sources and your personal context, and you will be able to ask it for suggestions and feedback about writing in the style of Daniel Heath Justice.
Professional Relevance: This assessment develops different modes of thinking about relationality, texts and writing. In an academic context, this assessment helps you develop your citational skills and understand the meanings of citational practice. In a professional setting, you will also need to be prepared to think about the connections/relationships between different people and texts (these might not be academic texts) and will have to engage with different forms of meaning-making and communication.
Final Essay: Rhetorical analysis
Due: Friday 18 October 2024 at 23:59 (Sydney time)
Length:1500 words, worth 40% of the overall grade for the unit
Submit:as a Word document or PDF, via Canvas Assignment
Main question:
Present a scholarly essay that analyses the rhetoric used in arguments about the contentious topic you have been examining from your Short Writing Tasks.
Expectations:
In completing this task it is expected that you will:
Define at least TWO rhetorical concepts with reference to scholarly research
Apply rhetorical terms in your analysis of the topic
Present an argument that makes a claim about rhetoric, suitable for an academic reader
Use and adapt typical features of an academic essay to support your argument
Include multiple references to TWO or more academic sources on rhetoric (including page numbers for every citation), correctly formatted.
On a separate page at the end of your submission you must include a Reference list or Works Cited list using either APA or MLA style conventions.
Outcomes:
LO1: communicate confidently in a range of modalities
LO2: demonstrate increased awareness of how to produce effective arguments
LO3: understand more about academic essay conventions
LO4. construct written arguments appropriate for multicultural audiences
LO5: edit your own work effectively
A marking rubric is included at the end of this document.
Generative AI support:
An AI agent will be provided on Canvas to support your learning in this task. You will be able to ask for feedback on your writing against the essay marking rubric. You will be able to ask for suggestions for arranging your essay using structures (classical and Rogerian) discussed in the unit. You will be able to ask for feedback on your essays argument statement (the agent will suggest improvements to help you organise your thesis as an enthymeme - CLAIM because REASON).
Professional relevance:
While an academic essay might seem to be a relic of university assessment, it can also test skills that are important in professional settings. An effective essay requires planning, organisation, anticipation of likely audience responses, clear communication, and persuasiveness. These are all valued skills in the workplace, whether communicating in writing or addressing an audience in other formal and informal settings (presentations, conferences, web guides, pitching proposals).
Marking Rubrics
The following rubrics give an indication of the standards the markers use when grading the above tasks. There is sometimes a grey area in between the stated standards that might indicate, for eg, Distinction level work (between Outstanding and Great), or Pass level work (between Great and Needs Work). In other words, the rubrics are a helpful guide to help students and markers discuss expectations, but markers will exercise academic judgement that varies from the rubric.
SWT2 Rubric: Biography and proposal
Outstanding Great Needs work Not addressed
Topic / Biography A contentious issue connected to the life of a person from the writers community is detailed in a way that allows for insightful comments about the connection between culture and rhetoric.
A contentious issue connected to the life of a person from the writers community is described. The potential for rhetorical analysis is clear. A contentious topic is mentioned and connected to the life of a person from the writers community. There is no mention of a contentious topic.
Rhetorical concepts The response identifies rhetorical strategies and tactics used by the focal subject. Concepts are discussed as culturally appropriate and are connected to relevant course material (readings or lectures). Rhetorical strategies or tactics are mentioned and connected to the life of a person from the writers community, and rhetorical techniques are defined. There could be more insight about cultural appropriateness of the strategies and/or stronger connections to course material.
Rhetorical concepts are mentioned but they are not strongly connected to a person (the focal subject), or they are not relevant to the unit, or they are not clearly defined. A rhetorical concept is not mentioned.
Research Scholarly sources from the reading list indicate the relevance of the response to the unit material. Independently sourced research shows that the writer is extending ideas from the unit. All sources are cited accurately using APA or MLA style.
A scholarly source from the reading list is cited or used, but there could be a deeper engagement with the source. Sources are cited in a uniform manner, though there are missing features of APA or MLA style. Non-scholarly (textbook) sources from the reading list or independent research is cited. There is an attempt at referencing with multiple errors that suggest APA or MLA style guides were not consulted.
There are no research sources and/or no citation practice that confirms the location and type of source being used..
Style There is a sense of the writers own voice and evidence of multiple drafts. There are no distracting grammar, spelling or formatting issues.
The writing is mostly clear and easy for the reader to understand, though could do with further editing. There are several grammar, spelling or formatting errors that prevent the reader from understanding the writers ideas, or the paper does not focus properly on requirements. There are frequent grammar, spelling and formatting errors that prevent the reader from understanding the writers ideas.
SWT3 Rubric: Rhetorical Analysis
Outstanding Great Needs work Not addressed
Contentious Topic A contentious issue is framed in a way that shows how a rhetorical analysis might benefit scholarly readers or communities. A contentious issue is framed with some indication of how a rhetorical analysis will generate insights. An issue is referred to but it may not be clearly contentious OR it looks unsuited for a cogent rhetorical analysis. There is no mention of a contentious topic that can be analysed for rhetoric
Rhetorical concepts At least TWO relevant rhetorical concepts from the unit are defined or understood in complex and thoughtful ways. Only ONE relevant rhetorical concept is defined or understood (perhaps by way of example). Concepts related to rhetoric are mentioned but they might be incorrectly defined or understood vaguely There is no mention of rhetorical concepts or references are very fleeting
Paragraph conventions Two detailed paragraphs are developed to present a complex discussion of the topic, with a clear focus on rhetoric and driven by an engagement with concepts and scholarship. There is a clear connection between paragraphs. There are clear paragraphs that develop a detailed analysis of rhetoric, perhaps with further room for higher level critical skills and the cultivation of more complex arguments. One paragraph (or more than two) are presented or some of the content is vague or wandering, perhaps needing a greater focus on rhetoric or more compelling approaches to persuasive argumentation. Paragraphs are very underdeveloped or not focused on supporting a rhetorical analysis.
Research
(Sources & information cited) Relevant and independent research from TWO scholarly sources on rhetoric is used to contribute to an emerging argument about rhetoric. All sources are cited accurately using APA or MLA style. Relevant research from TWO scholarly sources on rhetoric is used to contribute to an emerging argument about rhetoric. Sources are cited in a uniform manner, though there are missing features of APA or MLA style. ONE scholarly source on rhetoric is used to contribute to an emerging paper about rhetoric. Or there is an attempt at referencing with multiple errors that suggest APA or MLA style guides were not consulted.
No sources, or textbook or web sources are used, or poor referencing makes it difficult to evaluate the quality of the research.
Style & citations There is a sense of the writers own voice and evidence of multiple drafts. Complex matters are discussed with clarity and page numbers are cited. The writing is mostly clear and easy for the reader to understand.
Complex matters are discussed. Page numbers may or may not be cited. There are several occurrences of grammar, spelling or formatting errors that prevent the reader from understanding all the writers ideas. There are frequent grammar, spelling and formatting errors that prevent the reader from understanding the writers ideas.
SWT4 Rubric: Narrative Bibliography
Criteria Outstanding Developing Not met
Connections (up to 4 marks) The task is written in the style of DH Justice, with first person narrative techniques and a personalised approach to discussing research. Connections are established both between research sources and between the sources and the writers argument, stance or standpoint. The task synthesises knowledge from multiple sources, describing connections between disparate sites of knowledge. There is minimal or no attempt to show interactions between sources.
Engagement (up to 2 marks) The task shows a strong ability to both quote and summarise from research sources. There are strategies and plans for how the sources will be useful in the writers work. Either summary or quotation is used well, but one might perhaps need further development. There are only glimpses of or implied suggestions about the usefulness of the sources to the writers own work. The writing does not make clear that the writer understands the sources being cited, or there are no obvious signs of relevance.
Evaluation (up to 2 marks) All sources are scholarly according to criteria discussed in WRIT1001 lectures and online activities. One or more of the sources are not obviously scholarly, or poor citation makes it unclear if the source/s are scholarly. Two or more of the sources are not obviously scholarly, or poor citation makes it unclear if the sources are scholarly.
Referencing / Citation (up to 2 marks) Referencing and citations conforms to APA or MLA style guide recommendations, with page numbers used or added to show the specific location of key ideas from the sources. There are errors in some references or citations that might include formatting errors, missing information, incorrect order of details, missing page numbers, or other details. It is unclear from the citation style where the sources can be found, whether they are scholarly, or if they exist.
Final Essay Rubric
Outstanding Great Needs work Not addressed
Definitions and Analysis At least TWO different kinds of rhetorical concept are defined in complex and thoughtful ways and are applied insightfully in the analysis to generate new and interesting ideas or claims. At least ONE rhetorical concept is accurately defined or TWO kinds are defined without detail or support. They are applied in predictable ways without generating new insights. Rhetorical concepts have not been described in a way that convinces the reader that the writer understands them, or the analysis attempted might be too descriptive. There is no mention of rhetorical concepts or references are too fleeting to be significant. There is no display of sustained critical writing at or beyond the level of description.
Argument There is a clear thesis statement about rhetoric, created using techniques from the unit. The argument justifies all aspects of the writing. The argument makes an original and reasonable claim about rhetoric. There is an insightful claim about rhetoric, created using techniques from the unit; but there may be contradictions between the argument claim and the method taken. A claim is presented, or the writing appears to argue for a position. But the argument is not about rhetoric used in other peoples statements or it is vague or incontestable. There is no identifiable claim.
Structure Structure adeptly uses or adapts an arrangement strategy. A sense of cohesion is shown; parts of the essay support one another & synthesis or a comparison of ideas informs different sections A standard or familiar arrangement strategy has been followed, seemingly without consideration of the topic or claim. There is cohesion across most paragraphs. The essay has some basic ordering but does not follow arrangement strategies. More than two paragraphs are disconnected from other sections. There is no clear order to the essay.
Research Relevant & independent research from TWO scholarly sources on rhetoric is used to support claims or definitions. Some contextual understanding of research is shown. Relevant research from TWO scholarly sources on rhetoric cited. Understanding of ideas/concepts mentioned in the sources is clear from the writing. Citations from ONE or more scholarly sources on rhetoric cited. Information might be engaged richly (but no second scholarly source cited) or might lack specificity. No scholarly sources on rhetoric are cited or poor referencing makes it difficult to evaluate the quality of research.
Style There is a sense of the writers own voice and multiple drafts. Complex matters are discussed with clarity. There are no distracting grammar, spelling, or formatting issues. The writing is mostly clear and easy for the reader to understand. The writing lacks specificity OR
there are several grammar, spelling or formatting errors preventing the reader understanding the writers ideas There are frequent grammar, spelling and formatting errors that prevent the reader from understanding the writers ideas.
Referencing APA or MLA referencing is used diligently and correctly with page numbers cited and no major formatting errors or very few minor errors like punctuation or italics. APA or MLA referencing is used fairly well but there are some missing details or missing citations or formatting. APA or MLA referencing is attempted but lacking specific details and more attention is needed.. APA or MLA referencing is not attempted or the formatting has too many errors to indicate that a style guide has been used.
