悉尼大学 Short Writing WRIT1001 assignment 代写
100%原创包过,高质量代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信：273427
悉尼大学 Short Writing WRIT1001 assignment 代写
Short Writing Task 1: Invention Ta sk
Due: 11:59pm, 18 August 2017
Weight: 10% of your overall mark for the unit
Words: 500 words
Submission: Save as a WORD .doc, before submitting it to the Turnitin Dropbox
Background:
The final assessment in this unit is an essay and this first task, the Invention Task begins to build
towards that final essay. In this task you will explore a topic of your own choosing with the aim
of writing about that in your final essay. Your essay must demonstrate awareness that all
“knowledge” is contested. You are not simply writing to inform your reader or to demonstrate
your knowledge on a topic or issue. Your essay will essay will instead present a critique of the
opposing views on aspects of your topic, based on rhetorical analyses of the arguments that
support those opposing views. So though you present arguments, you will not be writing an
argumentative essay 1 but instead critique the arguments of others.
This task will help you to use the canon of invention to select a topic and explore possibilities of
communication.
Relevance:
Identifying and summarizing conflicting opinions is vital to engaging in scholarly debate in the
humanities or presenting findings in the sciences. Furthermore, the ability to contrast complex
information and condense it into an easily understood summary is a highly valued skill in the
workplace.
This assessment task will aim at the following unit of study outcomes:
1. how clearly you communicate (related to Unit of Study Outcome 1), and
2. how effectively you identify and anticipate arguments (Unit of Study Outcome 2)
The specific marking criteria that will be used to mark your work is described in the following
instructions.
Instructions
Process:
• For SWT1, you should choose a topic that is personally relevant, either because
it relates to a discipline in your degree or because you have a significant interest
in it.
• You will identify at least one of the contested aspects of that topic, and present
at least two of the views that are in opposition to each other.
• You will critique those two opposing views based on what you have learned
about rhetorical analysis so far.
Your tutors will allow time in the first tutorial to explore and brainstorm or free write
on the topic of your choice. In subsequent tutorials you will engage in activities and
discussions to expand on what you have been learning about rhetorical analysis from
the live and online lectures and compulsory readings.
1 Argumentation is taught in WRIT1002 and you will write an argumentative essay in that
unit of study.
2
Deliverables and criteria:
1. Create a title that explains the topic and its connection to rhetoric (effective communication).
Some examples are: “Use the rhetorical situation to analyse the abortion debate”, and “To what
extent is pathos used in advertising family history search engines?”
(Approximate word count guide: 20 words – weighting 5%)
2. Describe the topic and Explain why it is important, what the point of contention is, and how
you will approach this essay according to your academic discipline/degree.
(Approximate word count guide 50-80 words – weighting 10%)
3. Present your preliminary analysis of at least two contrasting positions on one aspect of the
topic. You should discuss:
• the disciplinary expertise and credibility of the authors and the quality of the
publications in which you found their work
• how you might use rhetorical concepts to evaluate their views and arguments (rhetorical
situation, rhetorical appeals, rhetorical fallacies, and the canons of rhetoric)
• discuss the rhetorical integrity or quality of those arguments
• refer to and cite at least one of the academic sources in your course readings
(Approximate word count guide 400-430 words – weighting 60%)
4. You must acknowledge all sources and include full references in a list at the end.
(weighting 20%)
悉尼大学 Short Writing WRIT1001 assignment 代写
5. Follow instructions, write clearly, and do not exceed or go below the word count by more
than 10% without permission from your marker. (weighting 5%)
Additional advice:
Research and Referencing:
• You should have at least 3 references – including the opposing sources and at least one
from a reading on rhetoric. This reference list is not counted in the word count.
• Ensure you have accurately referenced the key opinions and the concepts relating to
rhetoric. You must cite all original ideas and include the page number they came from in
your citation/footnote.
• You should use one of CMS, MLA or APA style. See
http://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/citation
Style / P r e s e n ta ti on :
You should use subheadings (eg, “Description”, “Rhetorical Analysis”) with short paragraphs
under each.
As this is a formal academic task, you should use a formal tone and should not write in the first
person. While your discussion should be conceptually rich, it simply outlines a topic, opposing
positions on the topic, and the approach you might take in your final essay. You should write
clearly but avoid overly complex phrases and jargon. You are not expected to use disciplinary
specific terminology for this preliminary task but, if you do, make sure you express complex
ideas so that clarity is not obscured.
For this unit of study, you will use an online resource, Rhetoric and Composition:
A guide for the College Writer, which is available
at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition. You can read the
text book chapter by chapter, or download the entire eBook as a pdf.
The Reading list in the appendix below sets out which chapter from this text
book you need to read each week, as well as additional optional but
recommended readings the library eReadings:
Week 1:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition/What is Rhetoric?
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/What_is_Rhetoric
From the Library eReadings:
The Rhetorical tradition : readings from classical times to the present / edited by Patricia Bizzell,
Bruce Herzberg. Boston : Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, c1990, pp. 1-15.
Week 2:
Rhetoric and Composition/The Stages of the Writing Process
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/The_Stages_of_the_W
riting_Process#Five_Evaluation_Criteria
Online: Rhetoric and Composition / Planning and Prewriting
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Planning_and_Prewri
ting
From the Library eReadings:
Keith, W. M., "Rhetoric and Audience," in The Essential Guide Rhetoric, ed. William M. Keith and
Christian O. Lundberg (Bedford St. Martin's: Boston, 2008), 11-23.
Crowley, S., "Ethical proof," in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, ed. Sharon Crowley
(Macmillan College Pub. Co.: New York, 1994), 81-116.
Week 3:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Researching
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Researching
From the Library eReadings:
Bordwell, D., and K. Thompson, "Glossary," in Film Art: an introduction, ed. David Bordwell and
Kristin Thompson (The McGraw-Hill Companies: New York, 1997), 447-82.
Corrigan, T., "Film terms and topics," in A short guide to writing about film, ed. Timothy Corrigan
(Longman: New York, 1998), 34-77.
Olivier, B., "Pseudo-communication and the return of the sophist: Thank you for smoking, at first
sight," Communication 33 (2007): 45-62.
Week 4:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Rhetorical Analysis
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Rhetorical_Analysis
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Drafting
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Drafting
From the Library eReadings:
Lunsford, A.A., Ruszkiewicz, J.J., & Waters, K. (2010) Rhetorical Analysis. In Everything’s an
Argument (Bedford St Martins), 95.
Week 5:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition / Genres: Reviews
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Reviews
Week 6:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Analysing Assignments
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Analyzing_Assignme
nts
From the Library eReadings:
Faigley, L. (2010) Constructing an Argument. In A little argument (Longmans) 76-130.
Week 7:
From the Library eReadings:
Williams, J.M. & Colomb, G.G. (2007) The core of your argument: finding and stating a claim. In
The Craft of Argument, 3 rd ed. (Pearson) 113-131.
Kennedy, R. (2010) Soul Music Dreaming: The Sapphires, the 1960’s and transnational Studies,
3(4), 331-344.
Week 8:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Oral Presentations
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Oral_Presentations
From the Library eReadings:
Gopen, G.D. (2012) “Whose paragraph is it anyway?” The Shapes of the English Paragraph. ,
"Glossary," in Writing and Rhetoric: academic essays (Pearson: Australia), 180-207
Week 9:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Writing in the Humanities
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Writing_in_the_Hum
anities
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Writing in Sciences
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Writing_in_the_Scien
ces
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Writing in Business
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Writing_in_Business
Week 10:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Editing
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Editing
From the Library eReadings:
Williams, J. M., Style : the basics of clarity and grace, (The University of Chicago ; Revised
by Joseph Bizup, Boston University, Boston : Pearson, 2015). 6th Edition. Lesson
11, pp. 131-150; Credits, pp. 151-152.
Karen, O. (2008). Academic language, power and the impact of western knowledge
production on indigenous student learning.
Week 11:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Reviewing
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Reviewing
From the Library eReadings:
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2014). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic
writing (Third ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Week 12:
Online: Rhetoric and Composition /Revising
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Revising
悉尼大学 Short Writing WRIT1001 assignment 代写
