|
|
|||||||||||
COMP 3012.1: Writing and the Humanities
“An Institute for the Production of Knowledge”
Spring 1995
Lind Hall 217
MWF 9:05 - 9:55
Director: Eric Drown
Office: 467 Lind Hall Writing
Lab: 330 Lind Hall
Messages: 625-1587 Mac/PC
Labs: 26 Lind/152 Folwell Hall
Office Phone: 625-2028 Office
Hours: TBA
E-mail address: drown001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Comp. Program Office:
306 Lind Hall
Introduction:
Over the
past twenty years the humanities have increasingly come under fire as conservative
policy-makers have asked what the humanities have to offer the citizens,
economy and polity of the United States.
Why, ask policy-makers such as former Chair of the National Endowment of
the Humanities Lynn Cheney, should the tax dollars of hard-working Americans
continue to fund the unproductive, “politically-correct” research of
disruptive, anti-capitalist professors of humanities? Though Cheney’s
description of the projects, practices, and practitioners of the humanities
misrepresents the richness and diversity of dialogue in the humanities,
rhetorics like hers have become the terms by which the worth of the humanities
is measured both inside and outside of the academy. It is crucial therefore, that those of us interested in the
humanities begin to formulate some kind of answer to Cheney’s albeit
disingenuous question.
One way
to begin to answer the political critics of the humanities is to address the
fruits of our research to a public audience.
It is my contention that the public has a vested interest in what the
humanities has to say about American thought, culture, history, and
society. Therefore, this class will be
run as an institute, that is, as a “think-tank.” The National Endowment for the Humanities has hired us to conduct
research into a cultural matter of public interest so that it can make informed
decisions regarding funding policies.
Our job, then, is to make the insights of the humanities comprehensible
to a wide-range of readers whose expertise varies considerably (including the
disciplinary experts who initially review grant-applications, the more
generally educated foundation staff who process them, and Sheldon Hackney, the
present Chair who makes the final decision).
Beyond this, we must enable policy makers to evaluate the relative
merits of humanities research in order to make policy responsibly. A rigorous study of argument will facilitate
this second goal.
Much
contemporary writing in the humanities has been bedeviled by impenetrable style
and abstruse vocabulary. I believe that
while complex ideas need not be “dumbed down” for the reading public, that
writers should make every effort to communicate effectively with readers. So this institute will examine the use and
abuse of language, arguments, and style, investigating the epistemological
paradigms that make knowledge-making possible.
We will, therefore, emphasize explicit statements of the cultural,
historical, and intellectual world-views that inform the disciplines of the
humanities, both as institutions and as individual practices.
Generally,
the humanities ask questions about who people are and how they live, that is
about how individuals and groups live in and produce complex cultures and
societies. How these questions are
asked and what methods guide the search for answers vary from discipline to
discipline. Historians look at change
over time, cultural geographers examine how human beings shape the spaces in
which they live; cultural studies practitioners examine how discourses and
rhetorics shape human culture; language specialists study the languages and
cultures of other societies; literary critics examine written culture, both
fictional and non-fictional; and journalists attempt to report the narratives
of our lives as individuals, communities, states, and nations. Beyond disciplines, the humanities are
characterized by interpretive orientations that reflect and/or challenge the
ideological convictions of intellectuals committed to social justice. Feminists take gender as a primary object of
study, deconstructionists posit the radical relativity of meaning, new
historians question the facticity of all histories while examining the
rhetorical conventions that have shaped our knowledge of the past and
present. One of the goals of this
course is, therefore, to facilitate discussion among the disciplines and
orientations within the humanities and encourage intellectual
cross-fertilization.
Since
writing is a form of discussion, since it is a particularly powerful learning
method, and since writing is a way to produce knowledge, this course will
require several different kinds of writing.
One major objective of the course is that students actually produce,
construct, manufacture some knowledge useful to their discipline and the
humanities. I’d like to structure this
class as an institute of interrelated “seminar” groups aimed at the production
of 15 page conference-style works-in-progress papers. I will not be setting the agenda for this class. You, as an intellectual community, will take
responsibility for all stages of the production of knowledge: designing and
defending research projects, compiling reading lists, processing readings in a
useful way, and organizing a mini-conference at the end of the quarter. You will need to be self-directed, to be
able to work within small and large groups, to get work done on time, to take
and give constructive criticism, and to manage the freedom and responsibility
of participation in this institute. If
you feel uncomfortable with this structure, please talk to me immediately after
the first class so that we can decide if this is the right learning opportunity
for you.
Finally,
since the pace of a 10-week course is demanding, as Director of Research, I'll
be asking you to make project decisions about topics well before you feel
comfortable, to work in groups, and to keep up. If you need help at any stage, please contact me. Procrastination is your worst enemy. If you don’t believe me check out the daily
schedule near the end of this document.
The Theory Behind the Design:
My
responsibility in this course is to provide students with an opportunity for
learning. I believe that the course I
have designed offers students a chance to practice more than just grammar and
rhetoric skills. The first section of
the course dedicated to planning, forming ideas, reading well and communicating
understanding for a reason, and the intellectual justification of a learning
sequence/research project. The writings
in this section—primarily abstracts, defenses of research projects and
response/position papers —stress the idea that writing is an active learning
strategy that can facilitate the framing of research questions, planning, and
theory construction. The middle
section of the course takes off from the first, providing students with the
opportunity to model their own writing protocols and research strategies on
pieces of writing that they feel represent quality academic work within their
own and related disciplines. Finally,
the last part of the course is dedicated to related research and the formal
presentation of work-in-progress papers.
This section of the course helps students formalize their ideas, present
extended arguments or interpretations of significant cultural phenomena and
practice the rhetorical and organizational skills that are specific to their
disciplines without pressure to reach hasty conclusions.
Above
all, I believe that the institute format of the course encourages students to
take ownership of the knowledge that they produce and responsibility for their
learning. Many classes in students’
academic life position them as “receptacles” to be “filled up” with the
knowledge of their teachers. This
approach often encourages students to mistake information processing for
learning, and to abdicate their responsibility for their own development as
thinkers. This course is designed to
help students rely on their considerable intellectual and pedagogical
resources. Faced with my refusal to
accept the traditional role of a “teacher,” that is, to accept the role of
someone who has knowledge who is supposed to “pass it on” to students, and my
emphasis of my role as a skilled question-asker, as a close reader, and as a
consulting manager/coordinator, students must take on the roles of expert and
teacher for themselves.
A Word on Office Hours and/or
E-mail
In a
class of 25, it is impossible for me to give close attention to each student
regularly in class. My office hours are
intended to be opportunities for students to come for one-on-one discussions
about anything: from writing and research problems to problems with class
dynamics. You just want to talk about
ideas or something interesting you’ve read?
Come on in. I like talking with
students. I’ll do my best to make you
feel comfortable. Please, please,
please take advantage of this time.
Sometimes
students are intimidated by one-on-one talks with instructors. If you’re one of these students, use e-mail
to write me a memo. It may take a day
or two or three for me to get back to you, but I will. If you don’t know about e-mail, call
Sheppard Labs/CIS at 626-5592. Every
student registered in day school is entitled to a free e-mail account. You already have it; take advantage of
it. If enough students have and use
E-mail, I can send class announcements and assignments electronically.
Policy for Human Dignity
All
members of the class will be treated with respect. I do not believe that honest differences in passion, point of
view, and politics must be erased to facilitate harmony. But throughout this
class, thoughtful dialogue will replace violent confrontation and demeaning
behavior whenever disagreements arise.
Writing Format
You
should make a backup disk or photocopy of all your work. Error or breakdown—your, mine, or the
machine's—can happen. I will hold you
responsible to have copies of your work.
Never, I repeat never, save your
work to a public hard drive. I have
had students steal work from one another by lifting papers stored on hard
drives in one of the dorm computer labs.
In order to protect yourself from the ordeal of plagiarism always save
your work to a floppy disk when working on a public computer.
In order to be accepted, all work
must be: word processed in a 12-point font with 1 inch margins, double-spaced,
stapled (not paper clipped or dog-eared), and accompanied by notes and
bibliography that conform to MLA/APA standards. You are responsible for correct grammar, spelling, and
typography. Pages must be numbered, and
your name must appear on each page. I
must receive all papers by the meeting time of the date due. Because of the pace of a 10-week quarter,
late papers will not be accepted.
Grading
My
grading policy conforms to CLA guidelines.
Be advised that CLA considers a C to be equivalent to basic fulfillment
of the course requirements. In order to get anything higher than a C,
you will have to perform beyond the basic course requirements. If you are concerned about your grade,
please consult with me early and often.
A's and B's are honors grades.
Please read the following grading scale carefully.
F.........You turned in the assignment but
did not attempt to fulfill the requirements, or you did not turn in the
assignment.
D.........You attempted to fulfill the
requirements, but did not meet basic standards in content, clarity, and
insight.
C.........You completed the assignment and
satisfied all requirements.
B.........You completed the assignment and
satisfied all requirements. Further, your paper is mechanically perfect, and
you developed and supported an argument, generating new insights.
A.........You completed the assignment and
satisfied all requirements. Your paper is mechanically perfect, and you
expressed your ideas with particular elegance, style, and/or wit. Finally, you
developed and supported an argument with exceptional skill, generating new
insights, and placing them in a meaningful context.
All
writing will be judged according to how well it meets these criteria:
1) content: How well have you considered/discussed the
task at hand, the meaning of what you have read, thought, seen, or said? How
well have you mustered pertinent information and evidence in support of meaningful
claims? Have you handled facts
accurately?
2) CLARITY: How well have you expressed
your ideas, arguments, or interpretations?
Is your prose clean and clear, intelligible and jargon-free? How persuasive are your arguments and
interpretations.
3) insight: How complete is your paper—have you
considered potential objections to your argument or interpretation? Have you
thought through the social, political, or logical implications of your
argument? Have you gone beyond the
conventional wisdom to consider alternative explanations or interpretations of
your data? Does your paper pass the “So
What?” test?
In order to earn an A
for a paper, your writing must excel in all three categories.
Acts of scholastic dishonesty may
result in an F for the course and additional disciplinary action.
Course-Grade
Breakdown
|
Final paper=35% |
Reading responses=30% |
Abstract and Defense=15% |
Paper Proposal=20% |
Course-Grade Calculation
All grades in this course will be
given in letter form. The following
grades are available:
|
A+ |
A |
A- |
B+ |
B |
B- |
C+ |
C |
C- |
D+ |
D |
D- |
F |
In order to facilitate calculation,
letter grades correspond to numbers; thus,
|
A+ = |
A = |
A- = |
B+ = |
B = |
B- = |
C+ = |
C = |
C- = |
D+ = |
D = |
D- = |
F = |
|
12 |
11 |
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
The formula I use to calculate your
grade is:
(G1
x .35) + (G2 x .30) + (G3 x .15) + (G4 x .20)
= Final Grade
where G1 = the Final
Paper, G2 = the average of Reading Responses, G3 =
the average of Abstracts and Defenses, and G4 = the Paper Proposal.
Your final letter grade is assigned
based on the result of this calculation.
Since + and - grades cannot be reported to CLA, the range for each final letter grade is as follows (figures are rounded to one decimal place):
|
A =
12-10 |
B =
9.9 - 7.0 |
C =
6.9 - 4.0 |
D =
3.9 - 1.0 |
F =
< 0.9 |
Attendance
A
research institute requires the constant participation of all members. If you are unable to attend class for what
you believe is a legitimate reason, you should call the Director, before class
time if at all possible, at the phone number listed at the head of this
document, leave a message on the message line, or send an e-mail memo
explaining the circumstances of your absence.
Please read the attached sheet
for the Composition Program’s policy relating class attendance to final
grades. This policy should be
considered part of the syllabus.
Incompletes
Incompletes
will not be given. If you do not
complete an assignment you will receive no credit for that assignment and your
course grade will reflect this. If
there are specific attenuating circumstances, please contact me immediately.
Readings/Books
Since,
as a class, you will assign the primary reading for the class, we will need to
arrange a way to distribute copies of the readings efficiently. This is one thing that we can negotiate as a
class.
Annette
Rottenberg’s The Structure of Argument
will be on reserve at Walter Library.
Writing Lab
|
Located in 330B/C
Lind Hall, the Writing Lab has regular walk-in hours and provides
appointments for extra help. On
occasion, I will recommend that you go for help with a specific problem. This is not a punishment. It will provide a second opinion and
one-on-one instruction that is not possible in a class of this size. |
|
Proposed Daily Schedule |
Due at Beginning of Class: |
|
Monday, March 25: |
•First day of class. |
|
Wednesday, March 27: •Disciplinary definition. •What implications does this
process have for producing cultural “truths”? |
•Write: A 250 word operational
definition or description of your discipline. |
|
Friday, March 29: •Negotiate the institute’s research focus. •Writing Protocol Self-Analysis. |
•Prepare a list of 3 possible themes/topics for the
institute’s focus. For each topic,
write a persuasive argument why we should study it, and articulate the
public’s interest in the matter. Make
sure you specify which “public” you’re writing about. |
|
Monday, April 1: •Question asking. •Begin to brainstorm individual projects. •Abstracts, Defenses |
•Prepare a 20 citation working bibliography on
institute’s research focus. |
|
Wednesday, April 3: •Negotiate course reading list. |
•2 abstracts & annotations. Bring 3 copies of each. •Bring a clean copy
of each article you choose to write on to class to put on Reserve. |
|
Friday, April 5: •Argument: Intro. & Claims. |
•Read Rottenberg, Ch. 1-2, 9. •Revise question list. |
|
Monday, April 8: •Critical Reading. •Close analysis of paragraphs: Function, topic, concepts,
evidence |
•Reading response #1. •Read: Assigned articles (A-B). •List of operational questions for individual project (at
least 10). |
|
Wednesday, April 10: •Critical Reading. •Introductions & Conclusions |
•Reading response #2. •Read: Assigned articles (C-D). •Detailed/Conceptual Project Schedule/Plan. |
|
Friday, April 12: •Argument: Definition, Support. |
•Read: Rottenberg, Ch. 3-4 . |
|
Monday, April 15: •Critical Reading. |
•Reading response #3. •Read: Assigned articles (E-F). |
|
Wednesday, April
17: •Critical Reading. |
•Reading response #4. •Read: Assigned articles (G-H). |
|
Friday, April 19: •Argument: Warrants, Language and Thought. |
•Read: Rottenberg, Ch. 5-6. •Paper proposal due with bibliography. |
|
Monday, April 22: •Critical Reading. |
•Reading response 5#. •Read: Assigned articles (I-J). |
|
Wednesday, April
24: •Critical Reading. |
•Reading response #6. •Read: Assigned articles (K-L). |
|
Friday, April 26: •Argument: Logical Fallacies. |
•Read Rottenberg, Ch. 7-8. |
|
Monday, April 29: •Class discussion of individual projects. |
•Working annotated bibliography for your project
due. (All works on this list should be read well before this date). Write
these annotations as you read the articles. •If scheduled, prepare a 5 minute formal presentation of
your topic. |
|
Wednesday, May 1: •Class discussion of individual projects. |
•Continue independent research and writing. •If scheduled, prepare a 5 minute formal presentation of
your topic. |
|
Friday, May 3: •Class discussion of individual projects. |
•Continue independent research and writing. •If scheduled, prepare a 5 minute formal presentation of
your topic. |
|
Monday, May 6: •Self-analysis. |
•1st draft due: intro./context, 1st argument, example, or
summary. •Bring [4 ] copies of draft to class with you. |
|
Wednesday, May 8: •Peer review. |
•Prepare for peer review. |
|
Friday, May 10: |
•Independent Research and Writing. •Individual consultations (Meet in 467 Lind) |
|
Monday, May 13: •Self-analysis. |
•2nd draft due: complete skeleton, 3/4 flesh. •Bring [4 ] copies of draft to class with you. |
|
Wednesday, May 15: •Peer Review. |
•Prepare for peer review. |
|
Friday, May 17: |
•Conference. |
|
Monday, May 20: |
•Conference. |
|
Wednesday, May 22: |
•Conference. |
|
Friday, May 24: |
•Conference. |
|
Monday, May 27: |
•No Class: Memorial Day. |
|
Wednesday, May 29: |
•Conference. |
|
Friday, May 31: |
•Conference. |
|
FINAL PAPERS DUE
FRIDAY, May 31 in class. If you want
your paper back before next quarter, leave a SASE (with at least 2x32¢ stamps
on it) with it. |