Home › Courses › RHE 309S: Critical Reading & Persuasive Writing

Course Policy Statement

In addition to the information provided in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing's Policy Statement (which I handed out on the first day of class), you will want to be sure you read and understand also the following information in our course Policy Statement.

Below you will find the following sections of our course policy statement:


Course Goals

Our chief goals in this course are to cultivate your abilities to analyze and construct arguments and to hone your writing and critical reading skills. To these ends, this course will introduce you to the discipline of rhetoric – the art and study of using language effectively in order to inspire reflection, understanding, and, perhaps, change. You will put these critical and creative skills into practice by engaging fully in the writing process (proposing, drafting, revising, editing, and critiquing papers); by studying and employing various rhetorical strategies as you analyze, evaluate, research, and construct arguments; and by participating in class discussions, writing and research workshops, and peer review sessions.

In this course you will practice how to:

  • analyze, evaluate, and construct arguments
  • read critically various kinds of texts, ranging from newspaper opinion editorials to scholarly articles to novels
  • produce a clear and effective style of writing – one that blends popular and academic styles – and adapt it to various rhetorical situations
  • revise, edit, and proofread your work carefully
  • conduct online research using library databases and catalogs and popular search engines
  • evaluate sources and incorporate them responsibly into your own arguments
  • document sources using MLA style format
  • engage thoughtfully and responsibly in public debates involving controversial (i.e., contested and debatable) social issues
  • summarize others' positions/arguments effectively, accurately, and charitably
  • advocate equally responsibly for your own position, addressing seriously others' objections/counterarguments while supporting your own claims with good reasons and various kinds of evidence and analysis


Course Units & Major Assignments

This course features three units and three corresponding major paper projects. In Unit 1 you will examine some of the ways in which authors – particularly those interested in public policy debates – structure their arguments, thus familiarizing yourself with some of the various rhetorical strategies available to writers. Here, you will pay close attention to the following aspects of any argument: the social and historical contexts in which authors write; the various audiences to whom they address their arguments; the assumptions and values that likely inform their positions; the kinds of evidence they use to support their claims; the lines of reasoning and prose styles they adopt; and the attitudes, values, and emotions they project to, and hope to elicit from, readers. This unit will culminate with the first major paper, an argument analysis paper, in which you will analyze thoroughly a single argument. This paper requires an ungraded first draft (1000-1250 words) and a revised final draft (Paper 1.1: 1000-1250 words; 15% of course grade); this project also features a peer-review workshop and a peer-review letter assignment.

You should imagine that the audience for Paper #1 is someone who has never read the selected argument under analysis. Your goals, then, are twofold: (1) describe enough of the argument so that the reader gains a clear sense of the scope and shape of the author’s argument, his background and investment in the issue, and his intended audience; and (2) analyze and evaluate some of the argument’s major rhetorical features so that the reader also gains a clear sense of some of the ways in which the author intends to persuade his intended audience and how effectively he likely meets his own goals. To these ends, you will pay close attention to how effectively the author structures and supports his argument and employs the various rhetorical strategies discussed in the course text and in class discussions. The goal is to present your own argument about how effectively the author constructs his argument and presents it to his original intended audience; the challenge, however, is to do so without summarizing too much of the original argument or interjecting your own personal responses to the author's position. In preparation for this paper, you will complete a handful of selected exercises related to Chapters 1-3 of the course text, They Say/I Say.

In Unit 2 you will conduct research into some social controversy, very likely surrounding a particular local or national event or incident (or case) -- some controversy the class will vote on after proposing a number of controversies we might address. And entering the conversation about the controversy, you will craft an argument that offers readers your unique assessment of some problem central to it (e.g., some tension or misunderstanding). At the start of the unit, you will propose a couple topics, making a case for each their relevance based on some preliminary online research and class discussion. You will also suggest (however tentatively) where you stand on this particular issue, in relation to other authors and based on your initial research. In effect, you will make a brief argument for the relevance of your topic for yourself and others. (Note: You need not take a rigid stance on this issue – now or ever – nor must you already have strong opinions or convictions concerning the issue.) After together assessing the relative merits of the various proposed controversies, the class will then vote on one of these controversies to serve as the topic for this unit and the subject of your second major paper. Then, you will conduct more focused research into this controversy using first the LexisNexis library database for newspaper and magazine articles and editorials. The goals of this stage of your research are twofold: (1) to locate and examine specific real-world cases related to the topic and (2) to record and assess the published controversy surrounding both these cases and the larger, more general controversy of which these cases may be representative. From this research you will generate material for a case narrative, the first part of your second major paper. This narrative will describe in vivid detail both a case related to the issue as well as some of the general controversy surrounding the case, identifying specific groups and individuals debating this issue and their competing claims and concerns.

After drafting your case narrative you will continue researching your topic, exploring further your own views on the issue and expanding your search by using additional databases and thus additional kinds of sources, including more scholarly ones (for example, articles from discipline-specific journals). By now you will have learned to examine critically others’ arguments in the following ways: summarizing an author’s position, assessing an argument’s context, analyzing its rhetorical features, and evaluating its merits from the perspectives of the author and his various intended audiences. You have also examined the context of a particular issue, attending closely to the particulars of cases and the complexity of some of the surrounding controversy. Now it’s time to stake out your own position on the issue, identifying from your perspective some central problem at the heart of the controversy (again, for example, some key tension or misunderstanding). And so now it’s time to start drafting your second major paper: a researched, problem-based argument. This paper requires a topic proposal, a case narrative (200-300 words; 5% of course grade), a first draft (Paper 2.1: 700-900 words; 10% of course grade), an in-class presentation of your first draft (5% of course grade), and a substantially revised final draft (Paper 2.2: 1500-2000 words; 25% of course grade).

In this researched argument, you will attempt to persuade your chosen audience to reflect seriously on the nature and significance of the particular problem on which you have focused their attention. You will want to convince readers that this problem does (or does not) in fact exist, that it is a significant (or insignificant) problem with certain serious consequences (or lack thereof), and that contributing to the problem are certain factors we might control (or might ought to ignore). And you will conclude your paper by suggesting some idea of how we might generally go about addressing, or solving, this problem (either by taking some particular actions and/or by not taking some other particular actions). In developing your argument, you will synthesize others’ arguments and incorporate them into an original position of your own. And in order to defend your position and to further persuade your readers, you will also likely incorporate into your argument other kinds of support (e.g., statistics, studies, first-hand experience, etc.). You will certainly need to address potential objections to your position by employing both concessions and rebuttals, taking seriously counterarguments while providing your readers a greater overview of the controversy and some of the competing positions that comprise it. In preparation for this paper, you will complete a number of exercises that relate to chapters 4-10 of the course text, They Say/I Say.

In Unit 3 we will continue to examine the ways in which authors attempt to shape public opinion, this time by reading and discussing the controversy surrounding a contemporary work of fiction, the story (and movie) "Brokeback Mountain" by Annie Proulx. (If we have time, we might discuss also a second work of fiction, the novel Rule of the Bone by Russell Banks.) We will pay close attention to the various arguments the story is making, or seems to be making (including perhaps arguments the author might not even intend or be aware of); the social and ethical issues it addresses and controversies it is engaged in (again, whether intended by the author or not); the rhetorical strategies its author uses; and the responses different readers have had to this story. This final unit will culminate with your third major paper: a reader response/proposal argument. Engaging in a recent Austin debate about whether the story "Brokeback Mountain" should be taught to high-school seniors at St. Andrew's Episcopal School, you will challenge specific critics and/or defenders of the story to an argument about its social value or lack thereof. Therefore, you will examine (1) what effect you think the story might have on readers, whether or not intended by the author; (2) how the story achieves its effects (through what rhetorical strategies); and (3) what argument you think the story (if not also the author) makes, and why. This paper requires only a final draft (Paper 3.1: 500-600 words; 5% of course grade).


Required Texts

  • They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein
  • Rule of the Bone, Russell Banks


Additional Requirements


Assignments & Grades

This course features three major units, each featuring a major paper project and a handful of daily assignments:

  • Unit 1: Argument Analysis Paper
    -- ungraded first draft (1000-1250 words)
    -- final draft (1250-1500 words; 15% of course grade)
  • Unit 2: Researched Problem-Based Argument
    -- case narrative (200-300 words; 5% of course grade)
    -- first draft [includes case narrative and survey of controversy, questions for inquiry, assessment of three arguments, and works cited] (600-900 words; 10% of course grade)
    -- revised and expanded final draft (1500-2000 words; 25% of course grade)
    -- in-class presentation (5% of course grade)
  • Unit 3: Reader Response/Proposal Argument
    -- final draft (500-600 words; 5% of course grade)
  • Daily Assignments
    -- ten total (200-300 words each; combined, 20% of course grade)
  • Class Participation
    -- participation in SPURS Program and in-class discussion (15% of course grade)

Paper one requires an ungraded first draft and a revised final draft; this assignment also features a peer-review workshop and a peer-review letter assignment. Paper two requires a topic proposal, substantial research, a graded first draft, and a substantially revised and expanded final draft. Paper three requires a final draft only. With all three papers, every submitted draft should be carefully proofread and edited for clarity and rhetorical effectiveness.

Another 20% of your course grade consists of a number of shorter writing assignments, including exercises from the course text, topic proposals, peer review letters, research reports, case narratives, and response essays. These assignments will generally run between 200-300 words in length. And each is graded on the following 5-point scale.

  • Does the response fully and effectively (3 points), adequately (2 points), or inadequately (1 point) address the prompt? Does the response feature thoughtful and well-developed observations and analysis? Does the response illustrate an effective (or only adequate or inadequate) understanding of course content?
  • Does the response feature carefully proofread and edited (that is, grammatically sound and effectively punctuated) complete sentences (2 points), or not (1 point)?

Please note that a number of these daily assignments should be considered required parts of the major paper projects: these include the Paper 1 peer-review letter and the Paper 2 topic proposal, research summaries, and case narrative. Without them, your final drafts of the corresponding major paper will be considered incomplete, and will be graded accordingly. Still, these assignments are all equally weighted. To figure your final grade for the daily assignments: add your combined score on the ten assignments (for up to a total of 50), multiply this number by two (2), and then divide this number by five (5). Here's the formula: [0-50] X 2 / 5. This way you can gauge how much of the final 20% of the course grade you have earned.

The final 15% of your course grade consists of your participation in the SPURS program and your contributions to in-class discussions. Your work in SPURS will include occasional e-mail correspondence with your partner and your peer review of his/her first draft of the synthesis essay he/she will submit for your feedback and commentary. As for in-class discussion: our class will thrive on it. So, it is imperative that everyone make an equal contribution to our larger conversation. Also, contributing to the conversation is the surest way of learning in this class -- since "learning" in this class often means trying out different ideas with, and perspectives of, others. That said, I'm much more interested in the quality over the quantity of your contributions. And in order to assess the quality of your contribution, you might consider how you would answer these three questions:

  • Do I participate regularly in discussion?
  • Do I avoid dominating discussion, for example, by listening closely to others and helping facilitate conversation?
  • Do I help advance the conversation by making observations, offering opinions, analyzing arguments, and responding thoughtfully to my peers?

Needless to say, we will encourage a class atmosphere in which everyone should feel comfortable contributing ideas. (And I should add here that these ideas ought to be clear to others, so let's privilege clarity over presumed complexity of thought. The complexity of thought will come with clarity. Indeed, what some might even consider "stating the obvious" is often exactly where we need to begin, since the so-called obvious is seldom obvious to everyone . . .) And even when there is disagreement, we will foster always respectful disagreement and listening. Indeed, influential rhetoric scholar Wayne Booth has argued that listening -- or what he calls "listening rhetoric" -- is the most socially valuable form of rhetoric available to us, since it ensures that we have actively tried to understand someone (for example, by empathizing with her, that is, by putting ourselves in her shoes) before responding with disagreement . . . or violence.

Letter grades translate as follows:

  • A+ = 99, A = 95, A- = 91
  • B+ = 89, B = 85, B- = 81
  • C+ = 79, C = 75, C- = 71
  • D+ = 69, D = 65, D- = 61
  • F ≤ 60


SPURS Program

Our section of RHE 309S will work in collaboration with the University’s high-school outreach program SPURS (Students Partnering for Undergraduate Rhetoric Success) -- a partnership between the Department of Rhetoric and Writing (DRW) and Division of Diversity and Community Engagement. As expressed in its original mission statement, "SPURS is designed to . . . foster improved reading and writing skills [among high-school students hoping to enter college]. Another focus of the program is to connect students from underrepresented high schools to an academic community of collegiate readers and writers."

As participants in this program, we will work with Ms. Kathleen Evans’s class of AP English juniors at Houston’s Worthing High School. Each of you will have the opportunity to partner up with one of her students, with whom you will correspond via e-mail occasionally throughout the semester. You will even have the opportunity to meet your partner in person later in the semester, when the high-school students visit our class and the UT campus.

Early in the semester you will swap introductions with your partner, describing some of your college experiences and expectations. My hope is that you will (tacitly) encourage your partners to pursue their college educations by relieving them of any anxieties they may have about college life and by describing what they have to look forward to when they enter it. Later in the semester you will get the chance to assist your partners more directly and academically by peer-reviewing their first attempts at a full argument (or “synthesis essay,” as it is referred to in the AP exam for which they are preparing) – an essay similar to the researched, problem-based argument you will complete in Unit 2.

Some history about the program: In the last two years the SPURS program has grown a great deal. It started with only two partnering high schools: Austin’s Reagan H.S. and Central H.S. in Beaumont. Due to the program's successes, five more schools joined last year, then five more this year (including our partnering school, Worthing High) -- for a total of twelve participating high schools in Texas. Because we are fortunate to be part of the program’s start-up process, I want each of you to feel comfortable sharing with me any ideas or concerns you might have to enhance not only our present partnership but future collaborations as well. At least three times during the semester (but perhaps only once when our class meets) I will be traveling to Houston to speak to Ms. Evans's class about college-level writing expectations and the synthesis essay assignment, which they are adding to their English curriculum in preparation for the AP exams. I will also keep up regular correspondence with Ms. Evans throughout the semester to gauge our respective progress and to ensure that e-mail correspondence between student partners is flowing effectively in both directions. Therefore, please share with me any feedback you have about the program, and I will make sure to share your ideas in turn with Ms. Evans and the good folks in the SPURS program (including Dr. Jim Warren, whom you will have met earlier in the semester).

Please visit the SPURS website to learn more about the program and to access the Discussion Forum through which you will communicate with your partners this semester.


Format of Papers

All major papers for this class should follow MLA documentation format guidelines. I will provide a few handouts on these guidelines, which we will go over together in class. Nevertheless, it is your responsibility to ensure that each of your papers meet these guidelines. Also, be sure you are familiar with the DRW’s Statement on Scholastic Responsibility, which features clear definitions and examples of plagiarism and collusion: http://www.drw.utexas.edu/fy_writing/plagiarism. This page also features guidelines for, and examples of, correct MLA format citations.

Be sure to include also a title for all your major papers – especially since the title often previews for readers some important aspect of your argument (for example, some hint about your position or some question you are exploring). And with all assignments, please include in the top left corner the following information:

  • [your name]
  • Professor Dobbins
  • RHE 309S
  • [assignment due date]
  • [assignment # or major paper #] (e.g., Assignment 5 or Paper 2.2)


Format of E-Mails & Attachments

With the exception of some of your daily assignments, you will submit most all of your work to me via e-mail, at zdobbins@gmail.com. In turn, I will submit my feedback to you via e-mail; and with your approval, I may also submit grades to each of you electronically. Please do not submit hard copies of major papers unless requested. (Note: When e-mailing me, please always include RHE 309S [your name] at the start of every subject line. I will always open my subject line with RHE 309S, too.)

Please save all documents in MS Word (.doc) format. And note that some newer versions of Microsoft Word may default by saving to a different format -- for example, (.docx) -- so you may need to specify the above format instead. For example, to avoid the (.docx) format, you might need to select Save As, then select the (.doc) format from the drop-down menu. Because I can access only the (.doc) format, be careful to make sure any document you submit features this format. Finally, if you do not own Word, you may purchase a student copy (for a discount, I believe) at the Campus Computer Store in FAC; you may also use any number of computer labs on campus that do feature Word (including the lab in PAR 102 reserved for students in this course).

Before attaching and sending your Word document, please make sure you title the document as follows:

  • If it's a major paper draft:
    Last name First name paper# draft#
    (e.g., Dobbins Zachary paper 2.1)
  • If it's a homework assignment:
    Last name First name assignment#
    (e.g., Dobbins Zachary assignment 2)

And please include the following information in your message’s Subject line:

  • If it's a major paper draft:
    RHE 309S First name Last name paper# draft#
    (e.g., RHE 309S Zachary Dobbins paper 2.1)
  • If it's a homework assignment:
    RHE 309S First name Last name assignment#
    (e.g., RHE 309S Zachary Dobbins assignment 2)
  • If it's any other e-mail correspondence:
    RHE 309S First name Last name: subject
    (e.g., RHE 309S Zachary Dobbins: question about assignment 2)

And in general, I recommend that you do not discard any drafts, notes, e-mail messages, or research materials you produce, use, or receive during the semester until after you have received your final course grade.


Meetings & Appointments

During the semester I may schedule up to two required, one-on-one meetings with each of you to discuss your progress and work (including your plans for revisions and topic proposals for major papers). Each meeting should run between 10-15 minutes, and you will have the opportunity to pick a meeting time that fits your schedules. (If you need to reschedule a meeting, please always provide me at least 24-hours notice.)

In general, I encourage and welcome you to visit with me during office hours – or to schedule a possible appointment to meet outside of office hours – to discuss any course-related concerns (from brainstorming and drafting to research and revisions).