For Thursday, Friday, and Saturday

posted Aug 21, 2013, 8:29 AM by jason palmeri

Thursday: Post your final syllabus and schedule to your google docs folder or to niihka forum (if google docs formatting doesn't work)
Friday: Attend convocation and facilitate your discussion group. Post a short reflection (at least 200 words) about what you did, what worked, what didn't.
Saturday: Post to your portfolio to your google docs folder (can be links if it exists partly on line). Including the multimodal exploration is optional (as long as you already posted it to niihka)

For Wednesday

posted Aug 20, 2013, 8:14 AM by jason palmeri

Write: Rough draft of the reflective cover letter for your portfolio (at least 400 words) to google docs; final reading response post (How will the design of your room influence how you construct interaction? Any problems?)

For Monday

posted Aug 16, 2013, 9:45 AM by jason palmeri   [ updated Aug 16, 2013, 12:25 PM ]

Read: TG, 130 - 137, CCM 125 - 132; Syllabus template
Write: zero draft of multimodal exploration to niihka forum (could be remediated reflective narrative or reading response OR could be a multimodal teaching material you might share with students...okay if it is very rough / unfinished); start working on syllabus including schedule (due Tuesday)

For Friday

posted Aug 15, 2013, 8:25 AM by jason palmeri   [ updated Aug 15, 2013, 7:18 PM ]

Write: RR Blog Post (What are your reactions to Takayoshi and Selfe and Adsanatham's approaches to multimodal pedagogy? How are you thinking about integrating multmiodal composing into 111 in inquiry 4 and other inquiries? Note: Feel free to use any form of media for your response if you wish)

For Thursday

posted Aug 14, 2013, 8:40 AM by jason palmeri   [ updated Aug 14, 2013, 9:09 AM ]

Read: McGonigal, Reality is Broken;CCM Online, Sample Digital Projects (especially Schwille, Proedhel, and Garrison); CCM print, 117-124; TG, 23, 116 - 129
Write: Inquiry 3 Scaffold Plan (just rough schedule and prompt) and RR Blog Post (What are your thoughts about Reality is Broken? How might the text inform your thinking about teaching, learning, and writing? How might you integrate it into 111? Note: You could also choose to write about plans for inquiry 4 if you prefer)

For Wednesday

posted Aug 13, 2013, 9:39 AM by jason palmeri   [ updated Aug 13, 2013, 9:40 AM ]

Read: Booth, "Listening Rhetoric," EA Ch 5, 7, 18, 19, and 20; library services handout 
Write: RR Blog post (Suggested prompt: How will you integrate rhetoric into your teaching of Inquiry 3?)

Note: the link has been fixed.

For Tuesday

posted Aug 12, 2013, 3:27 PM by jason palmeri

Read: RI, McClure, “Googlepedia”;  TG 100 - 115; CCM, 13-19, 58 -65, 97 - 116.
Write: Draft Inquiry Two Scaffold Plans and RR blog post (Suggested Prompt: What does it mean to teach research-based argument? What challenges do you think inquiry 3 presents and how might you design activities / assignments to address those?)

For Monday

posted Aug 9, 2013, 10:16 AM by jason palmeri   [ updated Aug 11, 2013, 2:52 PM ]

Write: Second Draft of Reflective Narrative (bring digital copy and we'll show you how to turn it in during class) and RR blog post (Suggested prompt: How will you engage diversity (e.g your own positonalities, your students' positionalities, difference and privilege in the world; how might your approach to diversity build upon, complicate, and/or extend those in the theoretical readings?)

For Friday

posted Aug 8, 2013, 8:39 AM by Jonathan Bradshaw   [ updated Aug 8, 2013, 8:44 AM ]

F 8/9: Teaching Rhetorical Analysis and Designing Assignments
Read: TG, 87 - 99, EA Ch 17; CCM, 40 -46, 83 - 96.
Write: Draft Inquiry One Scaffold Plan (to google in class)

Peer Response Instructions

posted Aug 8, 2013, 7:11 AM by jason palmeri

1) Upload your essay to the google docs folder for your peer response group.

2) Write a brief cover letter at the top of the essay: What questions do you have for readers? What are you still planning to revise or add to the essay?

3) Comment on your peer's essays in your google doc folder:

Your task for peer response is to make at least five substantive marginal comments as well as a summative end comment with the goal of helping the writer develop a plan for deep revision. You have only 15 minutes per paper so you'll need to move quickly. As you make substantive marginal comments, consider making moves such as:
1)    Point to a place in the essay that you find engaging to read and explain how the writer's use of “craft” has led you be engaged (e.g. dialogue, sensory detail, voice/style of language, narrative structure)
2)    Point to a place in the essay where you find yourself less engaged or perhaps confused as a reader and explain how the writer might revise to make that part of the narrative clearer and/or more engaging to read (you can suggest specific language if you wish, but do not rewrite the paper).
3)    Point to a moment in the essay where you believe the writer comes to a strong and complex reflective insight about writing and/or teaching (perhaps also noting how this insight reaffirms, complicates, or extends your own views.)
4)    Point to a moment in the narrative that seems lacking in reflection and then ask the writer some questions to get her thinking about how she might reflectively analyze that aspect of her experience.
In addition to inserting comments in the margin of the text, you should also write a summative end comment in which you specifically praise the strengths you see in this draft, summarize what you see as the key “rhetorical purpose” that the author is attempting to achieve, and then outline at least two key areas for substantive revision (such as adding, cutting, and rearranging text or altering the style/voice on a more global level). 

1-10 of 14