|
English 5390Writing for PublicationSpring 2006 |
The required texts for the course, which can be purchased at TTU Barnes & Noble (or elsewhere), are as follows:
· Williams, Joseph. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. ISBN: 032128831-9 (paperback)
· Thyer,Bruce. Successful Publishing in Scholarly Journals. housand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1994. ISBN: 0-8039-4837-9 (paperback)
· Huff, Anne Sigismund. Writing for Scholarly Publication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999. ISBN: 0-7619-1804-3 (cloth); 0-7619-1805-1 (paperback)
Attendance: Class attendance is required. Excessive unexplained absences will reduce your final course grade.
Assignments: You must complete all required assignments (listed below) to receive a passing grade in the course. Late papers are not accepted unless you make prior arrangements with me.
Plagiarism and Academic Honesty: Do not turn in someone else's work as your own. All work must be done by you. Failing to adhere to these guidelines constitutes plagiarism and/or academic dishonesty.
Failure to document sources and/or correctly integrate material into your written assignments is also considered plagiarism. Whenever you incorporate material from an outside source, whether electronic or print, you must document the source of this material and you must quote, paraphrase, or summarize the material correctly.
Any form of plagiarism or academic dishonesty will result in an automatic "0" for the assignment. At the instructor's discretion, it may also result in an "F" for the final course grade and punishment by the university.
Extenuating Circumstances: If at any time during the semester, personal crises prevent you from performing to the best of your abilities in the course, please notify me as early as possible. Before making exceptions to any of the policies stated in this syllabus, I have the right to request appropriate documentation. This might include letters from physicians, counselors, and/or academic advisors.
Disabilities: Students with documented disabilities can expect instructors to make appropriate accommodations. Please contact me early in the semester if this applies to you.
Your course grade will be based on 1000 points, based on the assignments indicated below.
Proposal for semester goals (50 points): In this brief document (2-3 pages, single spaced), you will outline your writing goals for the semester. Although I have indicated three dates in the syllabus when everyone is expected to submit pieces of writing, I have not indicated what you will submit. This is because I expect that everyone is at different stages in the research and writing process. In this proposal, then, you will specify what exactly you plan to submit on each submission deadline.
The minimum requirement is that on at least one of the submission deadlines, you will submit a complete draft of a research article that could be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal in your field. Also, at least one of your three submissions must be written (or substantially revised from an earlier draft) during the course of this semester. If you have any uncertainties about meeting these minimum requirements with the project you plan to work on this semester, you should meet with me as soon as possible to discuss this.
There are several different ways you may approach your semester plan. Here are a couple of suggestions. These are only suggestions—other approaches would be acceptable.
1. Let’s say you are at the beginning of a writing project, and the research is complete or nearly complete. In this case, you could submit three different drafts of the article, each revised according to feedback from various readers (at least one of which should be someone in your field). The final draft, submitted for the third submission deadline, would be ready to submit to a journal in your field.
2. Let’s say you have a course paper, written in a previous semester, and a paper you’ve presented at a conference, and you’d like to revise both of these for publication. The course paper requires some revisions to be ready for submission to a journal; a professor in your field has given you feedback to guide these revisions, and you feel that these won’t be too hard to complete. The conference paper requires substantial revision and additional research before it is ready, and you are less certain about these revisions because the only feedback you’ve received on the paper was oral feedback at the conference presentation. In this case, you could revise the course paper for the first submission deadline and submit two different drafts of the conference paper for the second and third deadlines.
Your proposal should be as detailed as possible. You should indicate the approximate length of the drafts you will submit for each deadline and the journal(s) to which you eventually plan to submit article(s). When you propose to do revisions, you should specify as carefully as possible the revisions you plan to undertake. You should also identify people who will give you feedback during the revision process.
If you wish to make changes to your work plan during the semester, you must submit a revised proposal and get instructor approval of these changes.
Journal analysis (150 points):
For this assignment, you will compare and contrast three different peer-reviewed journals in your field. The analysis should be based on close review of at least five different issues of each journal, published within the last five years. At least one of the journals you choose to analyze should be a journal to which you would be likely to submit an article.
Your analysis will be written as a course paper, and it should be 5-7 pages double spaced. You may use the following questions to guide your analysis, but these should be taken as a starting place, not a “recipe.” In other words, you may not find all of these questions useful, and you may think of other questions that I haven’t listed here. In addition to consulting electronic or paper copies of the journals, you may also want to consult other people in your field to find out what they know about the journals you’re analyzing.
· Who is the audience for each journal and how do the journals differ in this regard?
· What are some of the scholarly conversations being carried out in each journal?
· What are the formatting requirements for articles in each journal? How do these differ and why do you think they differ?
· How would you characterize the writing style typical of articles in each journal?
· What is the historical background of each journal? (When and where was it established, and how has it changed since its inception?)
· Do you know any of the authors who have recently published in any of these journals?
3 Writing Submissions (200 points each):
See the above explanation of the proposal for minimum submission requirements. I will read each submission and offer feedback, and I will assign a grade based on how effectively you accomplish the goals specified in your proposal. In addition to the feedback I offer, you should also plan to solicit feedback from someone other than me. This is especially important if you are from a field other than technical communication/rhetoric.
Please submit your submissions electronically, as MS Word file attachments in WebBoard,as well as a copy to my e-mail address. Along with each submission, please submit a brief memo that introduces the submission to me and explains how it fulfills the goals you stated in your proposal. If the submission reflects revisions from an earlier draft, please explain how you’ve approached these revisions and indicate from whom you’ve solicited feedback.
Final Presentation (100 points):
For the final presentation, you will deliver a summary of what you’ve learned about the distinctive features of writing in your field. You should use visuals and make this a formal presentation that you could deliver to an audience of peers in your discipline. You might also want to bring some examples to demonstrate important features and points, and/or you might want to engage the audience in activities. Your presentation should be between 20 and 30 minutes long.
Participation (100 points): 100 points of your final grade will be assigned at the end, as participation points. This is a qualitative grade based on my perception of the quality and quantity of your participation in class discussion and activities. To earn all 100 points, you should attend all class sessions, complete all reading assignments on time, come to class ready to discuss the readings, bring the required items on the dates specified in the syllabus (drafts, example articles, etc.), and actively engage in in-class workshop activities.
Your final grade will be determined according to the following scale:
A |
940-1000 points |
A- |
900-939 points |
B+ |
870-899 points |
B |
830-869 points |
B- |
800-829 points |
C+ |
770-799 points |
|
C |
730-769 points |
C- |
700-729 points |
D |
600-699 points |
F |
0-599 points |
| 90-99: | The document is
superior. It exceeds all the objectives of the assignment. The
information is ethical, sophisticated, thorough, and ideally suited
for the audience. The style is clear and appropriate to the subject,
purpose, and audience. The organization and design of the document
make the information understandable, accessible, and usable. The
mechanics and grammar are correct. |
|
| 80-89: | The document is
good. It meets the objectives of the assignment, but requires minor
improvements or reveals easily correctable errors in organization,
style, design, grammar, or mechanics. |
|
| 70-79: | The document is
adequate. It omits useful information or requires significant
improvement in organization, style, design, grammar, or mechanics.
It may be formally correct but superficial in its discussion.
|
|
| 60-69: | The document is
disappointing. It meets some of the objectives of the assignment but
ignores others; the discussion is inadequately developed, omits
important information, or displays numerous or major errors in
organization, style, design, grammar, or mechanics. |
|
| 50-59: | The document is
unsatisfactory. It omits critical information, does something other
than the assignment required, or displays major or excessive errors
in organization, style, design, grammar, or mechanics. |
Date |
Assignments: |
Class objectives and activities: |
| Jan 11 | q Introduce class, instructor, and classmates | |
|
Jan 18 |
q Read Huff Ch. 1 (“Writing as Conversation”); Williams, first three Lessons. |
q Discuss readings q Introduce proposal and journal analysis assignments |
|
Jan 25 |
q Turn in preliminary proposal q Read Huff Ch. 2 (“Managing Scholarship”) and Appendix A (“A Contrarian Conversation”) q Bring a completed or in-progress writing project for discussion (post to WebBoard discussion board, as an attachment, if possible) |
q Discuss readings q Workshop: chart the “accordion path” of your writing projects |
|
Feb 1 |
q Read Huff Ch. 3 (“Choosing a Topic”); Becker Ch. 1 (“Freshman English for Graduate Students”) |
q Discuss readings q Workshop: choosing topics |
|
Feb 8 |
q Turn in final draft of proposal, revised according to my comments on first draft q Read Huff Ch. 4 (“Identifying Conversants”) |
q Discuss readings q Present proposals (informal, non-graded presentations) q Workshop: identifying conversants |
|
Feb 15 |
q Read Huff Ch. 5 (“Using Exemplars”) q Bring examples of effective (or not so effective) articles in your field |
q Discuss readings q Workshop: using exemplars q Guest Speaker: Dr. Kirk St. Amant |
|
Feb 22 |
q Turn in journal analysis assignment q Read Huff Ch. 6-7 (abstract, title, outline); Read Becker Ch 3 ("One Right Way")
|
q Discuss readings q Present results of journal analysis assignment (informal, non-graded presentations) q Workshop: writing an abstract, title, and outline |
|
Mar 1 |
q Read Huff Ch. 8 (“Introduction and Conclusion”); Berkenkotter & Huckin |
q Discuss readings q Workshop: analyzing the introduction and conclusion of an effective article |
|
Mar 8 |
q Turn in first writing submission |
q Present submissions (informal, non-graded presentations) |
|
Mar 15 |
Spring break |
Spring break |
|
Mar 22 |
q Read Huff Ch. 10 “Body of the Paper/First Full Draft”) q Bring HARD COPY of an early draft of one of your writing projects (post as attachment to WebBoard discussion board as well) q Bring a “conversant work” (a work that forms part of the scholarly conversation to which you plan to contribute) |
q Discuss readings q Workshop: writing early drafts |
|
Mar 29 |
q Read Huff Ch. 11 (“Revision, Submission, Revision, and Publication”) q Bring early draft and conversant work from previous class meeting |
q Discuss readings q Workshop: revising/editing |
|
April 5 |
q Turn in second writing submission |
q Present submissions (informal, non-graded presentations) |
|
April 12 |
q Some links about literature reviews: http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/EL21LIT.HTM http://library.ucsc.edu/ref/howto/literaturereview.html http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/literature_review.html
|
q Guest Speaker: Dr. Ken Baake |
|
April 19
|
q Read Thyer, Ch. 1-4 |
q Discuss readings—possible guest speaker |
| April 26 |
q Read Thyer, Ch. 5-7 |
q Give formal presentation summarizing distinctive features of academic writing in your field (graded, formal presentations) |
|
Finals week |
q Turn in final writing submission, deadline to be announced |
|