WP3

WP3

Summary:

The scholarly paper I transformed is Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Futility of Using Generic Assessment Tools Across Diverse Instructional Contexts. In this article, the author attempted to argue that generic rubrics for writing and public speaking are unproductive and theoretically misguided and therefore they should be replaced with discipline-specific rubrics. Moreover, it demonstrates that the education purpose of the assessment to academic writings and oral communications cannot be properly accomplished without the consideration of the context. To convey this idea, I transform the original article into two pieces targeting on younger and older audience respectively: a meeting agenda for departmental faulty with respect to developing discipline-specific rubrics and an instructional article for students of design major about how to present their designs. The meeting agenda focuses on embodying the author’s support to the application of discipline-specific writing rubrics, while the instructional article is meant to reflect the complexity of pedagogy of public speaking, which is argued by author in the section “Design Critiques as a ‘Weird’ Oral Genre”.

             

             1.Click here for my older audience translation.

             2.Click here for my younger audience translation.

Self-analysis:

             For older audience. I wrote a meeting agenda. As Laura Bolin Carroll asserted in Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis, “[Authors should] make all sorts of choices based on their audience.” (49) Considering the audience of this meeting agenda is the faculty in a college, the tone of my agenda should be formal. Therefore, I avoided any use of slangs or informal words in my agenda. Also, since the exigence of a meeting agenda is to inform the faculty of the approaching meeting, each message should be presented in a clear and direct way. To reflect this rhetorical situation, I also arranged my agenda in an organized format—categorizing each message and listing them in order of priority. At the very beginning, I decided to highlight the most essential information—when and where the meeting will be held—so that the reader will not omit these information due to incaution. Then, I decided to mention the background information of my meeting right below: answering what group of people the WEC program targeting on and the goal of this specific WEC meeting. In another words, it was meant to address “So what” and “Who cares” questions (Graff, 96). Along with “preparation for meeting”, these information are supposed to be aware of by the faculty before the meeting, therefore they are listed before the agenda item.

In the real agenda (the part describing what will be done in the meeting), I numbered each activities and questions that will be held or discussed during the meeting for the sake of showing a clear and organized structure. The time allocated for each section or specific activity is explicitly stated at the end of each line. Such move was meant to inform the audience of the predetermined schedule for the meeting. Overall, these “moves” contributed to a clear-formatted agenda, aligning with McCloud’s idea of flow (157), which visually navigates readers through and between each important information they need for the upcoming meeting.

            Although due to the constraint of the genre I cannot directly echo the author’s argument, the objectives of each section and the activities of this imagined meeting is closely related to the author’s idea of applying discipline-based wiring rubrics. In meeting, faculty members are asked to bring, analyze three student writing samples from different departments, and afterwards contemplate through five questions with respect to how to develop a discipline-based writing rubric. I think these activities support the author’s idea that writing expectation for a same genre may vary among different fields as well as embody the educational value of a discipline-based assessment system which the author advocates for.

            The second transformation of my scholarly piece is geared for younger audience, especially students of design (or design-related) major. It is an instructional article teaching students how to present their designs. Different from a meeting agenda, the tone of an instructional article is usually very conversational. To illustrate this feature, throughout the article, I used both first- and second-person language so that the audience can feel as if the instructor (author) is talking to them. Just as Janet Boyd pointed out, “Choosing how to express your meaning is every bit as important as the message itself” (87). The use of conversational expressions, as a convention of instructional articles, makes the article relatable and understandable.  Also, as Losh and Alexander’s comics reflected, taking appropriate tone and voice can contribute to a successful writing identity, which will help the author effectively communicate with their intended community (114-126). The audience of an instructional article is students, and therefore writing as an instructor can further effective communications with them as well as enhance the credibility of author. In my piece, I imitated the tone and voice an instructor talks to his students by writing many sentences in imperative mood in order to establish author’s identity as an instructor/teacher.  In addition, for the same purpose, I mentioned the name of the author and his position (although they are faked) right below the title because I think a design professor is more qualified than anyone else to write this article.

Instructional articles tend to attract the audience at the beginning, introducing what the article will instruct. With regard to this convention, I wrote a straightforward title and addressed “Who cares” and “So What” questions in the introduction. In addition to an informative introduction, Instructional articles are also structured in an informative manner. In my article, the main body, as stated in the title, consists of five individual tips. Each tip is numbered and serves as a sub-title dividing the main body into five parts. This structure is very popular among those instructional articles we can read on internet or in magazines (which is also the specific type of instructional article I want to translate to), so structuring my article in the same way may increase the likeness of my piece to them. For educational purpose, I wrote one-sentence paragraphs. Such move can highlight important information as well as make the entire article seem more organized.  Besides, at the end of each tips, I wrote one sentence to sum up the gist of each tip. It is a convention of instructional articles because summaries are convenient for students to memorize.

            From my perspective, an instructional article is a suitable genre that can effectively bear the original information of this part of article. Also, by teaching people what they should be careful about during a presentation, such as concepts, credibility and arguments, it reflects the main idea of the author in the section, “Design Critiques as a ‘Weird’ Oral Genre”, that the pedagogy of public speaking is much more complicated than teaching students to achieve some simplified goals (such as to inform or to persuade). Moreover, as I wrote in the introduction of this article, “the benchmark for a good presentation varies among different fields”, it indirectly echoes the author’s main idea that the evaluation of oral communication should take context into account as well.

            As Losh and Alexander wrote, “Writing means always changing – changing to meet the needs of different audiences!” (144). The translation of genre is all about writing to appeal to your new audience. Therefore, the process of translating one genre to another is similar to re-carve a sculpture: the appearance is changed to meet your new audience’s expectations, whereas the material constitutes your sculpture is still the same.  In my opinion, the idea author wants to convey is the material he carves and re-shapes. What sculpture will it be (what genre he will write in)? It is all dependent on the audience.

Work Cited:

Anson, Chris M., Deanna Dannels, and Amy Gaffney. "Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Case Against Generalized Rubrics"" Broughton Hall 3217, Raleigh. 28 Apr. 2010. Lecture.

Boyd, Janet. "Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)." Writing Space: Readings on Writing. Vol. 2. Parlor Press, 2011. 87-100. Writing 2 Reader.

Carroll, Laura Bolin. "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps tpward Rhetorical Analysis." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Vol. 1. Parlor Press, 2010. 45-58. Document.

Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. ""So what?/ Who Cares?" ." They say/I say the Moves that  

Matter in Academic Writing. New York: Norton, 2010. 92-101.

Losh, Elizabeth M., and Johnathan Alexander. “Writing Identities.” Understanding Rhetoric: A

Graphic Guide to Writing. 114-139. Print.

McCloud, Scott. “Writing with Pictures.” Making Comics. New York: Harper, 2006. 8-55. Print.