PROJECT 2: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF FIELD ARTIFACTS
For faster services, inquiry about new assignments submission or follow ups on your assignments please text us/call us on +1 (251) 265-5102
PROJECT 2: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF FIELD ARTIFACTS
(Minimum of 1,500 typed, polished words)
This assignment asks you to apply the knowledge you gained from conducting the investigative essay into your chosen topic or issue by closely analyzing two artifacts from your field: 1) a text-based artifact (e.g., a scholarly article, book chapter, or professional publication) and 2) a non-text-based artifact (e.g., an image, video, or podcast). However, rather than analyzing only the texts’ explicit statements, you will be considering how any feature of the artifacts may function in a rhetorical manner. In other words, you will be looking at how each artifact constructs meaning by framing a multifaceted response to a particular rhetorical situation. By comparing and contrasting these two artifacts, your aim is to describe how each genre attempts to accomplish its respective purposes.
To begin, you will select two artifacts that address the issue you have identified in Project 1. The goal is to work with a single subject but two very different rhetorical approaches to that subject. Then, you will closely consider (read, examine, ponder) and analyze (identify features and explain their function) the artifacts. In order to perform a rhetorical analysis, you will need to have a strong grasp of the subject of the artifacts and a basic understanding of the genres. Only then can you turn your attention to analyzing the rhetorical strategies each employs, including genre conventions, context, author, audience, purpose, rhetorical appeals, exigence, medium, constraints, metaphorical language, active and passive voice, use of visuals, organization, structure, tone, and formality. Finally, you will write an essay that analyzes your two artifacts, paying particular attention to the rhetorical strategies each employs and, perhaps, the effectiveness of the texts. This is in large part a comparison/contrast essay built around rhetorical terminology and solid evidence to support your findings.
Documentation Style: Use the documentation style of your field, Times New Roman, 12 pt. font, double-spaced.
Due Dates:
- First Draft:
- [Second Draft:]
- Final Draft:
Evaluation Criteria for Project 2:
| Grade | Characteristics |
| A
|
The assignment is thoroughly fulfilled. The analysis presented is characterized by the close examination of rhetorical features, reasonable claims, and a sustained focus. The writer offers a new perspective and insight with regard to the essay’s topic. The essay may complicate the topic, experience, or issue at hand and may try to resolve the resulting complication, but the analysis of the artifacts considered centers on the significance of their rhetorical features. There are minor errors of usage and mechanics, but overall the essay demonstrates clarity of expression and precision of word choice. All drafts are submitted and reasonably complete. There is evidence of revision. |
| B | The assignment is fulfilled. The analysis centers on a few, but recognizable, rhetorical elements, providing relevant examples and a fairly sustained focus. There is an indication of insight, but the analysis is neither exceptional nor extensively developed. The content is relatively well organized, with a clear structure that is in keeping with the assignment. There are some errors of usage, mechanics and punctuation, but they do not impede the overall readability of the prose. All drafts are submitted and complete, and there is some evidence of revision, although more could be undertaken. |
| C | The assignment minimally fulfills expectations. The analysis is weak, focusing on one or two features of the texts examined and rendering their significance in vague terms. Considerable portions of the essay are devoted to common knowledge or commonplace observations. The content is poorly organized, with the essay exhibiting a lack of coherence across structural units. There are several errors of usage, mechanics and punctuation that impede the overall readability of the prose. All drafts are submitted and reasonably complete, but little revision is evident across drafts. |
| D & Below | The essay does not adequately fulfill the assignment. It offers no sustained analysis of rhetorical elements. The essay does not attain minimal requirements in terms of length, focus, and/or goals. The purported analysis, which appears to be a series of general comments, lacks coherence and insight into the effects of rhetorical elements. There are numerous errors of usage, mechanics and punctuation that impede the overall readability of the prose. Drafts may be missing and little to no revision across them is evident. |
GET ALL YOUR ACADEMIC HELP AT ESSAYLINK.NET