Draft Workshop April 19

My Power Point presentation on introductions.

1. Look at the goal your partner set for him or herself at the end of Tuesday's workshop. Did the author achieve this goal? Why or why not?

2. Examine the author's introduction. Which of the patterns from the presentation does it follow? Is it one of the good introductions or one of the bad introductions? Does the author start by telling me something I don't know?

3. Suggest one of the different generic forms that the author might have used to introduce his or her post. How would this choice have impacted the tone of the draft? Do you think the author chose the best style of introduction?

4. Does the author's introductory paragraph follow the inverted triangle pattern or the regular triangle pattern? How might s/he move more toward the regular triangle pattern (e.g. be more specific in his or her opening sentences)?

Draft Workshop April 17

1. When we introduced unit 3, we talked about the different types of arguments one can make about visual art (for a refresher, visit this page). Which type of argument does your partner make? Does this fulfill the demands of the assignment?

2. The assignment specifies that the draft's primary evidence must consist of a formal analysis of the work. Does the draft fulfill this demand of the assignment? Does the formal analysis adequately support the thesis statement? Why or why not?

3. Last week we also talked about addressing counter-arguments. Does the author address any counter-arguments? If so, what are they? Whether or not the author presents any counter-arguments, suggest at least one additional counter-argument or antithesis that the author could address in his or her next draft. If you need help generating these counters, please refer to my Power Point Presentation from last week.

4. Re-read the assignment closely one more time. Is there any other way in which the draft does not fulfill one of the assignment's demands? How can the author correct this on his or her next draft?

Discussion on addressing counterarguments

Link to power point presentation.

April 10 Draft Workshop

Workshop 1

Along with your draft, post a 1-paragraph summary of the issue you struggled with most as you were writing this essay. Write about why you think you encountered this problem and how you dealt with it. Please focus on a part of the drafting process rather than research or pre-writing.

After you read your partner's draft and his/her post, respond to the concerns presented by the author in his or her paragraph. Do you think s/he successfully resolved the issue? Did you struggle with similar issues, and if so how did you deal with them? Can you suggest any different approaches that might help the author avoid a similar problem with the next draft?

Workshop 2

1. The assignment asks you to use the artist's work as your primary source of evidence. Does the author's thesis statement make a claim that can be proven by formal analysis of the work, or does s/he need to rely primarily on other information such as historical context, biographical information, etc.?

2. According to the UNC Writing Center's handout on writing about art history, your formal analysis should have a neat, logical progression. The handout offers the following options:

• summarize the overall appearance, then describe the details of the object

• describe the composition and then move on to a description of the materials used (acrylic, watercolor, plaster)

• begin discussing one side of the work and then move across the object to the other side

• describe things in the order in which they draw your eye around the object, starting with the first thing you notice and moving to the next

Does the author follow one of these organizational schemes, or one like it? Describe how the author has organized his or her analysis and evaluate whether or not it is the best method for presenting this information.

3. Is the author's position convincing? Do you believe his or her argument? Do you believe the author's argument more than the author s/he is arguing against? If the author would like to convince more of his or her readers, which are should s/he concentrate on improving: establishing the author's credibility, improving the structure of the argument or making the ideas more palatable to the reader? Explain your answer.

Clarifiaction on Unit 3 Assignments

I've noticed a lot of confusion about the Unit 3 assignments, so I thought I'd take another stab at explaining what you're doing:

Feeder 3.1: Summarize a debate between two articles, at least one of which is a scholarly journal article.

Feeder 3.2: Argue against another author's thesis statement. It doesn't have to be a scholarly article and it doesn't have to be either of the articles you wrote about in 3.1. It doesn't even have to be about the same artist or artwork.

Unit 3 Project: Make an argument about a work from the Ackland Museum.

April 5 Draft Workshop

Draft Workshop

1. Paraphrase (don't just copy/paste) the thesis statements from the two art history articles. How are these arguments in dialog with one another? How do they approach their subject similarly? What are the differences in their approach? Does the author answer these questions adequately in the draft? Why or why not?

2. Of course the two authors being examined have a thesis statement, but does your workshop partner? A skillful compare/contrast essay always links the two items being compared in an interesting or surprising way, giving the reader a sense of why the author is comparing these two ideas in the first place. Does the current draft have a thesis statement? If so, does the thesis statement match the evidence in the rest of the essay? If not, suggest a way to link the two article summaries into an argument, preferably using the observations already put forth in the draft.

3. What kinds of evidence do the art history writers use to support their claims? Is this evidence compelling? Does your workshop partner critique or analyze this evidence? How could the author add a more analytical element to the post rather than just summarizing the articles?

4. What are the credentials of each of the authors examined? If there is a disparity (i.e. one is a professional, one is just a semi-anonymous blogger), then how does the author address this disparity?

In-class Activity (this is NOT part of the draft workshop)

Link to the essay

Rubrics for Unit 2

Feeder 2.1

A 5 post gives a clear, thoughtful summary of the information presented in Behavior Modification, providing any background research needed to understand the article's key concepts. In addition to summarizing the article, the author adds a new insight to the article, making it particularly meaningful for his or her target audience.

A 4 post summarizes the article well, but includes little or insufficient background information. The target audience might feel that the information presented is important, but the reasons are not made explicit in the post.

A 3 post provides a weak or flawed summary of the article. It seems as if the author doesn't really understand one or more of the article's key concepts, hence s/he has difficult making the material interesting or relevant to the target audience.

A 2 post fails to fulfill one of the key demands of the assignment. Perhaps the author chooses an article from the wrong journal or an article that is too old to be considered.

Feeder 2.2

A 5 podcast details a tight, coherent experiment that seems as if it will actually change the chosen behavior. The system of rewards and punishments is meaningful and appropriate the behavior, and the methods for data collection are outlined clearly. The author's hypothesis is clear and straightforward, and any potential weaknesses of the study are acknowledged. The podcast is also fun to listen to and well-recorded.

A 4 podcast details a tight, coherent experiment that seems as if it will actually change the chosen behavior. The system of rewards and punishments is meaningful, but perhaps slightly disconnected from the behavior. The author gives only a cursory account of how data will be collected. The podcast is well-recorded, but lacks some of the pizazz of a 5 podcast.

A 3 podcast sets up an experiment, but from the start it seems as if this experiment has some flaws. There are confounding variables that are clearly unaccounted for, and the listener is skeptical about whether the experiment will be a success. While the podcast is audible, little attention is paid to making it exciting or listenable.

A 2 podcast sets up an experiment with serious flaws. It is clear that the data collected will not adequately prove or disprove the author's hypothesis, which immediately dooms the experiment. The podcast is also inaudible, difficult to understand or contains some other major flaw in production.

Unit 2 Project

A 5 podcast summarizes the data collected in a concise, entertaining manner, providing novel insights into how to interpret this data. The hypothesis is re-evaluated strictly and reformulated in an original and interesting manner. The author also exhibits a keen awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the study as it was performed, and outlines how the weaknesses can be accounted for if the experiment were to be repeated. The podcast is also fun to listen to and well-recorded.

A 4 podcast provides an interesting interpretation of the data collected, but the summary of that data is too long and/or boring. The hypothesis is re-evaluated, but this re-evaluation is straightforward or unsurprising. The podcast is well-recorded, but lacks some of the pizazz of a 5 podcast.

A 3 podcast spends too much time summarizing the data rather than analyzing it. S/he makes an attempt to reformulate the hypothesis, but this reformulation lacks oomph because it is disconnected from his or her analysis of the data. While the podcast is audible, little attention is paid to making it exciting or listenable.

A 2 podcast consists almost entirely of summary of the data with little attempt at analysis. The author forgets to re-evaluate the hypothesis, or this re-evaluation is seriously flawed. The podcast is also inaudible, difficult to understand or contains some other major flaw in production.