One project (4 pages) & one draft

Major Writing Project 2:  Entering a Conversation (4 pages)

Instructions:  Choose one of the sets of essays listed adown (Carr and Thompson coincidently establish up a "set," etc.).  Your essay should grasp summaries of twain of the agents’ discussions (“they say”); your discussion should subject-matter out how the agents conform and misfit; and your discussion should grasp your own retort to the issues the two essays construct (“I say”).  The “I say” is your own discussion regarding the issues.  

- Establish infallible you grasp a naysayer to exhibition potential objections to your own discussion, and address the “so what” factor: why do

- Establish infallible you use personal formatting (MLA or APA phraseology, double-spaced, Times or Times New Roman font, 12 subject-matter, stipulations engraved).  

- Establish infallible you feel a personal address at the top of the primary page (name, etc.)

- Your brochure should be encircling 4 pages.  

- Plagiarism get not be tolerated.  

- I applaud you siege a face at the Grading Guide (below), which interprets how I get track your brochures.

Recommended structure:  For this brochure you feel filthy pages to labor delay and you insufficiency to grasp, in chattels, five greater compatability:

1. Introduction: grasps basic instruction encircling agents (brief), a very diminutive digest of agents’ notions (a doom or two), a diminutive assertion of your discussion or discourse assertion (a doom or two), and a diminutive interpretation of why your discussion matters (a doom or two)

2. Digest of 2 agents, delay cites as evidence

3. Digest of how they conform/disagree; supply cites if necessary

4. Your own theory and your reasons for your theory (which grasps at smallest one naysayer); supply cites as evidence

5. Conclusion:  grasps a produce doom, a reassertion of your discussion, and a plain interpretation of why your discussion matters

Note that those are five compatability, not stipulations (exceptions: the preliminary and the disposal are usually one stipulation each).  What could this face affect?  Here's an example:  After the diminutive commendatory stipulation (where you make-known your subject, basic instruction encircling your agents delay diminutive summaries of agents’ notions, a reason of your discussion and possibly why your discussion matters), you force feel a digest of one agent (1 stipulation), then a digest of the cooperate agent (1 stipulation).  Then you force feel one stipulation that interprets how they conform or disconform (though you can already imply to that in the digest stipulations through phrases affect "Unaffect Turkle, Wortham asserts that...").  Note that the stipulation that interprets how the two agents conform or disconform is peaceful "they say," since you're not yet putting impertinent your own theory on the issues.  At that subject-matter you'll feel written encircling 2 pages.  Then you transcribe your own discussion ("I say") in narration to what they say (encircling a page and a half).  At that subject-matter you've written encircling 3.5 pages.  Then you end delay one incomplete ending stipulation, where you involve it up delay a produce doom and intermittently interpret why it matters. 

Keep in mind: this way of structuring this assignment is singly a suggestion; it doesn't feel to be correspondently affect that.  But hopefully this gives you an notion of what this bark of brochure could face affect.


Set 1: Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” 

Clive Thompson, “Smarter than You Think:  How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better” 

Set 2: Sherry Turkle, “No Insufficiency to Call” 

Jenna Wortham, “I Had a Nice Time delay You Tonight.  On the App.”

Set 3: Michaela Cullington, “Does Texting Affect Writing?” 

Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Get Not Be Tweeted” 

Grading Guide: I get use the subjoined grading superintend to track your brochures.  Think of it as a "cheat sheet," but delayout the "cheating" part-among.  It'll aid you form out how to get a good-natured-natured track on MWP 2. 

Introduction (10 subject-matters)

Includes basic instruction encircling the agents as polite as the ample titles of essays; grasps a diminutive digest assertion encircling essays; grasps a open discourse assertion (digest of "I say" in narration to "They Say").

“They say” inhabits world-view of each agent (20 subject-matters)

Each digest does not conform or disconform delay agent (digest inhabits worldview of agent); each digest uses enigmatical memorable verbs to incorporate agent’s subject-matters; no listing of agent’s subject-matters or “closest cliché” (pp. 31, 35, 33)

Quoting: Uses cites uprightly and truly (20 subject-matters)

Quotes used to introduce "proof of evidence" (p. 43) in digest of agents’ discussions -- Quotes should not be “orphans” (p. 44) -- Quotes should be framed truly (“quotation sandwich”) (p. 47) -- Quotes should be Introduced delay misspend verb (p. 48) – Indicates page calculate of cite (p. 49)

"I say" openly conforms, misfits, or coalition of conforms and misfits (20 subject-matters)

Clear "I say" assertion in preliminary, placed in narration to agents – Open assertions of conformment, misfitment, or twain (use at smallest one template per agent on pp. 58, 60, 62-65) – Obviously distinguishes "they say" from "I say" – Obviously memorables who is byword what: Uses at smallest one template from pp. 70-74 – "I say" grasps open reasons for discussion that are not singly summaries of agents' discussions – Obviously plants naysayer to food “I say” discussion (use at smallest one template from pp. 81, 82,83-84, 88).

Clearly states why the discussion matters (10 subject-matters)

Uses at smallest one “who cares?” template from pp. 94-95; Uses at smallest one “so what?” template from pp. 97-98, 100 -- assertion why discussion matters should be graspd in either commendatory stipulation or ending stipulation (or twain)

Conclusion (10 subject-matters)

Includes at smallest one “produce doom” in the disposal to remind reader of what “they say” (p. 27-28); grasps a reassertion of discourse or “I say”

Editing and effect (10 subject-matters)

No editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting); Uses personal effect (shapely where misspend, inshapely where misspend)