ACS 700 – Critical Writing and Thinking: Explorations

Semester and Year: 1920 A

July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 Instructor name: Anu M. Mitra, Ph.D.

Contact information: (513) 658.4706; anu.mitra@myunion.edu

Adobe Connect: tui.adobeconnect.com/mitra

Call in #: 866-951-1151

Conference ID #: 7530724

Seminar Description

This writing-intensive seminar provides an introduction to approaches to doctoral-level thinking

and writing and across disciplines. Through readings, discussions, and writing a personal

scholarly narrative and an analysis paper, students will explore processes of invention, crafting,

and analyzing arguments for varied audiences.

Integration of Program Theme(s)

Following Kenneth Burke’s notion of scholarship as a conversation or language as symbolic

action, this seminar understands writing and analysis as tools to create, discern, support and

resist ideologies and power relations involved in human discourse.

Individualized Learning

In addition to selected readings that serve as basis for seminar discussions, texts for the two

papers are chosen by the students based on their individual research interests. Students will

apply writing and analytical techniques addressed in the course to texts and topics specific to

individual areas of research.

Learning Outcomes & Competencies

As the first seminar within the program's academic skills sequence, ACS 700 addresses: University Outcome I. Communication: Express and interpret ideas clearly, using a variety of

written, oral, and/or visual forms.

PhD Program Outcome iv: Offer creative interpretations of data, texts, artifacts, and

performances that bridge personal insights and scholarly debates.

Seminar Competencies: This seminar will hone student’s ability to:

Attend to nuances of argument and inference through the careful analysis of texts

Critically assess the relative merits of claims through self-reflective examinations of political, ideological, and/or cultural assumptions that underlie judgments

Put forth clear thesis statements that are supported with evidence

Utilize and correctly document data/evidence in support of claims

Demonstrate ability to conceptualize, draft, and revise coherent argument in a) personal scholarly narrative and b) analysis of scholarly text

Provide constructive and meaningful feedback to peers

Readings & Resources

You should obtain the three following texts for the class:

Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day by Joan Bolker (Holt, 1998). NOTE: Please read this text prior to the Residency.

They Say, I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, 3rd edition by Gerald

Graff and Cathy Birkenstein (W.W. Norton, 2014).

The Truth About Stories by Thomas King (U of MN, 2003).

Although we will not be reading this text together this semester, I recommend:

A Writer’s Reference, 7th edition by Diana Hacker and Nancy Sommers (Bedford/St. Martin’s 2011).

This text is used by our Writing Center and provides useful information about academic writing,

grammar usage, and abbreviated guidelines for MLA, APA, and Chicago citation styles. It is also

a helpful refresher for those of you who have been away from academic writing.

Citation Styles: For in-text citations, footnotes, and bibliographic entries, students should follow

the style manual of their major field of concentration. Students working in the fields of language

and literature follow the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide; those working in the

arts, history, theology, and philosophy use the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS); and those

working primarily in the social sciences (anthropology, economics, education, psychology,

political sciences, sociology, etc.) should follow the American Psychological Association (APA)

style sheet. You may choose to obtain the style manuals for your field now as you begin your

doctoral program:

American Psychological Association. 6th ed. (2010). The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) Washington, DC: APA

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. 8th ed. (2016) New York: MLA.

The Chicago Manual of Style. 16th ed. (2010). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Guidelines for citations as well as electronic tools to keep track of your sources (like Zotero) are

also available in UI&U’s Library Help pages: http://library.myunion.edu/help-center/

All of the remaining seminar readings/materials are provided online in our Campus Web

seminar site:

Adichie, Chimamanda. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TED GlobalTalk. July 2009.

http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

Charon, Rita. “Honoring the stories of illness.” You Tube. November 2011

www.youtube.com/watch?v=24kHX2HtU3o

Gardner, H. “Margaret Mead: An Observer of Diverse Cultures Educates Her Own”.

Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. NY: Basic Books 2011.

hooks, bell. Excerpts from remembered rapture: the writer at work. NY: Henry Holt &

Co., 1999.

King, Stephen. “Toolbox.” On Writing. NY: Scribner, 2000. 111-137.

McCarthy, Timothy Patrick. “Why I Write.” Why We Write: The Politics and Practice of

Writing for Social Change. Ed. Jim Downs. NY: Routledge, 2006. 27-38.

Mehl-Madrona, Lewis. “There’s Nothing But Story”. Healing the Mind through the Power

of Story. Vermont: Bear & Company, 2010. 1-15.

Nash, Robert J. “What is Scholarly Personal Narrative Writing?” in Liberating Scholarly

Writing. NY: Teachers College Press, 2004. 23-51.

Parmasad, Sasha Kamini, “To Keep My Body Clean, To Breathe, To Give My Mind Rest,”

Why We Write: The Politics and Practice of Writing for Social Change. Ed. Jim Downs.

NY: Routledge, 2006. 125-138.

Pinker, Steven. excerpt from The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing

in the 21st Century (NY: Viking, 2014) in The Chronicle of Higher Education, September

26, 2014.

Villenas, Sofia. “Latina Mothers and Small-Town Racisms: Creating Narratives of Dignity

and Moral Education in North Carolina.” Anthropology & Education 32.1 (2001): 3-28.

Wiesel, Elie. “Without Conscience”. New England Journal of Medicine. April 2005.

352.15

SEMINAR PROCESS

After the Cincinnati Residency, you will:

read a variety of texts,

participate in online discussions as a Discussion Leader in at least one Session and as a

Participant in all Sessions,

draft two formal papers,

provide feedback to peer students on their drafts,

develop your own Revision Plans for the two papers,

submit a Final Portfolio that includes a contextualizing cover letter and revised final drafts

of the two papers.

1. Discussion Posts and Discussion Leaders

Readings will be discussed online in our Campus Web seminar site according to the

Seminar Schedule outlined below. These discussions will attempt to mirror the type of

seminar discussions you find in a traditional residential graduate program, meaning that

they will help you explain, explicate, discuss, and question the week’s reading(s), engage

with each other to push more fully beneath the surface of a text, and reconsider ideas.

Discussions are a time to expand upon and answer points raised by the Discussion Leader,

experiment and play with ideas in a text, pursue an idea in greater depth, and raise

questions and criticism; in short, they are intentional opportunities to have a discussion

in an online environment. Your discussion posts are an opportunity to develop your

critical thinking and writing skills.

I am interested in a substantial and in-depth dialogue-- in witnessing you engage with

each text, with other students, and with the Discussion Leader. I am not so much

interested in a particular word count for your initial discussion posts, but rather, the

extent in which you engage with the material and Cohort members’ ideas, and write

effectively. This seminar is writing-intensive; so use our Discussions to hone/advance/play

with your own writing and the ideas of your Cohort members. Plan to make your initial

Discussion Participant post early in the discussion week so to have time during the week

for rich discussion.

Over the course of the semester, you’ll write 11 discussion posts, as well as serve as

Discussion Leader for at least one reading.

Discussion Leaders will introduce a reading, provide a brief summary of the reading’s key

issues, define important terms, and include a question to spark further discussion.

Discussion Leaders will post their introduction to the material on or by the date stated

on the syllabi (DLP or Discussion Leader Post. Please remember that you will choose the

reading that you’ll serve as Discussion Leader for at the Residency). Discussion Leaders

should also provide a wrap-up at the end of their week’s discussion that ties together

some of the themes, writing, and questions that developed during the discussion.

Netiquette: Communication courtesies are assumed--no monopolizing the conversation;

please engage with what others say in a spirit of exchange and empathy rather than

debate; please respect others’ perspectives and experiences; demonstrate an interest in

spirited dialogue and a willingness to listen and learn from each other; show an ability to

speak honestly and openly without unnecessary disclosure or deliberate deceit; and,

finally, exemplify the ability to keep quiet when you need to and to honor the silence and

privacy of others when necessary.

.

2. Paper #1: Scholarly Personal Narrative

In the first formal paper of our semester, you will draft a Scholarly Personal Narrative that

allows you to play with Nash’s ideas about this form while focusing on an issue or idea

that is important to you. Use Parmasad’s work as a guide in discussing a larger scholarly

issue through the lens of your personal experience.

Your final Scholarly Personal Narrative should be 8-10 (double-spaced) pages in length and

include at least two supplemental scholarly texts that engage the claims you make in your

narrative. You are required to explore the UI&U library for these supplementary resources.

Please identify the databases you found most helpful to you on the final reference page of your

SPN. The first draft is due by August 26. The revised, final draft will be included in your Final

Portfolio, which is due by November 18.

An exemplary Scholarly Personal Narrative will:

create a conversation between your personal narrative and a larger scholarly issue

or concern,

have a coherent narrative structure,

engage with the chosen supplemental texts through specific discussion of

particular passages or quotes,

attend to grammar, spelling, appropriate punctuation, and appropriate citation.

3. Paper #2: Analysis Paper

In the spirit of interdisciplinary study, you will write an Analysis Paper that closely

examines a text of your choosing. You should begin your analysis with a brief summary of

the text you’ve chosen (and assume that your reader hasn’t read your text), but move

quickly to an analysis and interpretation of the work. Think about how the text works and

why—why the author makes the choices he/she makes, how the arguments of the text

unfold, including perhaps subtle strategies that may not have been consciously intended

by the author. The focus of your writing should be uncovering and examining the choices

the author of your chosen text made to effectively present their argument to the intended

audience. The writing or text should be the touchstone that grounds your analysis and

discussion, but you may also refer to the context of the source in your analysis. Return to

Graff and Birkenstein for guidance on how to analyze and discuss another’s text.

The Analysis Paper is an opportunity to choose a text that is relevant to your eventual

dissertation work, allowing you to spend time with a careful and close examination of the

text’s inner workings. Your final Analysis Paper should be 8-10 pages in length, include

specific evidence from the text to support your analysis, and make a clear and well-

supported claim about the text you’ve chosen. The draft of your Analysis Paper is due by

October 20. The revised, final draft will be included in your Final Portfolio, which is due

by November 18.

An exemplary Analysis Paper will:

possess a clear overall thesis that is supported throughout the paper,

offer an analysis of the chosen text’s rhetorical strategies, explaining each strategy’s impact on an intended audience,

engage with the chosen texts through specific discussion of particular passages,

attend to grammar, spelling, appropriate punctuation, and appropriate citation.

4. Peer Review Process/ Writing Center Appointment The process of drafting and revising towards a finished product is aided by receiving

feedback on your work. Over the course of our seminar, you will receive feedback from a

Cohort member on your Scholarly Personal Narrative draft. You will provide feedback on

peer students’ drafts as well. The peer review process is an integral part of our seminar.

Also, to introduce you to the resources available in UI&U’s Writing Center, I ask that you

make an appointment for an individual session with a writing consultant to gain insight

about ways to improve your draft Analysis Paper. I will also provide feedback on both

papers.

5. Revision Plan After you have received feedback from me, from your peer review partner (on your

Scholarly Personal Narrative), and Writing Center staff (for your Analysis Paper) on your

formal drafts, you will develop a brief Revision Plan for each paper. This Revision Plan is

an opportunity to reflect upon the feedback process, and think ahead to how you will

engage the feedback you received to make your work stronger. Your Revision Plans do

not need to be lengthy, but I will want to see you thinking carefully about the best ways

to move your initial draft through the revision process. In your Revision Plan, I would like

you to answer two questions:

1. What did you learn from the feedback you received? 2. How do you plan to use the comments you received to revise and strengthen

your initial draft?

Please submit your Revision Plan by the date specified on the schedule below,

incorporating your feedback from me, your Peer Review partner, and the Writing Center

on your draft of each paper.

6. Final Portfolio and Contextualizing Cover Letter

The revised drafts of your Scholarly Personal Narrative and Analysis Paper will be

submitted in your Final Portfolio by November 18, 2019. You will use the feedback that

you received from me, your peers, and the Writing Center to re-experience your early

drafts, shape them in new directions, and strengthen them into the strongest papers you

can.

As you do this, you will also write a Contextualizing Cover Letter to introduce your

portfolio. This letter needn’t be lengthy, but it should include some careful self-reflection

on the work that you’ve done over the semester, how you see your growth as a writer,

and what you learned from your Cohort members and about yourself. Think about how

your revisions of your Scholarly Personal Narrative and Analysis Paper “speak” to the

readings and discussions we’ve had over the semester. Think about how your work

demonstrates a readiness to “enter” different discussions. How will you use some of the

work we’ve completed this semester as you move forward? What readings will you carry

with you and what will you leave behind? Basically, I look forward to revelations indicating

that you’ve taken the time to reflect upon your work, your reading, and progress, and

have begun to place your ideas within the larger context of our seminar, your goals at

UI&U, and your emerging work as a scholar.

ACS 700 Class Schedule

July 5-12, 2019: RESIDENCY in Cincinnati, OH

Plan to attend Library Orientation during Residency: TBA

ACS 700 Session 1: July 6 from 10.45 a.m. -- 12.45 p.m.

Be sure to have read Joan Bolker’s Writing Your Dissertation prior to the

Residency.

ACS 700 Session 2: July 7 from 10.45 a.m.--12.45 p.m.

ACS 700 Session 3: July 8 from 10.45 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.

Post-Residency Break, July 13-20: No assignments due the week after Residency but it is expected that students will remain actively engaged in course readings as required by the instructor.

Session 4, July 21--28--Getting Started: Critical reading & rhetorical listening, library research

tutorial, academic integrity and citation; discussion of Bolker, Chapters 1-10.

Please post by July 28; no Discussion Leader for this session.

Session 5, July 29- August 4--Voice: Read Nash & Parmasad

Forum Dialogue on Nash and Parmasad

o Discussion Leader Posts (DLP) August 2

o YOU (the student who is not the Discussion Leader) post by August 4

o Adobe Connect Session on SPN, August 3 from 3-5 p.m. Eastern

o Begin work on your Scholarly Personal Narrative.

Session 6, August 5-15--Craft: Read King; Pinker; Scheper, Toor

Forum Dialogue on King; Pinker; Scheper, Toor

o DLP August 11

o YOU post by August 15

Session 7, August 16-26--Scholarship as Conversation: Read Graff & Birkenstein

Forum dialogue on Graff and Birkenstein

o DLP August 23

o YOU post by August 26

o Draft Scholarly Personal Narrative due August 26—please submit this to your peer as

an email attachment and to Dr. Mitra by uploading on Campus Web

Session 8, August 27-September 8--Many Voices: Read Villenas, view Adichie

Forum dialogue on Villenas and Adichie

o DLP September 6

o YOU post by September 8

o Peer Review of draft Scholarly Personal Narrative and Dr. Mitra’s

feedback due to the student by September 8

Mid-Semester Break: No written assignments (papers or discussion posts) due September 9 - 15, but it is expected that students will remain actively engaged in course readings as required by the instructor.

Virtual Mid-Semester Residency (MSR):

September 16, Monday, 7-9 p.m. Eastern: ACS 700 will meet via Adobe Connect where

students will present a 5 minute power point on their intended topic for the Analysis

Paper. Please present a statement of purpose; rationale; and how this topic segues

into your research interest(s).

Workshops, Friday, September 20 @ 7 – 9 p.m. (eastern)

Social Justice Presentation, Saturday, September 21 @ 11a.m. – 1 p.m. (eastern)

Concentration meetings, Saturday, September 21 @ 1:15 - 2:15 p.m. (eastern)

Workshops, Sunday, September 22 @ 3 – 5 p.m. (eastern)

Session 9, September 23-October 6--Writing for Justice: Read McCarthy & Weisel

Forum Dialogue on McCarthy and Weisel

o DLP October 3

o YOU post by October 6

o Revision Plan for Scholarly Personal Narrative due to Dr. Mitra October

6 based on the feedback of your peer and Dr. M

Session 10, October 7-14--Analyzing Texts: Introduction to Analysis Paper – read page in

course site, begin work on Analysis Paper

Forum dialogue on Selzer and Facione

o DLP October 11

o YOU by post October 14

o Adobe Connect Session on Analysis Paper, October 14, 7-9 p.m. Eastern

o Set up appointment with Writing Center consultants for Analysis Paper

Review well in advance

Session 11, October 15-28--Absent Narratives: Read Thomas King

Forum dialogue on Thomas King

o DLP October 25

o YOU post by October 28

o Draft Analysis Paper due October 28 to the Writing Center and to Dr. Mitra (indicate

the citation style that you are using on page 1 as a foot-note, please!)

Session 12, October 29-November 4--Where the Story Starts: Read Gardner

Forum dialogue on Gardner

o DLP November 1

o YOU post by November 4

o Optional Adobe Connect Session, November 6, from 7-9 p.m. Eastern

o Analysis Paper returned to student November 6

o Revision Plan due to Dr. M based on the feedback of the Writing Center and Dr. M by

November 9

Session 13, November 5-11--Embodied Stories: Read Mehl-Madrona & view Charon

Forum dialogue on Mehl-Madrona and Charon

o DLP November 9

o YOU post by November 11

Session 14, November 12-18--Impassioned Writing: Read hooks

Forum dialogue on hooks

o DLP November 16

o YOU post by November 18

November 18: Final Portfolio due (Contextualizing cover letter and revised Scholarly

Personal Narrative and Analysis Papers)

Please note: late work will NOT be accepted unless approved in advance by the instructor.

Evaluation:

Forum Discussions 33 points total (11 discussion sessions x 3 points each)

Discussion Leader Post/Facilitation 10 points

First Draft of SPN 10 points

Final Revised SPN 10 points

First Draft of Analysis Paper 10 points

Final Revised Analysis Paper 10 points

Contextualizing Cover Letter 10 points

Adobe Connect Sessions 7 points (3.5 per session)

Final grades will follow the grading policy described in the Student Handbook and be

determined in a manner outlined by the individual instructor.

Final Deadline for all work November 18, 2019 – Final deadline for students to submit all outstanding work December 15, 2019 – Final deadline for faculty submission of online grades The Writing Center Union Institute & University’s Writing Center offers self-help resources and free one-on-one tutoring sessions over the phone for all students. Tutoring sessions are available mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends. Self-help resources are located at http://www.myunion.edu/writing-center. Appointments for tutoring by telephone can be scheduled through the writing center’s CampusWeb group or by contacting the center (phone: 513-487-1156 or toll free: 1-800-861-6400 ext. 1156 or email: writing-center@myunion.edu). ADA Accommodations Union Institute & University is committed to providing equal access to its academic programs and resources for individuals with disabilities. Information on ADA policies and services is located on UI&U’s public website: http://myunion.edu/student-resources/disability-services.

Refer to the University Catalog for policies regarding Academic Integrity

(http://myunion.edu/academics/catalog/)

Grading Scale and Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP)

(Grading, SAP and Financial Aid Policies can be found in the University Catalog http://myunion.edu/academics/catalog/)

Students in the Cohort PhD Program must make satisfactory academic progress every term.

This means that students must earn at least a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or S. Students must also

successfully complete at least 67% of cumulative credits attempted. For example, if a student

has attempted 60 credit hours during enrollment, he/she must successfully complete 40 or

more of those hours. Student completion rates are reviewed at the end of each term of

attendance. Grades of U, W, I, V, NE and WIP adversely affect a student’s completion rate

because they are calculated as attempted but not completed. This can cause a student’s

completion rate to drop below 67%. This may result in the student not meeting the SAP

requirement facing possible academic and financial aid probation and/or dismissal from the

program. Grades of C or U adversely affect the student’s GPA and academic standing in the

program. A special review will be initiated if a student receives a C, U or two or more

incomplete (I) grades.

Grading Scale

Grade Criteria

A Academic work reflects impressively thorough and accurate knowledge of assigned material, including the complexities and nuances of major and minor theories, concepts, and intellectual frameworks; exceptional evidence of capability to compare, assess, and synthesize material; especially strong capability to logically critique extant theories and claims and to develop persuasive arguments based on original thinking. 4.0 Quality Points

A- Criteria for A work not fully met. 3.70 Quality Points

B+ Criteria for B work is more fully met. 3.30 Quality Points

B Academic work reflects accurate grasp of major concepts, theories, and prevailing knowledge; abundant evidence of capability to offer informed analysis of extant knowledge and ideas; clear capability to synthesize and apply key information from prevailing knowledge; appropriate critiques of extant theories and knowledge; considerable demonstration of capability to develop and logically present own judgments. 3.0 Quality Points

B- Criteria for B work is not fully met. 2.70 Quality Points

C+ Criteria for C work is more fully met.

2.30 Quality Points

C Academic work reflects adequate familiarity with key ideas and knowledge, although interpretations of key theories and concepts are occasionally incomplete and flawed; written and verbal accounts of information, theories, and concepts remain primarily at the level of description; critiques are present but not well developed with occasional interpretive errors. 2.0 Quality Points

S Academic work reflects satisfactory completion of all prescribed learning and is equivalent to B or better at the doctoral level on a standard letter grading scale. The S grade is used only for ACS 897, ECL/HMS/PPS 841, 850, 860, MLK 800, MLK 890 and RSCH 900 Dissertation. 0.00 Quality Points and does not calculate into the GPA

U Academic work reflects insufficient capability to comprehend and accurately present ideas and information; superficial and unpersuasive critiques; little evidence of capability for original thinking. Unsatisfactory performance is defined as any performance less than C at the doctoral level. A U grade should be given only on the basis of less than satisfactory work and should not be given because a student has not been present in a seminar (in such a case a V grade should be given). 0.0 Quality Points

W Withdrawal: Student initiated withdrawal from a seminar or the program.

Withdrawal from the program discontinues connection to university passwords

and accounts.

I Incomplete: Student completes at least 60% of work in a seminar but less than 100% of the required work in a seminar.

NE Never Engaged: An NE grade will be assigned during the first 21 days of each term for a student who neither attends nor engages in a registered seminar (including the residency sessions).

V Vanished: A V grade will be assigned six weeks after the beginning of a term by the Dean’s Office, or during end-of-term grading by a faculty member for a student who attends/engages in a registered seminar (including the residency sessions) but subsequently ceases to attend/engage in the seminar and does not officially withdraw from the seminar.

WIP (No grade)

No Grade: Faculty member has not submitted a grade for a student.

Repeated Seminar

Students are permitted to repeat any seminar once after receiving a U. The last grade earned is calculated in the GPA.

Successful Completion

A grade of A through C or S is considered successful seminar completion.

Special Note Regarding Incompletes:

Students must have approval from the seminar faculty member to receive an incomplete for

the term. If this approval is not requested and approved, the student will receive a W

(withdrawal) or V (vanished), depending on the circumstances in regard to attendance in the

seminar. In other words, incompletes are not automatic and students should not assume that

they can take incompletes at will. All incomplete work for a current term must be submitted by

May 15 or November 15 of the following term. It is always best for students to stay in

communication with faculty members and to try to get all the work done for the term by the

deadline. Students and faculty members should explore all options together before deciding

that the incomplete route is the one to take.