Saturday, August 20, 2011

Final Project

LONG CRITICAL DISCUSSION
due 12/14/11 by 11:00 a.m. to BH 474 and to Oncourse dropbox

PURPOSE AND TASK
As you can imagine, the final project asks you to compose and deliver an extended discussion of a critical paradox, in much the same way as you have done in your SCDs throughout the semester. However, there are two principal differences between this Final Project and your SCDs: (1) the scope, breadth, and depth of this project should demonstrate real mastery of what you have read; and (2) this project has a multimodal component.

Here are your aims:
  • To demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of at least five of our theorists or texts, their possibilities, and their interpretive limits. This is not meant to be an arbitrary number of sources; at least five is really an invitation to you to handle a few more sources at one time than you handled during your SCDs, but not so many that you cannot maintain focus.
  • To craft an interesting, specific, non-obvious, and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together. This aim has not changed, and in some cases, that curiosity, question, or problem is far more important here than it was in your SCDs. Your impetus for writing this project is now in the argument you construct.
  • To develop that argument through sufficient evidence and examples, both from the critical texts and from our cases. This means demonstrating that you can expertly and accurately apply critical perspectives to each other and to relevant cases.
  • To articulate how that argument ultimately gives back, either to the paradox you study, or to the theories themselves. Obviously, this articulation will not be superficial, explicit or metadiscursive (i.e., “Here is how my investigation challenges what we have studied about semiotic ‘signification’ …”). Rather, it should be apparent in how, what, and why you argue.

OPTIONS
Because much of our knowledge-building this semester has been cumulative, I have designed this project to be cumulative as well. Thus, I invite you to take one of two options:

1. Revise, extend, and deepen one of your short critical discussions into a longer critical paper, of ~5 pages in length, single-spaced. If you choose this option, I’d like you to think of your final project as a real revision, extension, and deepening of the curiosity you have already begun to articulate, and to feel free to draw on relevant texts or cases from any of our four units. It is often the case that students find their impetus for revision in a blog post or in something else they have discovered about that critical paradox, even after the fact.

2. Investigate and analyze a critical paradox of your own choosing, in ~4 single-spaced pages. If you choose this option, I’d like you to think of a paradoxical relationship between terms or concepts that follows from your understanding of what we have read, studied, and discussed. Paradox refers to any tenet that either seems to be true but is contradictory, or seems to be contradictory but has properties of truth. A paradox is a perplexity—like a Catch-22—and not just a set of opposing terms. Your paradox will likely be more specific than the four that I chose to organize this course, and it need not be encapsulated in a single word. However, it should be clear precisely what is at stake in it (e.g., “reading and writing,” “subject and object,” “thing and theory,” “culture and counter-culture,” etc.).

Both options ask you to draw heavily on course texts. Depending on your critical paradox, you may also need to draw on one or two sources from outside the class, or on one or two cases from outside the class. This is perfectly fine, as long as you provide me with a copy of the source or the case, or a link to it, so that I can access it as I read. However, because this is not a traditional research paper, you should keep additional sources to a minimum in order to maintain good focus. You will likely not need additional sources at all.

MULTIMODAL COMPONENT
In addition to the written component, I will ask you to construct a multimodal component that communicates (or demonstrates or enacts) something about your argument that could not be communicated in a conventional essay. In other words, I invite you to construct an auxiliary piece to your argument by using a different system of signs. The options are vast. For example, you may compose, record, and perform a song on DVD or in mp3 format; construct a short documentary film; put your paradox to a poem; write or record a skit; design a poster; make a painting; quilt or knit a pattern; create your own Manga, etc. This is not a repurposing of your whole argument—I am not simply asking you to take the whole of your critical discussion and put it to another genre form for another audience. I am asking you to consider how you would communicate the essence of your argument to a specific audience in another form. Thus, the genre form you produce may not be very long. Please note that I will need to collect this both in “real” and digital versions, if digital applies.

PROJECT PROPOSAL
By the beginning of Week 15, I will ask you to submit a brief written proposal with a works cited page in which you explain your chosen texts (and/or cases) and speculate on the argument you will make. Obviously, you cannot know your complete argument at this point, but I’d like you to begin, at least in a preliminary way, to arrange your critical materials and cases according to some rational grouping or hierarchy. I will also ask you to describe the genre form of your multimodal component, and to articulate up to three evaluation criteria that you want me to keep in mind in determining its effectiveness for a specified audience. I will collect these proposals in class on Monday, December 5. However, I encourage you to submit your proposal earlier if you would like earlier feedback.

CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is worth 200 points. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:

Argument and Thesis
As always, for this Final Project, please remember that “argument” does not necessarily mean “position” (as in, the traditional pro/con, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. I’m inviting you to build on theory in this critical discussion, so your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.

Textual and Contextual Evidence
Not every text can simply be put into conversation with any other text, and not every critical perspective can be comfortably applied to any case study. Obviously, I want you to be more thoughtful than simply mixing and matching. You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Please do not simply rely on what you perceive to be “common knowledge”; instead, use the reference texts to provide essential background. Every sentence is an important part of your developing argument, so you should avoid making generalizations or making claims without showing their origins. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. In a discussion of this length, please try to avoid extensive block quoting.

Reader Awareness
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the
OED, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the OED …” In terms of engaging your reader, try hooking them with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your opening should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.

Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.

Language and Style
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be exact.

Multimodal Component
I will use your evaluation criteria to help me determine whether this component of the project really does bring your paradox to light in an interesting way. Generally speaking, I do not expect you to create something that a paid professional would do—you may not have the time or expertise to do so. However, this multimodal component should be relevant, thoughtful, identifiable (i.e., I should not have to guess what I am viewing or seeing), and complete. If you relied on any outside sources to construct it, please include them on your Works Cited page. (See our “MLA Documentation” links from the course blog for advice on how to cite non-traditional texts.)

Discourse Conventions and Formatting
Your title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. The paper should be word-processed or typed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font, and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary, but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your last name and page number on all remaining pages.

Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea. I am ready and available at any point to talk over project options with you!


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.