Professor Kinkade
mkinkade@mail.sdsu.edu
RWS 200, Rhetorical Written Argument in Context
Office: SH 114B x43388
Hours: MTTH 1-1:50 pm (By Appt. W @ 1-1:50 or @ 3:30 pm; T @ 3:30pm)
Course Description: RWS 200 is a course in academic writing and reading,
emphasizing the rhetorical analysis of arguments in context. Building on RWS 100, the
course asks students to continue the work of articulating what argument a text is making
and describing elements of the argument. It now asks them to also consider the contexts
of arguments and to discover what arguments are responding to, both in the sense of what
has come before them and in the sense that they are written for an audience in a particular
place and time.
Course Methods: The course examines the ways in which writers use sources in their
writing in order to pursue questions and understand both experiences and texts. Studying
context reinforces this learning. Assignments are designed to help students ask questions
about the readings and writing to see how arguments can be opened up and enriched
through research of various kinds – further reading, observations, interview, graphs or
photographs, archival documents. We will use a variety of strategies to develop our
skills: in-class writing, outside reading and assignments, research, lectures, discussion,
presentations, peer review and group work.
General Education Capacities/Goals & RWS Learning Outcomes:
Our Learning Outcomes Reflect the Goals and Capacities of the General Education
Program. RWS 200 is one of several courses in the area of general education defined as
“Communication and Critical Thinking.” Focusing particularly on argument, this course
emphasizes four essential general education capacities: the ability to 1) construct, analyze
and communicate argument, 2) contextualize phenomena, 3) negotiate differences, and 4)
apply theoretical models to the real world. This course advances general education by
helping students understand the general function of writing, speaking, visual texts, and
thinking within the context of the university at large, rather than within specific
disciplines. In addition to featuring the basic rules and conventions governing
composition and presentation, RWS 200 establishes intellectual frameworks and
analytical tools that help students explore, construct, critique, and integrate sophisticated
texts.
Within this framework of four general capacities, the course realizes four closely
related subsidiary goals. These goals focus on helping students
1) craft well-reasoned arguments for specific audiences;
2) analyze a variety of texts commonly encountered in the academic setting;
3) situate discourse within social, generic, cultural, and historic contexts; and
4) assess the relative strengths of arguments and supporting evidence.
1
Professor Kinkade
mkinkade@mail.sdsu.edu
Our student learning outcomes for RWS 200 are closely aligned with these goals and capacities,
and reflect the program’s overall objective of helping students attain “essential skills that
underlie all university education.”
Assignment Types: the following four outcomes describe the four main writing projects or
"assignment types" for the course. Students will be able to:
1. Construct an account of an argument and identify elements of context embedded in it, the
clues that show what the argument is responding to--both in the sense of what has come
before it and in the sense that it is written for an audience in a particular time and place;
examine a writer’s language in relation to audience, context and community;
2. follow avenues of investigation that are opened by noticing elements of context; research
those elements and show how one's understanding of the argument is developed,
changed, or evolved by looking into its context;
3. given the common concerns of two or more arguments, discuss how the claims of these
arguments modify, complicate or qualify one another;
4. consider their contemporary, current life as the context within which they are reading the
arguments assigned in the class; position themselves in relation to these arguments and
additional ones they have researched in order to make an argument; draw on available
key terms, concepts or frameworks of analysis to help shape the argument.
Outcomes across the semester: the following points describe outcomes to work on throughout
the semester, to be attained over the 15 weeks. Students will be able to:
5. Building on the work done in RWS 100, students will be able to: articulate what
argument a text is making; describe the work that is done by each section of the
argument; describe elements of the argument—claims, methods of development, kinds of
evidence, persuasive appeals; translate an argument into their own words;
6. understand and incorporate all aspects of the writing process--including prewriting,
drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading;
7. articulate what key terms, definitions, concepts, statements of a problem or issue are
established by a text;
8. investigate and articulate how an argument is positioned—based on certain kinds of
assumptions, located in a way of thinking and representing issues from a point of view;
9. work with multiples sources in a paper, deciding what to include and what to exclude,
choosing an effective structure, and creating significant relationships among sources;
10. analyze and assess arguments made by visual texts; incorporate visual images into their
documents;
11. craft a cohesive paper, and use effective meta-discourse to articulate the project of the
paper and guide a reader through it;
12. describe their own papers and reflect on how they wrote them; differentiate between the
content of their texts and the language and rhetorical strategies they employ;
13. assign significance to the arguments they read;
14. revise their own work effectively, re-reading previous work and re-envisioning it in the
light of reflection, feedback, further reading and new sources of information;
15. edit their writing for the grammar and usage conventions appropriate to the project.
2
Professor Kinkade
mkinkade@mail.sdsu.edu
Required Materials:
Graff, Gerald, et al. They Say, I Say 2nd edition
Raimes, Ann. Keys for Writers: A Brief Handbook
Kinkade, Martha. Course Reader & Winter’s Light
College Level Dictionary & Thesaurus
Course Requirements:
Generally, there are four assignment types: articulating an argument, elements of context,
conceptualizing multiple arguments, and situating a contemporary argument. These
assignments types are organized to build upon conceptual ideals. With this, we gain a
larger perspective into the overall theme of our readings and how argument addresses
social concerns. For this term, we will be blending these assignments in order to reach a
high level of critical thinking and application of writing skills.
Grading Structure:
Essay #1
Essay #2
Essay #3
Essay #4
25%
30% (Group 5%)
25%
20%
A letter grade will be assigned using the following scale: A+=10, A=9.5, A-=9.2,
B+=8.8, B=8.5, B-=8.2, C+=7.8, C=7.5, C-=7.2, D+=6.8, D=6.5, D-=6.2, F=5.5, no work
turned in=0. All graded work is expected to adhere to MLA format. Work not accepted
via email.
Final Grade Breakdown (grade averages are not rounded up):
A(100-93); A-(92.9-90); B+(89.9-87); B(86.9-83); B-(82.9-80); C+(79.9-77);
C(76.9-73); C-(72.9-70); D+(69.9-66); D(66.9-63); D-(62.9-60); F (59.9-below)
Attendance & Activities Policy: Please note that I take attendance and expect you here. I
consider this part of your job as a student, I especially note if you’re here for peer or group work
since I find those elements vital to the writing process. In addition, I review Discussion Board
postings hold them in the same arena as attendance. So I give you a little leeway to account for
life happening. I look for 80% completion of DB/homework & attendance before your final grade
is affected. Basically, if you miss more than 4 class sessions, your final course grade will be
marked down ½ grade for each additional class missed. If you’re experiencing a prolong illness,
please let me know; otherwise, please get your homework from fellow student. I don’t accept late
work or excuses. An education has high value and demands high standards.
**Plagiarism is not accepted and if applied will result in a Failing grade for the course
and reported to the appropriate University officials.
For Students with Disabilities: If you are a student with a disability and believe you will need
accommodations for this class, it is your responsibility to contact Student Disability Services a
(619) 594-6473. To avoid any delay in the receipt of your accommodations, you should contact
Student Disability Services as soon as possible. Please note that accommodations are not
retroactive, and that I cannot provide accommodations based upon disability until I have received
an accommodation letter from Student Disability Services. Your cooperation is appreciated.
3
Professor Kinkade
mkinkade@mail.sdsu.edu
Schedule & Readings: an Overview
Investigating: Language
Course Schedule
Tentative (for Adjustments to schedule see Blackboard, Announcement or Class notes)
Wk 1-4
Jan 23 Feb 13
Syllabus Review
Reading
Paper Support: They Say/I Say: Introduction (1-14), Part 1 & 2 (17-101) &
Keys for Writers, integrating poetry (see Integrating sources section)
In-Class Discussion: They Say/I Say: “What’s Motivating this Writer?” (145155); Research, figurative terms; Winter’s Light
Paper Focus: “Language & War” plus 3 -5 poems from Winter’s Light
Lectures: Introduction, What is argument? Terms & definitions; Reading
Discussion, Essay Structure and Review of Student Work
Paper 1 Assignment: Intersection / Negotiating Difference (4-6 pages/MLA format)
Using “Language and War” as framework to explore the language (generative metaphor)
with the topic of “violence” of 2-3 poems in Winter’s Light.
(This is an overview; a detailed assignment sheet is located on Blackboard under Assignments)
Wk 5-9
Feb 18 Mar 20
Paper 2: Constructing an Account (4-6 pages/MLA format + Group
Presentations)
Reading
Paper Support: They Say/I Say: Part 3 & 4 (105-192)
In-Class Discussion: Context
Paper Focus: “Another Look Back and A Look Ahead”
Lectures: Argument Term Review, Constructing an Account, Rhetorical Précis
Reading Discussion, Essay Structure and Review of Student Work
Wk 10-12 Paper 3: Elements & Multiple Sources (4-6 pages/MLA format)
Mar 25 Apr 17
Reading
Paper Support: Research & Library Presentation (tbd)
In-Class Discussion: Integration of Image (see Keys for Writers)
Paper Focus: Dialogue around Silent Spring
Lectures: Group support, Integration of multiple sources, and Reviews
Wk 13-15 Paper 4: Language & Real World/Reflection (4-6 pages/MLA format)
April 22 May 8
Reading
Paper Support: Course review, include readings & your papers
Paper Focus: What you’ve learned to be applied beyond course
Lectures: Group support, Integration of multiple sources, and Reviews
(Detailed assignment sheets are located on Blackboard under Assignments,
as well as our adjustable schedule under Course Documents)
Final Exam Week May 9-15 (See Final Exam Schedule for verification)
0800 TTH, Tuesday, May 13: 8-10 am
0930 TTH, Thursday, May 15: 8-10 am
4
Professor Kinkade
mkinkade@mail.sdsu.edu
Grade Evaluation Categories:
Students are expected to demonstrate writing skills in describing, analyzing and evaluating ideas and
experiences. Written material must follow specific standards regarding citations of authors' work within the
text and references at the end of the paper. Students are encouraged to use the services of the University's
Writing Center when preparing materials.
"A" Range: Outstanding achievement, which significantly exceeds standards

Unique topic or unique treatment of topic, takes risks with content; fresh approach.

Sophisticated/exceptional use of examples.

Original and "fluid" organization; all sentences and paragraphs contribute; sophisticated transitions between
paragraphs.

Integration of quotations and citations is sophisticated and highlights the author's argument.

Confidence in use of Standard English; language reflects a practiced and/or refined understanding of syntax
and usage.

Sentences vary in structure, very few, if any mechanical errors (no serious mechanical errors).
"B" Range: Commendable achievement meets or exceeds standards for course.

Specific, original focus, content well handled.

Significance of content is clearly conveyed; good use of examples; sufficient support exists in key areas.

Has effective shape (organization), effective pacing between sentences or paragraphs.

Quotations and citations are integrated into argument to enhance the flow of ideas.

Has competent transitions between all sentences and paragraphs.

Conveys a strong understanding of standard English; the writer is clear in his/her attempt to articulate main
points, but may demonstrate moments of "flat" or unrefined language.

May have a few minor mechanical errors (misplaced commas, pronoun disagreement, etc.), but no serious
mechanical errors (fragments, run-ons, comma splices, etc.)
"C" Range: Acceptable achievement, meets standards for course

Retains overall focus, generally solid command of subject matter

Subject matter well explored but may show signs of underachievement

Significance is understood, competent use of examples

Structure is solid, but an occasional sentence or paragraph may lack focus

Quotations and citations are integrated into argument

Transitions between paragraphs occur but may lack originality

Competent use of language; sentences are solid but may lack development, refinement, style

Occasional minor mechanical errors may occur, but do not impede clear understanding of material

No serious mechanical errors (fragments, run-ons, comma-splices, etc.)
"D" Range: Unsatisfactory achievement; does not meet acceptable standards
Note: The "D" grade is a passing grade; work that is not of "passing quality" should receive grade "F".

Significance of content is unclear

Ideas lack support, elaboration

Lacks sufficient examples or relevance of examples may be unclear

Support materials is not clearly incorporated into argument

Expression is frequently awkward (problematic sentence structure)

Mechanical errors may often impede clear understanding of material

May have recurring serious mechanical errors (fragments, run-ons, comma splices, etc.)
"F" Range: Fails to meet minimal standards

Ignores assignment

Lacks significance

Lacks coherence

Includes plagiarized material (intentional or unintentional)

Lacks focus

Difficult to follow due to awkward sentence or paragraph development

Mechanical errors impede understanding

Problems with writing at the undergraduate level
5