DO’s and DON’Ts for Composing
Project Assignments
(A wee screed by Herr Director)
DO start the assignment sheet by
delineating the project itself: the situation,
problem, question, task at hand.
DON’T lead off with requirements of format
and mechanics (length, number of sources,
margins and fonts); put that stuff below.
DO assign projects that call for inquirybased deliberative essay writing on subjects
of broad concern.
DON’T assign topics that call for literary or
media analysis as such, or for report writing,
or for a single narrowly formal operation.
DO establish purposes for the assignment
based on substantive rhetorical
considerations.
DON’T cite purposes that are technical,
formalistic, or extrinsic to the rhetorical
situation (i.e., to “improve research skills”
and such).
DO refer to and connect the assignment to
earlier projects, texts, activities and events
in the course sequence.
DON’T start all over with each project,
fragmenting the course narrative.
DO lay out clear, thorough guidelines and
directives for the project.
DON’T lapse into a rhetoric of exhortation
(“your essay must be clearly written, well
organized, blah blah”—well duh!) or
overindulge in a rhetoric of compulsion and
duress (“you must,” “you’re required,” “it’s
mandatory”; try “you will,” “you’re asked,”
“it’s important”).
DO give directions using verbs that name
operations students will perform to fulfill the
assignment (describe, discuss, define,
compare, analyze, argue, evaluate,
propose, consider, synthesize, apply,
research, etc.).
DON’T actually call the project a “research
paper” or “comparison essay” or “definition
argument” or “proposal argument” or any
such formal nonentity that no one would set
out to write as such.
DO (a corollary) request that students
support, demonstrate, give evidence for
views and assertions.
DON’T ask them to prove anything: they
are rhetors, not scientists. And be leery of
yes-no, pro-con topics that neglect the
value of informed vacillation over tough,
important questions.
DO lay out activities and sub-assignments
that will eventuate in the final draft of the
project essay—especially writing about
reading.
DON’T assign the proto-professional genre
of annotated bibliography unless you’ve got
darn good reason. DO assign students to
collect, cite, report on, and deploy textual
sources in ways that don’t just list and
summarize but rather categorize, compare,
synthesize, and evaluate them.
DO—if the project involves revisiting and
revising earlier writing—specify how that
work is to be refigured, in light of what new
input or factors (further texts, evidence,
inquiry; revised terms, modes, purposes,
methods).
DON’T just tell students not just to add
more pages.
DO provide ways for students to pursue
topics of their choice, suited to individual
interests yet relevant to the course theme
and shared proceedings.
DON’T instruct students to “pick a
controversial issue,” thus inviting plagiarism
while abrogating your responsibility to
assign and guide.
DO outline grading criteria for the particular
project, insofar as these augment the
general Program criteria found in Writing at
UK, which you don’t need to repeat.
DON’T divide grading into percentages for
such categories as “content,” “organization,”
“style,” and “mechanics,” which contrived
procedure does not promote evaluation so
much as impart the sense that you do not
intend to read this writing as a reader.
DO WRITE WELL, in direct, focused,
lively, thoughtful, well-edited prose.
DON’T be perfunctory. Don’t blather on.
Don’t be sloppy, slack, abstracted or
passive-ridden. Don’t come off as an
officious stiff.