Category Archives: Uncategorized

Submission of Project Three: Assignment Box

Hi all,

As you know, your final project is due on May 3rd. As per usual, you will upload your paper and your reflection memo to Blackboard for grading. You ALSO need to upload this project on Assignment Box in order for the department to do our year-end assessment work. Please note that I will not grade your paper unless it has been uploaded in both portals! If you have questions about using Box, feel free to get in touch. You can also follow the Assignment Box Instructions.

Final Deadlines

Wednesday, April 26th

Last day to meet with me to discuss a paper 2 re-write

Friday, April 28th

Last day to submit any extra credit reflections

Last day to complete voluntary peer review for Unit 3

Monday, May 1st

Participation Memos Due

Optional Paper 2 re-writes due

Wednesday, May 3rd

Unit Three Projects due on Blackboard AND on Assignment Box (please note that I will not grade the paper unless it has been submitted through BOTH portals)


Participation Memos

A quick reminder about participation memos:

  1. Memos should be at least 250 words, but they may need to be longer to address your contributions to class.
  2. They should be addressed to me as a formal letter.
  3. They need to include evidence of the qualities you see making you a strong class participant.
  4. They might include an assessment of skills you need to continue improving.
  5. They are due to me by Monday, May 1st; however, I encourage you to get them in earlier. I’ll grade them as I receive them, with the understanding that the grade may be revised if you miss class sessions during our final week together.

Unit Three Peer Review (Optional)

Unit Three Peer Review


You will receive five points of extra credit on the Unit Three Project for completing this review with a partner from your class. Reviews MUST be completed IN PERSON by Friday, April 28th; no extensions! You also need a full draft in order to participate in the review; please email this form and the commented draft.

Author’s Name:

Paper Title:

Reviewer’s Name:


Date, Time, and Location of Review Session:



  1. Identify the author’s OUTCOME:


A. Is this outcome a clear and specific action that might prove challenging for an audience? What (if anything) would make it more specific or more usefully challenging?



B. After reading the paper, why is this outcome so important (i.e. what makes it an ETHICAL decision)? Does the author use any language from our ethics readings to make his/her case? Where could the author use more of a focus on ethics?



  1. Identify the author’s AUDIENCE:


A. Can you tell from the paper who the author is addressing? Could the audience have an impact on the outcome, and will they be challenging to persuade?


B. Does it seem like the author understands the audience well and uses that information to support the argument, or is he/she writing to a generic listener? Identify a moment in the paper when the author is especially clear in addressing the audience.



  1. Identify the author’s GENRE AND VENUE:

A. Do the style of writing and the location of publication seem like the best way to reach the specific audience? Why or why not?


B. What are the conventions of this kind of writing? Does the author meet the conventions of the genre and venue?




  1. Imagine that you are a member of the author’s audience (if you aren’t already!). After reading this paper, what concerns do you still have about the outcome you’re expected to act upon? What, if anything, would more effectively convince you to change your thinking or actions? Some examples might include more evidence of a particular claim, a different approach, or a recognition of the audience’s concerns.


Paper Checklist


____ The author’s paper is between 1250-1750 words

____The author’s paper has a title

____The author’s paper uses MLA or APA heading formatting

____The author’s paper has page numbers

____ The author has at least five sources

____The author has a works cited page that cites all sources appropriately

____ The author’s paper has been checked for grammatical concerns (either through an editing read or through reading out loud)

Project Proposals

In your email to me (subject heading [Your Last Name] Unit Three Proposal), please include the following information. Your proposal should be at least 250 words.

  1. What is your proposed monument/memorial practice?
  2. How has this person/event been commemorated in the past (if at all)? How is your proposal different?
  3. What makes your proposal an ethical argument? Please use material from “What is Ethics?” “Who Counts?” or “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making” in your response?
  4. What audience/community will you be speaking to (i.e. who has stakes in this argument)? Who are the members of this community? What do you anticipate some of their concerns being?
  5. What kinds of research will you need to do in order to support your argument?

Homework for Monday, 4/10

In addition to submitting your project proposal, please listen to the following (tracks in italics are recommended but not required). I’ve included brief descriptions to help you orient yourself, but please read the lyrics and come prepared to discuss in Fishbowl!

“Dear Theodosia”: Hamilton and Burr celebrate the arrivals of their children (Phillip Hamilton and Theodosia Burr); they sing about the world they hope to build for these infants

“Non-Stop,”: At the end of Act I, the company narrates their lives after the war; Hamilton defends the Constitution with The Federalist Papers

“Cabinet Battle #1”: Hamilton and Jefferson (the Secretaries of Treasury and State, respectively, under President Washington) disagree about whether the U.S. should have a centralized banking system

 “One Last Time”: President Washington tells Hamilton his decision to step down after two terms; together they write the first presidential farewell address

 “The Election of 1800” : Running against each other in the primary, Jefferson and Burr both need Hamilton’s support in order to face President Adams in the general election; Hamilton makes a life-changing decision

“The World Was Wide Enough”: Burr and Hamilton face off in the nation’s most famous duel

“Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story”: The conclusion of Hamilton; the company wonders how Hamilton will be remembered by history. His wife Eliza takes control of Hamilton’s legacy.

Conference Schedule

Unit Three Conference Schedule

NOTE: Attending this meeting counts as a day of class attendance; if you fail to show at your meeting without at least 24-hours notice, I will count you absent for the day.

Monday, April 10th

11:45 Taylor

12:00 Kiana

2:45 Alex L.

Tuesday, April 11th


10:15 Thi

10:30 Skyler

10:45 Jalen

11:00 Xan

11:15 Walker

11:30 Miranda

11:45 Breanna

12:00 Caitlin

12:15 Kara

12:30 Tiffany

1:00 Candace

1:15 Kimia

1:30 Carol

1:45 Eleanor

2:00 Anna

2:15 Emily

2:30 Kyle


Wednesday, April 12th



10:30 Ariana

12:00 Kiana

2:45 Lauren

3:00 Cole

[Rae, please reschedule!]


Wednesday, April 19th

10:00 Sid



3:00 Charlie

3:15 Shedavia

3:30 Drew

3:45 Shanelle

4:00 Tina


Thursday, April 20th

10:00 Rastin

10:15 Jessie

10:30 Ben

10:45 Sara

11:00 Charlotte

11:15 Mikala

11:30 Phillip

11:45 Marin

[meeting gap:  Nia, and Kara S., please reschedule!]


1:30 James

1:45 Alex C.

2:00 Keene

2:15 Collins

2:30 Ruoqiong

2:45 Chris

3:00 Alyssa

Source Report Peer Review


  • Do you understand your partner’s research question? Is it articulated clearly in the first paragraph of the source note? Do you believe that this particular source will help your partner answer the research question?
  • Does your partner clearly explain HOW they located the source? If you needed to recreate their search, could you do it? (Test it out!)
  • Does your partner assess the source’s reliability? Do they mention each element of the CRAAP method (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose (objective))? Note that these elements do not have to appear in a single list. What information would help your partner convey reliability more effectively?
  • Does your partner effectively summarize the source? That is, after reading, do you understand what the source is about? Can you tell how your partner feels about the source (If so, encourage them to revise for neutrality!)? What questions do you still have about the source?
  • Is the source cited correctly?
  • FORMATTING! Is your partner’s source note one single-spaced page (give or take) on a Word document?

The CRAAP Method

(From last week’s classes)

When you’re evaluating a new source, always make sure to look for CRAAP!

CURRENCY: Is the source up-to-date? Has it been published recently, and does it pull from current evidence? Has anything occurred since its publication that would require it to be revised?

RELEVANCE: Does the source speak to your research questions and interests? Does it contribute a useful perspective to your topic?

AUTHORITY: What gives the author and publisher the credibility and expertise to speak on this topic? What is their experience and reputation? How are they trained and whom do they work with? How do they support their authority with reliable sources?

ACCURACY: Does the author use information that can be confirmed externally? How does the author support their claims? Does the publication make use of fact-checkers?

PURPOSE (OBJECTIVE): Does the article aim to persuade, inform, or entertain (or some combination of these three things)? What kinds of biases does the author demonstrate?