DUSP Courses 1998

This syllabus may have been updated. To ensure that you're looking at the most recent version, please hit "Reload."

11.225 Advanced Academic Writing

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING

11.225-Argumentation and Writing for Advanced Students

Fall, 1998
TR, 2:304:00
Room 3-401

James C. Morrison, Lecturer
DUSP and the Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies

Instructor's office: 14N-223B

Phone number: 253-7893

E-mail address: jimm@mit.edu

Home number: (781) 383-2121 (both voice and fax)

Office hours: TR, 4:305:30 and by appointment

Course description

This is an advanced course in the principles and practices of analyzing, devising, and framing arguments to address public issues and policies. Students will not only engage the processes of analyzing and creating effective arguments, but also investigate the connection between critical thinking, reading, and writing. Argumentation will be approached from rhetorical, social, dialectical, and heuristic points of view. The ultimate aim of the course is to sharpen students' ar-gumentative skills in the service of planning, program, and policy analysis. To achieve this aim, the course encom-passes the following learning objectives:

o to provide guidance in the development of either a research proposal, the doctoral research paper, a subject paper of the student's choosing, or a portion of the thesis or disser-tation

o to develop students' writing style to help them achieve the clarity and vigor needed to be persuasive in their academic and professional lives

o to provide practice in presenting the fruits of research orally

o to provide instruction in the use of source material, both conventional and electronic, in the conduct of research, the sharing of information with colleagues, and the production of finished work

Writing and Other Assignments

Students will develop a research-based term paper, on a subject of their own choosing. This will be supplemented by five writing as-signments, an oral presentation, and other in-class activities designed to strengthen skills in reasoning, us-ing data, statistics, and other evidence to support propositions, and clarifying and examining underlying assumptions upon which arguments are based. Ideally, the subject matter of the five writing assignments and oral presentation should be connected to, or be parts of, the term paper, so as to establish the connection between thinking, writing, and research.

Assignment Proportion of final grade

(1) September 22-Proposal (35 pages) 10%

(2) October 6-Formal Argument (34 pages) 10%

(3) October 20-Summary and Refutation (34 pages) 10%

(4) November 3-A Classical Argument (5+ pages) 10%

(5) November 24-Guest Editorial (4 pages) 10%

(6) December 110-Oral Presentation (15 minutes) 10%

(7) December 10-Final Paper (10+ pages) 20%

(8) Throughout-Peer Review and Class Participation 20%

Students may choose as their subject a research project required in another course in the current semester. If none is suitable, then the student should either devise a subject of interest or anticipate a future writing project, such as a literature review, doctoral research paper, thesis, dissertation, or proposal.

Papers will be judged on the following criteria: the presence of a clearly de-fined and presented thesis or governing idea; a well-organized structure of support for that thesis; persuasive and coherent use of concrete evidence; integral and well-developed paragraphs with clear topic sentences; smooth transitions be-tween sen-tences and para-graphs; concise, grammatically constructed sen-tences; use of concrete nouns and ac-tive verbs; use of idiomatic expressions and word choices; appropriate usage regard-ing verbal constructions, articles, adjectives, and adverbs; and correct punctua-tion, mechan-ics, and spelling. Each of the five writing assignments may be revised in hopes of a higher grade. Such revision should not encompass merely the correc-tion of surface errors, but more significantly the complete rhetorical stance the paper takes.

All papers should be written in a standard typeface, double-spaced, on one side of a page, with margins of at least 1" all around, titled, and with all pages stapled securely-in sum, in accordance with the APA style presented in Chapter 45 of The St. Martin's Handbook, one of our core texts.

Collaborative Learning

A strong component of this course is the practice of collaborative learning-taking advantage of the resources students can offer one another in both class discussion and peer review. Students will not only engage in group learning exercises in the classroom, but will also form peer review pairs, each of whom will serve as a responding reader for the five writing assignments exclusive of the major term paper. The instructor will, of course, provide feedback aimed at improvement, but this will be supplemented by a second "audience" with whom the process of exchanging views will be an additional learning experience for both parties. Giving and getting constructive feedback can be a highly useful tool for learning to analyze and improve the quality of one's own writing and analysis.

At the end of the course, you will be asked to submit an evaluation of how the peer review process worked for both you and you partner, which will enter into the final grade for peer review and class participation. I will pay closest attention not to how much you praise one another, but to how analytical you are regarding your ability to provide and respond effectively to feedback.

Texts

Ramage, John D. and John C. Bean (1998). Writing Arguments; A Rhetoric with Readings, Fourth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (WA)

Lunsford, Andrea and Robert Connors (1995). The St. Martin's Handbook. Third Edition. New York: St. Martin's Press. (SMH)

Course Reader (MIT CopyTech)

Boston Redevelopment Authority (1997). The South Boston Seaport Master Plan; An Interim Report. Boston: Boston Redevelopment Authority. (MIT CopyTech)

Richardson, N.H. (1992). Writing a Planning Report, 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Planners. (MIT CopyTech)

Schedule of the Course

*This section of the reader was in a table format and unable to translate. Please contact the professor directly for a more detailed syllabus.

| Main Page | This Week's Events | About the Department | Academic Programs | Admissions | Financial Assistance | DUSP Classes | People | Publications | DUSP Grads | Activities | Student Awards |

This syllabus may have been updated. To ensure that you're looking at the most recent version, please hit "Reload."
11.225 Advanced Academic Writing
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING 11.225-Argumentation and Writing for Advanced Students Fall, 1998 TR, 2:304:00 Room 3-401 James C. Morrison, Lecturer DUSP and the Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies Instructor's office: 14N-223B Phone number: 253-7893 E-mail address: jimm@mit.edu Home number: (781) 383-2121 (both voice and fax) Office hours: TR, 4:305:30 and by appointment Course description This is an advanced course in the principles and practices of analyzing, devising, and framing arguments to address public issues and policies. Students will not only engage the processes of analyzing and creating effective arguments, but also investigate the connection between critical thinking, reading, and writing. Argumentation will be approached from rhetorical, social, dialectical, and heuristic points of view. The ultimate aim of the course is to sharpen students' ar-gumentative skills in the service of planning, program, and policy analysis. To achieve this aim, the course encom-passes the following learning objectives: o to provide guidance in the development of either a research proposal, the doctoral research paper, a subject paper of the student's choosing, or a portion of the thesis or disser-tation o to develop students' writing style to help them achieve the clarity and vigor needed to be persuasive in their academic and professional lives o to provide practice in presenting the fruits of research orally o to provide instruction in the use of source material, both conventional and electronic, in the conduct of research, the sharing of information with colleagues, and the production of finished work Writing and Other Assignments Students will develop a research-based term paper, on a subject of their own choosing. This will be supplemented by five writing as-signments, an oral presentation, and other in-class activities designed to strengthen skills in reasoning, us-ing data, statistics, and other evidence to support propositions, and clarifying and examining underlying assumptions upon which arguments are based. Ideally, the subject matter of the five writing assignments and oral presentation should be connected to, or be parts of, the term paper, so as to establish the connection between thinking, writing, and research. Assignment Proportion of final grade (1) September 22-Proposal (35 pages) 10% (2) October 6-Formal Argument (34 pages) 10% (3) October 20-Summary and Refutation (34 pages) 10% (4) November 3-A Classical Argument (5+ pages) 10% (5) November 24-Guest Editorial (4 pages) 10% (6) December 110-Oral Presentation (15 minutes) 10% (7) December 10-Final Paper (10+ pages) 20% (8) Throughout-Peer Review and Class Participation 20% Students may choose as their subject a research project required in another course in the current semester. If none is suitable, then the student should either devise a subject of interest or anticipate a future writing project, such as a literature review, doctoral research paper, thesis, dissertation, or proposal. Papers will be judged on the following criteria: the presence of a clearly de-fined and presented thesis or governing idea; a well-organized structure of support for that thesis; persuasive and coherent use of concrete evidence; integral and well-developed paragraphs with clear topic sentences; smooth transitions be-tween sen-tences and para-graphs; concise, grammatically constructed sen-tences; use of concrete nouns and ac-tive verbs; use of idiomatic expressions and word choices; appropriate usage regard-ing verbal constructions, articles, adjectives, and adverbs; and correct punctua-tion, mechan-ics, and spelling. Each of the five writing assignments may be revised in hopes of a higher grade. Such revision should not encompass merely the correc-tion of surface errors, but more significantly the complete rhetorical stance the paper takes. All papers should be written in a standard typeface, double-spaced, on one side of a page, with margins of at least 1" all around, titled, and with all pages stapled securely-in sum, in accordance with the APA style presented in Chapter 45 of The St. Martin's Handbook, one of our core texts. Collaborative Learning A strong component of this course is the practice of collaborative learning-taking advantage of the resources students can offer one another in both class discussion and peer review. Students will not only engage in group learning exercises in the classroom, but will also form peer review pairs, each of whom will serve as a responding reader for the five writing assignments exclusive of the major term paper. The instructor will, of course, provide feedback aimed at improvement, but this will be supplemented by a second "audience" with whom the process of exchanging views will be an additional learning experience for both parties. Giving and getting constructive feedback can be a highly useful tool for learning to analyze and improve the quality of one's own writing and analysis. At the end of the course, you will be asked to submit an evaluation of how the peer review process worked for both you and you partner, which will enter into the final grade for peer review and class participation. I will pay closest attention not to how much you praise one another, but to how analytical you are regarding your ability to provide and respond effectively to feedback. Texts Ramage, John D. and John C. Bean (1998). Writing Arguments; A Rhetoric with Readings, Fourth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (WA) Lunsford, Andrea and Robert Connors (1995). The St. Martin's Handbook. Third Edition. New York: St. Martin's Press. (SMH) Course Reader (MIT CopyTech) Boston Redevelopment Authority (1997). The South Boston Seaport Master Plan; An Interim Report. Boston: Boston Redevelopment Authority. (MIT CopyTech) Richardson, N.H. (1992). Writing a Planning Report, 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Planners. (MIT CopyTech) Schedule of the Course *This section of the reader was in a table format and unable to translate. Please contact the professor directly for a more detailed syllabus.