Skip to main content
Unit outline_

WRIT2000: Contemporary Rhetoric

Semester 2, 2023 [Normal day] - Camperdown/Darlington, Sydney

This unit will introduce students to contemporary theories and practices of rhetoric, examining the work of Kenneth Burke and Chaïm Perelman, among others. It will trace the development of contemporary rhetoric from the classical era, comparing these approaches through examples of social, political, and popular rhetoric across a range of genres. Students will develop a better understanding of the relationship between rhetoric and writing and how to apply rhetorical principles to the analysis, interpretation and production of a range of texts.

Unit details and rules

Academic unit English and Writing
Credit points 6
Prerequisites
? 
12 credit points at 1000 level in Writing Studies
Corequisites
? 
None
Prohibitions
? 
None
Assumed knowledge
? 

None

Available to study abroad and exchange students

Yes

Teaching staff

Coordinator Benjamin Miller, benjamin.miller@sydney.edu.au
Lecturer(s) Benjamin Miller, benjamin.miller@sydney.edu.au
Type Description Weight Due Length
Presentation Reflection
An in-class discussion about Burke's 'problems with education'
25% Multiple weeks
Due date: 23 Oct 2023 at 23:59

Closing date: 03 Nov 2023
1125 words
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO4 LO3 LO2
Assignment Analysis
A biography and proposal that uses the concept of 'rhetorical ecologies'
25% Week 04
Due date: 21 Aug 2023 at 23:59
1125 words
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO2 LO4
Assignment Comparison
A rewritten proposal referring to 'new rhetorics' or 'feminist rhetorics'
25% Week 07
Due date: 11 Sep 2023 at 23:59
1125 words
Outcomes assessed: LO2 LO4 LO1 LO3
Assignment Essay
An essay on rhetorical ecologies, new rhetoric or feminist rhetoric
25% Week 10
Due date: 09 Oct 2023 at 23:59
1125 words
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4

Assessment summary

Details will be provided for each task on Canvas

Assessment criteria

INTERPRETATION OF GRADES

This Guide indicates broadly the qualitative judgments implied by the various grades which may be awarded. These should be read in conjunction with the instructions and criteria for each task.

85%+ (High Distinction)

  • a deep understanding of material; nuanced analysis of focal texts or issues;
  • clearly presents a novel, critically supported argument;
  • indicates awareness of complexities and qualifications in argumentation;
  • demonstrates careful thought about an argument’s critical or historical context;
  • provides evidence of wide-ranging scholarly reading;
  • is properly referenced and well-presented.

The writing is characterized by creativity, clarity, and independent insight. A HD is distinguished from a D by an awareness of subtleties, nuances, and qualifications.

75-84% (Distinction)

  • an intelligent understanding of material; analyses issues appositely;
  • presents a well-argued, coherent case;
  • careful thought about an argument’s critical or historical context;
  • provides evidence of reading beyond what is strictly required for the task;
  • is properly referenced and well presented.

The writing is characterized by clarity and independent insight. A D is distinguished from a C by theoretical understanding and a range of intellectual enquiry.

65-74% (Credit)

  • evidence of independent reading and thinking about issues and their contexts;
  • clear understanding of relevant critical considerations and conceptual issues raised by a unit of study;
  • quotes and summarises to support analysis;
  • attempts a critical or theoretical argument;
  • is clearly and effectively written and adequately referenced.

A C is distinguished from a P by independent discussion, clarity of writing and an attempt at critical argument.

50-64% (Pass)

  • evidence of having read and thought about relevant texts or issues;
  • there may be errors, tangents, or a lack of clarity about the argument;
  • some critical analysis, often overshadowed by summary or paraphrase;
  • quotation for illustrative purposes only;
  • may present simplistic comment or unsubstantiated assertions;
  • is adequately expressed though there may be some weaknesses in this area;
  • may contain some referencing errors.

Below 50% (Fail)

Work may fail for any of the following reasons:

  • no evidence of having read course material or assessment instruction closely;
  • sloppy, inconsistent presentation; quotation without analysis; overuse of summary and paraphrase; excessive generality in answering a question;
  • inappropriate expression; writing style that is difficult to understand; incoherent general structure; inadequate referencing;
  • late submission of work without extension.

For more information see guide to grades.

Late submission

In accordance with University policy, these penalties apply when written work is submitted after 11:59pm on the due date:

  • Deduction of 5% of the maximum mark for each calendar day after the due date.
  • After ten calendar days late, a mark of zero will be awarded.

Academic integrity

The Current Student website provides information on academic integrity and the resources available to all students. The University expects students and staff to act ethically and honestly and will treat all allegations of academic integrity breaches seriously.

We use similarity detection software to detect potential instances of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breach. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breaches, your teacher is required to report your work for further investigation.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and automated writing tools

You may only use generative AI and automated writing tools in assessment tasks if you are permitted to by your unit coordinator. If you do use these tools, you must acknowledge this in your work, either in a footnote or an acknowledgement section. The assessment instructions or unit outline will give guidance of the types of tools that are permitted and how the tools should be used.

Your final submitted work must be your own, original work. You must acknowledge any use of generative AI tools that have been used in the assessment, and any material that forms part of your submission must be appropriately referenced. For guidance on how to acknowledge the use of AI, please refer to the AI in Education Canvas site.

The unapproved use of these tools or unacknowledged use will be considered a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy and penalties may apply.

Studiosity is permitted unless otherwise indicated by the unit coordinator. The use of this service must be acknowledged in your submission as detailed on the Learning Hub’s Canvas page.

Outside assessment tasks, generative AI tools may be used to support your learning. The AI in Education Canvas site contains a number of productive ways that students are using AI to improve their learning.

Simple extensions

If you encounter a problem submitting your work on time, you may be able to apply for an extension of five calendar days through a simple extension.  The application process will be different depending on the type of assessment and extensions cannot be granted for some assessment types like exams.

Special consideration

If exceptional circumstances mean you can’t complete an assessment, you need consideration for a longer period of time, or if you have essential commitments which impact your performance in an assessment, you may be eligible for special consideration or special arrangements.

Special consideration applications will not be affected by a simple extension application.

Using AI responsibly

Co-created with students, AI in Education includes lots of helpful examples of how students use generative AI tools to support their learning. It explains how generative AI works, the different tools available and how to use them responsibly and productively.

WK Topic Learning activity Learning outcomes
Multiple weeks Lecture 12: Support for assessments Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Lecture 13: Support for assessments Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Week 01 Lecture 1: What is 'contemporary rhetoric'? Lecture (1 hr) LO1
Week 02 Lecture 2: Rhetorical ecologies (reading Edbauer) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 2: Journeys to Sydney, defining contemporary rhetoric Seminar (2 hr) LO2
Week 03 Lecture 3: New rhetorics (reading Perelman) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 3: New theory for today's rhetoric Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 04 Lecture 4: Feminist rhetorics (reading Royster) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 4: What is new about new rhetoric? Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 05 Lecture 5: Alternative rhetorics Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 5: Rhetorical traditions - what is Royster trying to change? Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 06 Lecture 6: Case study - a rhetorical analysis of US presidents Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 6: Selecting a theory for a research proposal Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 07 Lecture 7: Case study - the rhetoric of Senegalese resistance Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 7: Responses to case study 1 Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 08 Lecture 8: Case study - approaches to rhetoric in Shakespeare Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 8: Responses to case study 2 Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 09 Lecture 9: Case study - Rhetoric in Australian hiphop Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 9: Responses to case study 3 Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 10 Lecture 10: Problems with Education (Burke) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 10: Responses to case study 4 Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 11 Lecture 11: Critical reflection as an alternative rhetoric Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO2 LO4
Seminar 11: Preparing for your presentation Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 12 Seminar 12: In class presentation Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 13 Seminar 13: In-class presentation Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3

Attendance and class requirements

  • Attendance/Participation: For the purposes of WRIT2000, attendance refers to participation in face-to-face and online activities. According to Faculty Board Resolutions, students in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences are expected to participate in 90% of their classes. If you participate in less than 50% of classes, regardless of the reasons, you may be referred to the Examiner’s Board. The Examiner’s Board will decide whether you should pass or fail the unit of study if your attendance falls below this threshold. If you need to vary your attendance/participation during the unit, contact your tutor or coordinator – we will do our best to find a fleible solution to help you complete the unit.
  • Lecture recording: All lectures will be delivered live on campus, often by guest lecturers. As a small unit of study, these face-to-face interactions are excellent opportunities to learn from experts and emerging innovators in the field of rhetoric/communication.
  • Preparation: Students should commit to spend approximately one hours’ preparation time (reading, studying, homework, essays, etc.) for every hour of scheduled instruction. The best preparation for WRIT2000 is reading the set texts and conducting independent research into the relevant rhetorical concepts that are mentioned in the set readings.

 

 

Study commitment

Typically, there is a minimum expectation of 1.5-2 hours of student effort per week per credit point for units of study offered over a full semester. For a 6 credit point unit, this equates to roughly 120-150 hours of student effort in total.

Required readings

All readings will be made available online via the LMS/Canvas site. 

Learning outcomes are what students know, understand and are able to do on completion of a unit of study. They are aligned with the University's graduate qualities and are assessed as part of the curriculum.

At the completion of this unit, you should be able to:

  • LO1. understand and apply a range of rhetorical theories for constructing meaning in written, spoken, and nonverbal communication
  • LO2. trace the development of contemporary rhetoric by analysis of speeches, literature, and popular media
  • LO3. demonstrate improved critical writing and interpretation abilities through an understanding of how rhetoric is constructed in various textual practices and discourse communities
  • LO4. understand the role of rhetoric in meaning-making .

Graduate qualities

The graduate qualities are the qualities and skills that all University of Sydney graduates must demonstrate on successful completion of an award course. As a future Sydney graduate, the set of qualities have been designed to equip you for the contemporary world.

GQ1 Depth of disciplinary expertise

Deep disciplinary expertise is the ability to integrate and rigorously apply knowledge, understanding and skills of a recognised discipline defined by scholarly activity, as well as familiarity with evolving practice of the discipline.

GQ2 Critical thinking and problem solving

Critical thinking and problem solving are the questioning of ideas, evidence and assumptions in order to propose and evaluate hypotheses or alternative arguments before formulating a conclusion or a solution to an identified problem.

GQ3 Oral and written communication

Effective communication, in both oral and written form, is the clear exchange of meaning in a manner that is appropriate to audience and context.

GQ4 Information and digital literacy

Information and digital literacy is the ability to locate, interpret, evaluate, manage, adapt, integrate, create and convey information using appropriate resources, tools and strategies.

GQ5 Inventiveness

Generating novel ideas and solutions.

GQ6 Cultural competence

Cultural Competence is the ability to actively, ethically, respectfully, and successfully engage across and between cultures. In the Australian context, this includes and celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, knowledge systems, and a mature understanding of contemporary issues.

GQ7 Interdisciplinary effectiveness

Interdisciplinary effectiveness is the integration and synthesis of multiple viewpoints and practices, working effectively across disciplinary boundaries.

GQ8 Integrated professional, ethical, and personal identity

An integrated professional, ethical and personal identity is understanding the interaction between one’s personal and professional selves in an ethical context.

GQ9 Influence

Engaging others in a process, idea or vision.

Outcome map

Learning outcomes Graduate qualities
GQ1 GQ2 GQ3 GQ4 GQ5 GQ6 GQ7 GQ8 GQ9

This section outlines changes made to this unit following staff and student reviews.

Students have commented that they enjoy learning more about rhetorical theories. The assessment has been redesigned for 2023 to allow students to hypothesise about a research topic through different theoretical lenses before choosing their final approach. Students also commented that they enjoyed the presentations and wanted more time to discuss each other's work - the presentations will now take place across two weeks at the end of semester as a celebration of the semesters' activities.

Disclaimer

The University reserves the right to amend units of study or no longer offer certain units, including where there are low enrolment numbers.

To help you understand common terms that we use at the University, we offer an online glossary.