PowerPointGoogle SlidePrezi Presentation (@ 6-10 slides)

Nancy Armstrong-Sanchez ENG 350

Assignment 3: Comparative Analysis:

PowerPoint/Google Slide/Prezi Presentation (@ 6-10 slides)

Polished Draft Due on Friday, Oct 14 (by 11:59pm PST)

Context: Assignment 3 will be the first of two assignments this semester that incorporate multi-modal design. (Your next MMD assignment will be Assignment 5/Unit 5)

“Instead of a typical written research paper, multimodal projects include multiple modes for communicating your thesis, ideas, and research findings. This can include any combination of text and: images, video or animation, sound or audio.” (DH LibGuide)

Directions: To create your Comparative Analysis, decide on the following:

Topic: Select any 2 pieces on the same topic to examine for your Comparative Analysis presentation.

SOURCE: https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/writingspaces4/jacobson.pdf

Pro Tip: As long as you bring in some significantly new analysis into Assignment 3, you are welcomed to incorporate and build upon the work you have previously completed for Assignment 2. However, if you prefer not to stay with the original piece, you are also welcome to choose new pieces.

Moves Analysis: conduct a preliminary Moves Analysis on each of your selected pieces. Use this analysis work as the foundations for your Assignment 3 presentation. (For more information on Moves Analysis, please see the materials listed in Week 6, Step 1.)

Organization: decide if you will set up your Comparative Analysis using Block, Point by Point, or a combination of the two.

Modality: select your modality: PowerPoint, Google Slide, or Prezi

While we will have a more expansive conversation about multi-modal design in Unit 5, if you feel comfortable doing so, you can also move beyond these options.

As such, you are also welcomed to present your analysis via YouTube video, Tik Tok, Padlet, Sound Cloud, digital poster, TED Talk, mini-graphic novel, song, etc. (If you do so, please email me to discuss submission options beyond Canvas.)

Comparative Analysis Presentation: please see next page for specific analysis details

Prompt: Comparative Genre Analysis

Your goal in this assignment is to successfully read and interpret two pieces on the same topic, from the same genre. Using the broad framework of Genre Analysis, compare/contrast your two selections to one another, exploring the design, delivery, language, structure and effectiveness of each piece.

Possible Outline/Key Components of your presentation: To strengthen your analysis, develop and support a claim in which you articulate an overarching analysis of your pieces. Suggested guidelines:

Hook: A brief, meaningful reference to your Term/Key Concept.

Transition: build up some contextual knowledge for the reader.

Thesis: Present an argument about your analysis of the pieces. (In other words, what do you want your read to know/think/feel/believe about the pieces you are present in this essay and how their respective genres relate (compare/contrast) to one another?)

Next, support your claim in the body of your PPT, etc. by observing the following:

your analysis clearly states your reasons for your broad analysis of each piece.

your analysis gives strong, specific evidence from each piece you chose in support of your thesis.

the tone of your argument is essentially objective, adult, and controlled.

the work is organized — it should be assembled in a way that makes it easy for a reader to move through the assignment from beginning to end.

Then, as you compose your original analysis, consider examining 3-4 of the following:

Genre and Stance: How is the information shaped by the genre (s)? (Consider the limitations/freedoms of space, time, layout, audience, and so on.) What are the authors attitudes about the topics? Does the stance seem to be influenced by the relationship with the audience?

Audience & Purpose Questions: Who is the intended audience for each piece? What discourse community (or communities) is this audience in? What is the audience likely to know? Want to know? Why? How much time will this audience want to spend with the information presented in the pieces? What is the purpose of the information presented in the piece? (Inform, persuade, etc.)

Structure & Language Questions: How are the pieces organized to convey their message? How does the structure facilitate the purpose of the information in the piece (s)? Style/Language: How formal/informal is the language? What specialized vocabulary is used? What other language features do you notice, especially with respect to sentence level and voice choices?

Support Questions (Data & Literature): How are claims stated and supported? How much context or background is provided? Is data presented using charts, tables, figures, etc.? What type and amount of evidence is used, and how is it used? How is the credibility of the evidence indicated?

Finally, wrap up the gist of your assignment and consider the implication of your argument. Which piece was more effective in conveying its message? Why? What do you hope your reader takes away from your analysis of these pieces?

Assignment due date(s)

WIP for Peer Review due date

Tuesday, Oct 11 (Please see Week 7 Folder for specific details)

WIP for Instructor Feedback due date:

Wednesday, Oct 12 (Please see Week 7 Folder for specific details)

Polished Draft due

Friday, Oct 14, 11:59pm PST, via Turnitin

Grading: Each of the following categories, will be graded as strong, solid, or developing.

Focus: The work offers a well-articulated topic, issues or questions for analysis, and claim. All information included relates to the presenter’s topic and main argument. (30%)

Organization: The work has a logical structure, with information clearly labeled. Each element of the work has an obvious relation to the other elements. (30%)

Development/Support through use of Digital Content: The work incorporates all required information. The discussion of observations/applicable materials support the presenter’s claim. (20%)

Design: All aspects of the work are comprehensible, accessible, and serve a specific purpose. (10%)

Works Cited Page: All relevant pieces correctly cited and noted in the Works Cited Page. (10%)

Overall Presentation: Overall presentation a clear, organized, and succinct.

(amended from http://faculty.washington.edu/kgb/cyberculture/poster_presentation_assignment.pdf)


For basic information on in-text parenthetical citations, see our text. The basic rules are simple:

Cite your source by including the author’s last name and the page number/numbers in a parenthesis, right as soon as you finish the quote or paraphrase: “Blah di blah blah blah blah” (Jones 92).

If you mention the author’s name in setting up the quote/paraphrase, you don’t include it in the parenthesis: However, Smith notes that x, y, and z (84).

If you’re changing pages but not authors, you don’t need to repeat the author’s name: “Blah di blah blah blah blah” (Johnson 92). However, she also later describes the situation as “ultra blah di blah” (96).

Here is a sample works cited page…

Works Cited

Bean, John C., Virginia A. Chappell, and Alice M. Gillam. Reading Rhetorically. 3rd ed. Boston: Longman,

2011. Print.

Cirincione, Joseph. “The War on Iraq Was Not Justified.” The War on Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints.

Ed. Karen Balkin. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2005. 56-63. Print.

Darling, Dan. “The War on Iraq Was Justified.” The War on Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Karen

Balkin. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2005. 50-55. Print.

Kimmel, Michael S. “Culture Establishes Gender Roles.” Male/female Roles: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed.

Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2005. 27-37. Print.

Norman, Geoffrey. “Biological Differences Establish Gender Roles.” Male/female Roles: Opposing

Viewpoints. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2005. 21-26. Print.

Brown, Judie. “Stem Cell Research Is Murder.” Stem Cell Research. Ed. Jennifer Skancke. Farmington

Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2009. 39-46. Print.

Holcberg, David, and Alex Epstein. “Stem Cell Research Is Not Murder.” Stem Cell Research. Ed. Jennifer

Skancke. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2009. 47-51. Print.