Course Overview

ENGL 3090 builds on the competencies developed in English 1101 and 1102, with a special emphasis on composition intended to explain, inform, and describe. As with any kind of writing, expository writing is rhetorical; it has a purpose, audience, author(s), and context. Consequently, this course will continue to develop your ability to identify, analyze, and respond to rhetorical situations.

Regarding the purpose of the writing we’ll be doing this semester, the other primary subject matter of this course will be the material world of objects through which we move in our day to day lives. We will consider why we are driven to create, use, consume, and accumulate things. Why and how do we form emotional attachments to inanimate objects? What do the possessions we own say about us–about our social and economic status, our cultural and ethnic identities, our psychological profile? To what extent is human behavior and expression dependent upon tools, prostheses, and other material goods? Does being human require a world of objects against which or through which we can define ourselves? These are the sorts of questions the field of material culture studies has evolved to answer, and these are the questions we will take up and examine in our reading and writing.

Finally, we will consider the place of expository writing as part of a larger multimodal project of exposition. In addition to writing, we use a variety of other modes—linguistic, visual, aural, spatial, gestural– to interact with and communicate about the material world. Developing your ability to integrate alphabetic text with these other modalities in your writing will improve your rhetorical expertise.

Summary of projects: The course includes the following projects, which are designed to engage you in the processes and rhetorical analyses involved in expository composition: a blog, a detailed multimodal description of an artifact, a collaborative timeline detailing the “evolution” of the objects the class has chosen to study, a multimodal object analysis, and a critical reflective essay.

The blog, object description, and timeline will all build towards and contribute to the multimodal object analysis. The critical reflective essay will describe and explain your evolution as a rhetorician over the course of the semester, with a particular emphasis on multimodality. Failure to complete projects early on will make completing later projects that reuse or remix work from previous projects more difficult. It’s especially important, therefore, to keep up with the work in this course.

Reading: As a class, we will all read some materials in common (chapters from the textbook as well as articles), but some of your reading will be selected, using criteria I provide, based on the specific subject matter you choose to address in your compositions.

Reflection: Many studies about the relationship between learning and reflection indicate that long-term learning takes place during reflection about the work rather than simply in doing the work itself. Thus, following each of your projects, you’ll submit a reflection that will require you to analyze and explain your learning and composition process.

Many thanks to R.E. Burnett (LMC3403) and Cydney Alexis (WRIT 1133), whose syllabi and course design have been reused and remixed in the syllabus and design of this course.

What will we be doing?

This course has five major projects:

  • Blog (5 posts) | 50-200 points each | 250-1000 points total
  • Object Description | 150-500 points total
  • Interactive Timeline (1) | 350-1000 points total
  • Multimodal Object Analysis (2 stages) | Compete draft=450-1250, Revision=300-750 points | 750-2000 points total
  • Critical Reflective Essay (1) | 350-1000 points

You will earn points for each major project. In addition, you will also earn points for class preparation and participation (300-??? points). In general, this course is designed to reward the quality and quantity of work you do. The more you put into the course, the more you will get out of it–with regard to both your learning and your grade.

Blog (5 posts) | 50-200 points each | 250-1000 points total

I’ve divided you up into two groups. In the prompt for each week, I will identify which group will be posting that week. You will post as individuals, but your group assignment will determine whether you are posting in response to the prompt in any given week.

Throughout the semester you will maintain individual commentary and reflections about the course readings, our in-class discussions, and your own material culture analyses with our class as audience. In the weeks when you are in the posting group, you will create a post in response to the prompt for that week. In the weeks when you are not in the posting group, your responsibility is to read the posts contributed by your peers in order to bring their ideas into class discussion. Your blog is for our class and interested readers; you can also make it available to the public.

Blog posts will be due by 11:59 pm on Friday in the week you are assigned to post. The general schedule for each group will be as follows:

Group 1

  • Blog Post 1: Writing and Material Culture | January 19, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 3: Dead Things | February 2, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 5: Sharp Things | February 16, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 7: Reading Things | March 2, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 9: Wanting Things | March 23, 11:59 pm

Group 2

  • Blog Post 2: Cute Things | January 26, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 4: Old Things | February 9, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 6: Smart Things | February 23, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 8: Telling History | March 9, 11:59 pm
  • Blog Post 10: What is exposition? | March 30, 11:59 pm
Project Purpose and Goals

The blog posts are designed to promote your engagement with examples of expository writing that consider–in various ways–the general topic of material culture. They are also designed to get you thinking more deeply about many of the questions and issues raised in the primary course readings. Finally, the blog posts should provoke and supplement our in class discussions about material culture, the primary course readings, multimodality, and expository composition as a rhetorical process.

You improve as an author through reading and writing. By posting regularly to your blog, you integrate writing into the fabric of your studies and routine.

Guidelines

The conventions of academic blogging are described in Dan Cohen’s post about the “blessay” :

1) Mid-length: more ambitious than a blog post, less comprehensive than an academic article. Written to the length that is necessary, but no more. If we need to put a number on it, generally 1,000-3,000 words.

2) Informed by academic knowledge and analysis, but doesn’t rub your nose in it.

3) Uses the apparatus of the web more than the apparatus of the journal, e.g., links rather than footnotes. Where helpful, uses supplementary evidence from images, audio, and video—elements that are often missing or flattened in print.

4) Expresses expertise but also curiosity. Conclusive but also suggestive.

5) Written for both specialists and an intelligent general audience. Avoids academic jargon—not to be populist, but rather out of a feeling that avoiding jargon is part of writing well.

6) Wants to be Instapapered and Read Later.

7) Eschews simplistic formulations superficially borrowed from academic fields like history (no “The Puritans were like Wikipedians”).

You’re aiming for at least three paragraphs (~500 words at a bare minimum) of focused, cogent writing that raises thought-provoking questions about the prompt topic and the reading associated with it and then attempts to answer those questions. Other than that, follow Cohen’s advice about conventions, tone, purpose, and genre.

Links to the class blogs from previous iterations of the course are here and here.

Evaluation Categories and Criteria

Below is the detailed rubric I will follow when evaluating this project. Use this rubric to guide you as you complete your reading responses, and to help you understand the score you receive for each reading response on the comparative evaluation rubric in your feedback document on Google drive.

In order to receive minimum possible points, a project must meet all five criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section of the rubric. Generally, speaking, this means your post must be a good faith effort to respond to the prompt and follow the project guidelines.

Competent, Credible, Complete

Complete? 10 points The post was submitted on time; it is at least 250 words long; and it is categorized appropriately.
Rhetorically Aware? 20 points
The post engages with questions or issues raised in the prompt; it offers substantive discussion of important points, questions, terms, or problems in  the primary course reading and the supplemental text(s) discussed in the prompt; and it attempts to bring the primary course reading and the supplemental text(s) into conversation
Credible? 20 points It is apparent from the post that the student has read and considered both the primary course reading and the supplemental text(s).

Skillful, Persuasive (60-150 points)

Evidence? 20 points The post is at least 500 words and offers relevant evidence from the primary course reading, the supplemental text(s), and the student author’s own experience and research in support of commentary, interpretation, and explanation.
Organization? 20 points The post attempts or succeeds in raising and answering at least one substantive question relevant to or raised in both the primary course reading and the supplemental text(s).
Modes? 20 points The post makes use of multimodal evidence and uses links, images, and other multimodal content to connect resources or create more effective summary, interpretation, and explanation of the primary course reading and the supplemental text(s).
Text Conventions? 20 points While some errors in spelling, grammar, and usage may be present, they do not significantly detract from the student author’s credibility.
Revision? 20 points Drafts/reflection show evidence of revision to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal.

Distinctive (150-200 points)

Mature? 15 points The post is at least 750 words and student author uses the primary course reading and supplemental text to draw out claims, explanations, evidence, and counter-arguments regarding debated or complicated terms, theories, and questions important to both pieces; the post acknowledges multiple points of view, or demonstrates awareness of multiple stakeholders affected by the policies or issues under discussion in the primary course reading and supplemental text(s).
Persuasive or Original? 15 points Post offers a particularly cohesive and persuasive interpretation, explanation,  and summary of both the primary text and supplemental reading(s), drawing on particularly relevant and credible evidence from both pieces.
Creative/Well-designed? 10 points Author makes creative use of multiple modes; or layout and design are aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, and well-executed.
Polished? 10 points Project drafts/reflection provide evidence of multiple revisions to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal, and text is virtually free of grammar/punctuation/usage errors.

Object Description | 150-500 points total

For this project, you will compose a multimodal description of your object.

As you are working, you should document your process for drafting the object description through written reflections or journal entries, images, and whatever other means you may find useful. You will create your description as a post on your blog, submitting the link via Gradian.

The Object Description and your reflection are due by 11:59 pm on February 23.
Project Purpose and Goals

This project is intended to help focus or re-focus your attention, to help you notice new details or make new associations that you might otherwise overlook. You might experiment with a couple of different approaches–documenting the complete sensory experience of the object from multiple perspectives–before settling on one. In your description, you might experiment with different perspectives (first person, second person, that of the object itself, etc.).

Guidelines

First, observe, deeply, your object (an artifact from the Unpacking Manuel’s project). Record your observations in writing with the goal of documenting as much objective detail as possible. Use the “double sided notebook” approach. It goes like this:

  1. fold a piece of notebook paper in half vertically (you can keep it in your binder)
  2. on the left side of the page, record objective facts, observations about the artifact
  3. on the right side of the page, record other things that come to mind as you observe the artifact (ideas, memories, questions, etc.)
  4. continue on the front side paper #2, leaving the back of the page open to addressing your ideas, questions, etc. and making connections between your subjective experience of the artifact and your objective rendering of it

As you record your objective observation of the artifact, questions and associations will come to mind, ideas and memories, imagined scenarios or suggestions of possibilities. This subjective experience of the artifact is important and needs to be recorded, too. The goal, however, is to cultivate an awareness of the rendering of objective detail as differentiated from other phenomena, like the generating of memories or associations.

After you complete one or two sessions with your artifact, generating double-sided notebook renderings of it, take pictures of your work and upload them to your blog site. Submit all of this work on Gradian for participation points.

NEXT…

Review your notes. You will craft them into what is called a “thick description” of your artifact, accounting for objective detail. Someone who has never seen the artifact and hasn’t the ability of sight should be able to experience and know it in her mind by reading your thick description. It will likely comprise at least half of your written entry for this project.

Included in object description, you will upload at least three (3) digital images. At least one (1) of those images must be a high-quality photograph or digital facsimile of your artifact. The remaining two (2) images can include additional photos/facsimiles of your object depicting relevant detail, or images of other objects or documents (such as advertisements, undamaged specimens, reconstructions, etc.) associated with your primary object of study.

In addition to the thick description of the object’s physical features, your object description should provide information that would enable your audience to answer the following questions:

  • What is this artifact?
  • When was it created?
  • Who created it?
  • Where was it created?
  • Why was it created?

What are the relevant physical and rhetorical features of this object? (e.g., what materials is it constructed from, what are its dimensions/colors/textures, what does it say, what is significant about the design or process for constructing it, who were the people who used and created it and what role did they play in the events of the time, etc.?)

Rather than thinking about this prompt as a series of questions that you answer in order, approach your description as an essay intended to summarize and report on the basic historical background of your object, to describe the source as a physical object, and to provide an overview of the specific cultural and rhetorical context in which your object originated.

Throughout the process, consider what role multimodal description plays or should play in material cultural studies, as an archival, observational, display, or exposition strategies.

In your reflection, you will respond to the following (challenging) prompt:

Rather than thinking about this prompt as a series of questions that you answer in order, approach your reflections as an essay intended to explain the choices you made over the course of the project, how your intentions evolved, and what you learned from engaging with this project, along with the readings and class discussions.

How did your understanding of the relationship between people and things or your understanding of what an object/artifact/possession is and does change as you worked through this project? What new details or associations were brought into focus?

A corollary question to consider is, What did you learn about how linguistic, spatial, and visual modes work together in exposition? How does the function of linguistic content change or evolve in multimodal contexts? In your description, what expository functions (explanation, definition, description, summation, comparison, contrast, entertainment, persuasion, etc.) are performed by each of the various modalities?

In addition to responding to these questions, your reflection should give me some insight into your research and composition process. I want to hear about anything that helps me to understand the work you put into the object description, your writing process for the linguistic content, your selection and revision process for the visual content, decisions you had to make about spatial relationships as you tweaked your post layout or decided on what images and other media to include, the “angle” you took on the project, etc. I like to hear about strengths of your project and also weaknesses, as well as what you would change if you had more time.

Above all, have fun! I value creativity, thoughtfulness, professionalism, and analytical rigor. I grade your projects accordingly. I do not have an “ideal” project in mind; instead, I like to be taught something meaningful and surprised.

Evaluation Categories and Criteria

Below is the detailed rubric I will follow when evaluating this project. Use this rubric to guide you as you complete your reading responses, and to help you understand the score you receive for each reading response on the comparative evaluation rubric in your feedback document on Google drive.

In order to receive minimum possible points, a project must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section. Generally, speaking, this means your submitted draft must be a good faith effort to respond to the prompt and follow the project guidelines.

For higher points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section and one or more of the criteria outlined in the “Skillful/Persuasive” section. The “Skillful/Persuasive” criteria focus on use of evidence, organization, conventions, and integration of rhetorical modes.

To receive highest points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria in “Competent, Credible, Complete” and “Skillful/Persuasive” and one or more of the criteria described in the “Distinctive” section. The “Distinctive” criteria focus on maturity of rhetorical awareness, persuasiveness and originality of argument, creative use of rhetorical modes, and polish in presentation and design.

Competent, Credible, Complete (150-250 points)

Complete? The object description was submitted on time, in accordance with project instructions.
Rhetorically Aware? The object description attempts to represent the complete sensory experience of the object.
Credible? The object description demonstrates the student author’s emerging awareness and use of methods of inquiry and knowledge creation associated with material culture studies.

Skillful, Persuasive (250-400 points)

Evidence? The object description includes evidence related to at least three of the five senses, and makes use of metaphor and comparison to enrich the description.
Organization? The object description has a beginning, middle, and end, and it flows according to a logical organizational plan (e.g., top to bottom, left to right, interior to exterior, sense by sense, etc.).
Modes? The object description makes use of multimodal evidence.
Text Conventions? The object description may contain occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and usage, but these do not detract significantly from the student author’s credibility.
Revision? Drafts/reflection show evidence of revision to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal.

Distinctive (400-500 points)

Mature? The object description is particularly detailed and full of thick description related to at least four senses.
Persuasive or Original? The object description offers a unique perspective or makes thought-provoking connections and comparisons.
Creative/Well-designed? The object description does a good job integrating multimodal evidence. The post itself is well-designed, and the images, links, and other multimedia content demonstrate author’s attention to detail in composing or selecting it.
Polished? The object description is polished and free of stylistic, grammatical, and formatting errors.

Interactive Timeline | 350-1000 points total

For this project, you will conduct research relevant to understanding the history and cultural significance of the object you began documenting in Project 3, and you will present some of your research as an interactive timeline that documents, describes, narrates, and explains the history of your object, ideally from multiple perspectives (e.g., personal, cultural, technological, economic, social, etc.). In creating the multimedia entries describing events on your timeline, you can use the photographs and description you created for Project 3, and you may also choose to create new images, and borrow (with attribution and citation) images created by others. In addition to text and images, your entries might also integrate video, hyperlinks, and sound recordings (again, provide attribution and citation when using or re-mixing pre-existing material).

The Interactive Timeline and your reflection are due by 11:59 pm on March 23.

Project Purpose and Goals

This project is designed to help you organize and begin to explain and interpret the historical, social, political, and cultural context in which the object you’re studying is embedded. It is also designed to help you explore chronological and associational methods of organizing and presenting information. You will also be continuing to develop your expertise with multimodal rhetoric.

Guidelines

Your timeline must comprise at least ten distinct entries, and each entry should make use of at least two modes. You can compose your entries however you wish, but your final timeline submission will be in the form of a Google spreadsheet, submitted on Google Drive, the template for which is available here. We’re using this template because it is compatible with the Timeline JS tool built by Knight Labs. You can access a complete tutorial on using Timeline JS to create interactive timelines on the project website. You will also create a post on your site that includes an (200-250 word) introduction to your timeline, and integrates the timeline display as described in Step 4 of the Timeline JS tutorial.

As with the other projects we’ve completed so far, I encourage you to be creative. You might build your timeline entries into one seamless narrative, or you might treat each entry as a mini expository essay. You might narrate your entries from the perspective of the object(s), from the perspective of individuals who play significant roles in the history of the object(s) your timeline describes, alternate between these two perspectives, or take on the role of a neutral (or maybe even alien) observer. In addition to information you uncover in your research, you might also identify, describe, and explain how the history of your object sheds light on the reading we’ve been doing in class. Experiment with the different methods of material culture analysis we’ve encountered thus far. And you should also feel free to model your prose on the writing we’ve been studying.

In your reflection, you will respond to the following (challenging) prompt:

Rather than thinking about this prompt as a series of questions that you answer in order, approach your reflections as an essay intended to explain the choices you made over the course of the project, how your intentions evolved, and what you learned from engaging with this project, along with the readings and class discussions.

How did your understanding of the relationship between people and things or your understanding of what an object/artifact/possession is and does change when you begin to document the history of your object? What did the act of identifying, describing, and explaining significant events in your object’s history reveal about the significance of objects in human lives?

A corollary question to consider is, How does working in a form that encourages and even requires multimodality change the way you communicate? What modes did you employ? And what rhetorical techniques (explanation, definition, description, summation, comparison, contrast, entertainment, persuasion, etc.) did you implement via each of these modes and why?

I addition to responding to these questions, your reflection should give me some insight into your research and composition process. I want to hear about anything that helps me to understand the work you put into the timeline you created, your writing process for the linguistic content, your selection and revision process for the visual content, decisions you had to make about spatial relationships as you tweaked your display post, the “angle” you took on the project, etc. I like to hear about strengths of your project and also weaknesses, as well as what you would change if you had more time.

Above all, have fun! I value creativity, thoughtfulness, professionalism, and analytical rigor. I grade your projects accordingly. I do not have an “ideal” project in mind; instead, I like to be taught something meaningful and surprised.

Evaluation Categories and Criteria

Below is the detailed rubric I will follow when evaluating this project. Use this rubric to guide you as you complete your reading responses, and to help you understand the score you receive for each reading response on the comparative evaluation rubric in your feedback document on Google drive.

In order to receive minimum possible points, a project must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section. Generally, speaking, this means your submitted draft must be a good faith effort to respond to the prompt and follow the project guidelines.

For higher points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section and one or more of the criteria outlined in the “Skillful/Persuasive” section. The “Skillful/Persuasive” criteria focus on use of evidence, organization, conventions, and integration of rhetorical modes.

To receive highest points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria in “Competent, Credible, Complete” and “Skillful/Persuasive” and one or more of the criteria described in the “Distinctive” section. The “Distinctive” criteria focus on maturity of rhetorical awareness, persuasiveness and originality of argument, creative use of rhetorical modes, and polish in presentation and design.

Competent, Credible, Complete (350-500 points)

Complete? The timeline and reflection were submitted on time, in accordance with project guidelines. Timeline comprises at least ten distinct entries, and each entry makes use of at least two modes.
Rhetorically Aware? The timeline describes and places the object within a relevant material and cultural context.
Credible? The timeline demonstrates the student author’s emerging awareness and use of methods of inquiry and knowledge creation associated with material culture studies.

Skillful, Persuasive (500-800) points)

Evidence? Timeline events are described in detail and offer relevant, credible evidence. The context described in the timeline has been constructed through careful research drawing on multiple sources.
Organization? Each event is a cohesive and complete explanation of a significant moment or episode. The author has made an effort to link events into a coherent chronological account of the object’s cultural and historical context.
Modes? Within each slide, text and multimedia are integrated. Attention has been paid to the overall design or “look and feel” of the timeline to create a sense of narrative unity.
Text Conventions? The timeline may contain occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and usage, but these do not detract significantly from the student author’s credibility.
Revision? Drafts/reflection show evidence of revision to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal.

Distinctive (800-1000 points)

Mature? The context described and represented in the timeline offers a particularly complex or thought-provoking response to questions such as, “Who are the people who made this thing?,” and “What social, political, cultural forces or ideas have shaped (or been shaped by) this object’s history?”
Persuasive or Original? The evidence presented in support of the timeline events is particularly detailed, credible, and well-documented.
Creative/Well-designed? The timeline makes use of all of the affordances of Timeline JS to create a unified, seamless, and aesthetically pleasing or clever or complex user experience.
Polished? The timeline is virtually free of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting errors.

Multimodal Object Analysis (2 stages) | Compete draft=450-1250 points, Revision=300-750 points | 750-2000 points total

For this project, you will compose an object analysis, using the guidance provided in Kenneth Haltman’s “Introduction” to American Artifacts. Over the course of the semester, we have read a number of essays that you can use as models. These include, “Lucubrations on a Lava Lamp: Technocracy, Counterculture, and Containment in the Sixties,” by Jennifer L. Roberts; “The Truth of Material Culture: History or Fiction,” by Jules David Prown (Prown’s analysis of the teapot); ” “The Cultural Work of a Mohegan Painted Basket,” by Stephanie Fitzgerald; and “Style as Evidence,” by Jules David Prown.

In your object analysis, you may draw on the methods of observation, research, and interpretation exhibited in these essays. You may also use them as formal and stylistic models as you consider how to organize, and craft the tone or authorial perspective in your object analysis. Your object analysis should comprise about 1500-2500 words, and it should be multimodal, integrating images, video, graphs, sound recordings, diagrams, etc., in order to provide a rich and detailed exposition of your object and what study of your object helps us to understand about the culture that created it.

You will post your final multimodal object analysis to your create.gsu.edu WordPress site.

The stages of the Multimodal Object Analysis will be due as follows:

  • Complete draft | April 13, 11:59 pm
  • Revision and reflection | April 27, 11:59 pm

Project Purpose and Goals

In this project, you will bring together the multimodal exposition skills that you have been building over the semester, with the understanding of material culture studies you have acquired, in order to produce a multimodal, multimedia expository composition.

Guidelines

Your completed blog post will be the final submission for this project. In addition to the object analysis essay, it should include your embedded interactive timeline and at least one high-resolution image of your artifact.

As with the other projects we’ve tackled so far, I encourage you to be creative. Your object analysis should be grounded in careful observation and meticulous research, but it can use language and imagery that is affective and provocative. Feel free to play around with your authorial voice or persona, and consider crafting a “character” of sorts, like those personas that we encounter reading Walter Benjamin, or the studies of David Wilson and the Museum of Jurassic Technology. Remember, while your object analysis should be credible and to some extent persuasive, the primary purpose of your object analysis is to describe, explain, and inform, rather than to convince your audience about the “correctness” of your observations and interpretation.

In your reflection, you will respond to the following (challenging) prompt:

Rather than thinking about this prompt as a series of questions that you answer in order, approach your reflection as an essay intended to explain the choices you made over the course of the project, how your intentions evolved, and what you learned from engaging with this project, along with the readings and class discussions.

How did your understanding of the relationship between people and things or your understanding of what an object/artifact/possession is and does change as you worked through this project? What new details or associations were brought into focus?

A corollary question to consider is, What did you learn about how linguistic, spatial, and visual modes work together in exposition? How does the function of linguistic content change or evolve in multimodal contexts? In your multimodal object analysis, what expository functions (explanation, definition, description, summation, comparison, contrast, entertainment, persuasion, etc.) are performed by each of the various modalities?

I addition to responding to these questions, your reflection should give me some insight into your research and composition process. I want to hear about anything that helps me to understand the work you put into your object analysis, your writing process for the linguistic content, your selection and revision process for the visual content, decisions you had to make about spatial relationships as you tweaked the presentation of your final draft on the blog, the “angle” you took on the project, etc. I like to hear about strengths of your project and also weaknesses, as well as what you would change if you had more time.

Above all, have fun! I value creativity, thoughtfulness, professionalism, and analytical rigor. I grade your projects accordingly. I do not have an “ideal” project in mind; instead, I like to be taught something meaningful and surprised.

Evaluation Categories and Criteria

Below is the detailed rubric I will follow when evaluating this project. Use this rubric to guide you as you complete your reading responses, and to help you understand the score you receive for each reading response on the comparative evaluation rubric in your feedback document on Google drive.

In order to receive minimum possible points, a project must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section. Generally, speaking, this means your submitted draft must be a good faith effort to respond to the prompt and follow the project guidelines.

For higher points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section and one or more of the criteria outlined in the “Skillful/Persuasive” section. The “Skillful/Persuasive” criteria focus on use of evidence, organization, conventions, and integration of rhetorical modes.

To receive highest points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria in “Competent, Credible, Complete” and “Skillful/Persuasive” and one or more of the criteria described in the “Distinctive” section. The “Distinctive” criteria focus on maturity of rhetorical awareness, persuasiveness and originality of argument, creative use of rhetorical modes, and polish in presentation and design.

Competent, Credible, Complete (1st Complete Draft 600 points, Revised Draft 400 points)

Complete?

The project was submitted on time; it comprises 2500-3000 words at least (10-12 substantial, digital pages); it includes a works cited

Rhetorically Aware?

The project demonstrates an awareness of the rhetorical situation, particularly an academic audience, and adheres to basic conventions of the online/digital essay genre.

Credible?

The text offers evidence to support claims; most of the evidence comes from quality, scholarly sources and is cited. The analysis demonstrates a basic awareness of the methods and forms of material culture studies.

Skillful, Persuasive (1st Complete Draft 600-1000 points, Revised Draft 400-600 points)

Evidence?

The evidence stems from credible, scholarly sources and reflects a variety of perspectives; the evidence is explained within the context of the author’s analysis.

Organization?

The project is organized in a clear and compelling way; navigation is clear and easy

Modes?

The project makes use of multimodal evidence and uses links, images, and other multimodal content to connect resources or create a more effective object analysis.

Text Conventions?

While some errors in spelling, grammar, and usage may be present, they do not significantly detract from the student author’s credibility.

Revision?

Drafts/reflection show evidence of revision to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal.

Distinctive (1st Complete Draft 1000-1250 points, Revised Draft 600-750 points)

Mature?

The object analysis offers a particularly complex or thought-provoking response to questions such as, “Who are the people who made this thing?,” and “What social, political, cultural forces or ideas have shaped (or been shaped by) this object’s history?”

Persuasive or Original?

The evidence presented in support of the object analysis is particularly detailed, credible, and well-documented.

Creative/Well-designed?

Author makes creative use of multiple modes; or layout and design are aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, and well-executed.

Polished?

Project drafts/reflection provide evidence of multiple revisions to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal, and text is virtually free of grammar/punctuation/usage/formatting errors.

Critical Reflective Essay | 350-1000 Points

In this essay, you will describe how you have evolved over the course of the semester as a writer, with a particular emphasis on answering the following questions:

  1. What was your understanding of “exposition” as a rhetorical practice when you began?
  2. How has your understanding of “exposition” as a rhetorical practice evolved, and what is the role of exposition in rhetoric and composition as you define the field more broadly?
  3. How have you evolved and grown as a writer over the course of the semester?
  4. What have you learned about multimodality and how to combine alphabetic text with other rhetorical modes to create effective multimodal communication?
  5. What have you learned about writing and rhetoric as material processes that make use of and engage with objects in the world around us?

Your essay will blend aspects of a personal narrative with exposition. In addition to drawing from your own work and personal experience over the course of the semester, you should also quote and paraphrase from class readings that shape or inform your answers to the questions above. Attribute sources by including author’s name, title of work, publication, publication date and relevant page numbers, in parentheses immediately after the sentence. Think about how this essay tells a story about your experience, and think about how you wish to inform your audience–that is me and your peers, and the public if you choose to make your post public–about your writing and learning.

Your critical reflective essay will be due by 11:59 pm on April 30.
Project Purpose and Goals

Your critical reflective essay should accomplish the following goals:

  • Demonstrate through multimodal exposition and written reflection a knowledge of relevant rhetorical terms and concepts and an ability to apply these terms and concepts in your own expository composition process;
  • Demonstrate individual intellectual growth, significant accomplishments, and important contributions in this course;
  • Demonstrate the technological competencies you have employed and developed over the course of the semester;
  • Offer a big-picture narrative of the course, its themes, its goals, and its final learning outcomes;
  • Offer a well-organized, well-designed, and engaging user experience

Many studies about the relationship between learning and reflection indicate that long-term learning takes place during reflection about the work rather than simply in doing the work itself. Thus, the critical reflective essay is also designed to help you understand what you have learned here so that you can transfer it to other contexts.

Guidelines

Your critical reflective essay will ideally draw on all of the work that you have done this semester in the reflections for individual projects, in our class discussions, in your blog posts, etc.

Your critical reflective essay should not, however, just catalog your work on the other projects. Rather, it should tell a cohesive story about your progress through the course and what you learned from each project, how you applied what you learned from one project or reading or class discussion or blog post in other projects/readings/discussions/posts. Your critical reflective essay could also discuss how you have applied or intend to apply what you have learned in this class in other academic and professional contexts.

As with the other projects we’ve tackled so far, I encourage you to be creative. Your critical reflective essay should be detailed and relatively professional in tone, but it can use language and imagery that is affective and provocative. Feel free to play around with your authorial voice or persona, and consider crafting a “character” of sorts, like those personas that we encounter reading Walter Benjamin, or the studies of David Wilson and the Museum of Jurassic Technology. Remember, while your critical reflective essay should be credible and to some extent persuasive, the primary purpose of your reflection is to describe, explain, and inform, rather than to convince your audience about the “correctness” of your definitions and observations.

Evaluation Categories and Criteria

Below is the detailed rubric I will follow when evaluating this project. Use this rubric to guide you as you complete your reading responses, and to help you understand the score you receive for each reading response on the comparative evaluation rubric in your feedback document on Google drive.

In order to receive minimum possible points, a project must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section. Generally, speaking, this means your submitted draft must be a good faith effort to respond to the prompt and follow the project guidelines.

For higher points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria outlined in the “Competent, Credible, Complete” section and one or more of the criteria outlined in the “Skillful/Persuasive” section. The “Skillful/Persuasive” criteria focus on use of evidence, organization, conventions, and integration of rhetorical modes.

To receive highest points, the draft must must be “Good” or “Superior” on all of the criteria in “Competent, Credible, Complete” and “Skillful/Persuasive” and one or more of the criteria described in the “Distinctive” section. The “Distinctive” criteria focus on maturity of rhetorical awareness, persuasiveness and originality of argument, creative use of rhetorical modes, and polish in presentation and design.

Competent, Credible, Complete (350-500 points)

Complete?

The project was submitted on time and in accordance with project guidelines.

Rhetorically Aware?

The project demonstrates an awareness of the rhetorical situation, particularly an academic audience, and adheres to basic conventions of the online/digital essay genre. The reflection responds to all of the questions presented in the reflection prompt.

Credible?

The essay offers evidence to support claims; definitions are drawn from readings and class discussions; the essay demonstrates student’s familiarity with core concepts and methodologies.

Skillful, Persuasive (500-800 points)

Evidence?

The critical reflective essay offers evidence from the author’s process and work, as well as from readings, research, and class discussions in support of its claims. Evidence is explained within the context.

Organization?

The essay has a beginning, middle, and end, and flows according to a logical organizational plan (e.g., beginning to end of process, successes v. failures, consideration of how definition of exposition or understanding of material culture studies emerged through the course of the semester, etc.).

Modes?

The essay makes use of multimodal evidence and uses links, images, and other multimodal content to connect resources or create a more effective and detailed reflection.

Text Conventions?

While some errors in spelling, grammar, and usage may be present, they do not significantly detract from the student author’s credibility.

Revision?

Drafts/reflection show evidence of revision to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal.

Distinctive (800-1000 points)

Mature?

The critical reflective essay demonstrates a particularly mature or insightful authorial self-awareness, offers an original or thought-provoking definition of exposition, or a relatively expert understanding of material culture studies as a field.

Persuasive or Original?

The evidence presented in support of the reflection is particularly detailed and thoughtfully integrated and explained.

Creative/Well-designed?

Author makes creative use of multiple modes; or layout and design are aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, and well-executed.

Polished?

Project drafts/reflection provide evidence of multiple revisions to improve clarity and rhetorical appeal, and text is virtually free of grammar/punctuation/usage/formatting errors.

Participation | 300-??? Points

Check your points on Gradian and feedback in your doc on Google Drive.

~Ask not what you can do to earn credit for this course; ask what you will do to earn as many points as you possibly can.

This course is designed to give you as many choices as possible for achieving the progress, learning, and final grade you feel is possible and desirable given your current situation (in terms of time, attention, and motivation) and the learning outcomes for the course.

Some students enter this class with a great deal of experience in academic research and writing, multimodal rhetoric, composition studies, and working with digital media. These students might be able to achieve relatively high quality work without investing too much time in acquiring the background disciplinary and technical knowledge needed to complete the course projects. This course is designed to reward high quality work with high grades.

Other students, however, may enter this class without much experience with concepts related to rhetoric and composition, academic research, and composing with digital media. The quality of the work they produce might not achieve the highest standards, even at the end of the semester, and even though they make substantial progress and acquire knowledge and skills that will be useful when the course is over. It’s not possible to become an expert in multimodal expository composition in one semester. This course is designed to encourage students to do as much work as they feel they need to or can do in order to see progress. The course is designed to reward quality and purposeful extra work with extra points so that high grades can be achieved by everyone.

Each week, you will earn points for required class preparation. You can earn general participation points by keeping up with class preparation. Class preparation work will also ensure you stay on track with reading and the research and composition process, and that everyone is prepared for class discussions, workshops, and peer review. Further, at any time during the course of the semester, you are invited to complete and submit work for extra participation points.

While participation is ongoing, you can earn rewards by accruing points early, and some opportunities for earning extra points expire when the major project with which they are associated expire.

Expiration Dates

While points will be awarded for class attendance and participation, study groups, group conferences, office hours meetings, and other forms of participation throughout the semester, opportunities for earning points associated with major projects will expire according to the following schedule:

  • Blog posts, 11:59 pm on the Monday after the post is due
  • Object Description, March 2
  • Interactive Timeline, April 2
  • Multimodal Object Analysis Complet Draft, April 27
  • Multimodal Object Analysis Revision, April 27

Late work can be submitted for completion credit, but you will not be able to earn points for submissions made after these deadlines.

If you complete and earn the minimum points for all of the major projects, complete all of the class prep, and attend every class, you will earn at least 2200 points and a grade of “C.” If you complete all of the major projects and accrue at least 4865 points you will automatically receive a “B.” Once you complete all of the major projects and class prep, and accrue 5415 points, you will automatically receive an A in the course!!!

Your points will be recorded on Gradian and substantive feedback will be recorded in a Google doc, which will be shared with you and available for you to view at any time.

I will give you ideas each week about extra credit opportunities that might be useful to you that week. You can also choose ideas from this list, which comprises ideas for extra work you may complete at any time during the course of the semester and submit for points:

  • Compose a blog post in response to an activity in Writer/Designer
  • Visit the Writing Studio to work on specific writing or research skills and write a reflection post about the experience
  • Complete a Lynda.com tutorial about a relevant technology
  • Contribute to the SOS archive
  • Contribute to the Tech Tutorial archive
  • Contribute to the Class Notes archive
  • Contribute to the Glossary archive
  • Compose blog posts relating other course work or interests to the issues we discuss in class
  • Come in for an office hour visit or make an appointment to work on something specific with your instructor
  • Set up a study group and write a post contributing your notes from the session
  • Complete extra blog posts
  • Revise major projects in response to instructor feedback
  • Suggest something….

Each submission will receive anywhere from 10 points to 100 or more, depending on the quality of the work. (I reserve the right to assign more points for impressively substantial, quality entries).

Remember to submit a link via Gradian for all work you for which you want me to provide points and feedback.

There is no limit to the number of extra points you can earn. The work must involve the course concepts in some demonstrable way.

**Be sure to let me know when you have completed points-potential work that doesn’t automatically get counted. Generally, you will do this by writing up your work as a blog post and submitting the link to your post via the submission form. This gives me opportunity to discuss the work with you and give you general feedback you can take to your work as a whole.

Submitting your work . . .

Use Gradian to submit pretty much everything for which you’d like to earn points–class prep, study group reflections, major project drafts, blog posts and comments, etc. I will keep track of when you come to see me during office hours for individual or group conferences. For everything else, however, you will need to submit a link to evidence of your work on your own site or elsewhere on the web.

If you ever have questions about what kind of evidence you need to provide to document your participation and how to submit it, stop by during office hours or ask the question before or after class. You’ll earn points for the office hours visit, asking the question, and for finding a way to make the information available to the rest of your classmates.

Image credit “Shoes” by Beverley Goodwin on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bevgoodwin/12114063533.

Weekly Overview

This is an overview of the readings and deliverables for the week of:

Image credit “coins” by Jeff Belmonte on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbelmonte/403289348.

Course Calendar

Click on the entry for a particular date for more details.

Syllabus

General

ENGL 3090-Expository Writing: Writing About Material Culture

Spring 2018 │T/Th 9:30-10:45 am │ Urban Life 302C

Instructor: Dr. Robin Wharton

  • Office: 25 Park Place #2432
  • Office Hours: W 12-3 pm and by appointment; I am able to meet during office hours or by appointment via Skype or Google Hangout if that works better than an in-person conference
  • Contact: rwharton3{at}gsu{the dot goes here}edu

All work must be submitted by the scheduled due date and in accordance with project guidelines. As a general rule, I do not accept late work, or work that does not meet formatting and submission guidelines outlined in the project description.

I reserve the right to change the policies, schedule, and syllabus at any time during the semester.

Learning Outcomes

This course follows the guidelines established by the English department for courses in the rhetoric and composition track. By the end of this course, students should be able to do the following:

  • Describe the research methodologies and composition practices associated with material culture studies as a discipline
  • Identify the characteristics of a well-crafted object analysis and apply these to their own compositions
  • Describe the history of expository composition and the teaching of exposition in American society
  • Apply techniques of exposition to their own writing (description, narration, summarizing, explaining, defining, comparing, contrasting, informing, instructing, and evoking affective and aesthetic responses) in a variety of genres and modes and for different specified audiences
  • Apply research methods and external sources in writing texts that inform and teach
  • Apply revision strategies to an expository composition, and self-evaluate their own process of composing and revising for greater effectiveness and aesthetic or affective appeal
  • Identify the differences between texts that are primarily intended to inform and teach and texts that are primarily intended to present an argument

Attendance

Come to class. Every class is important. If you miss class you will miss something essential, and you should make an appointment or drop by during office hours to catch up. You will lose 50 points for unexcused absences. Arriving to class late may result in a deduction of 25-50 points.

In this course, students are expected to adhere to the Georgia State University student code of conduct. This includes the university attendance policy. Excused absences are limited to university-sponsored events where you are representing GSU in an official capacity, religious holidays, and legal obligations such as jury duty or military service days. Absences for all other reasons will result in a points deduction as outlined above. In the event of extended illness or family emergency, I will consider requests for individual exemption from the general attendance policy on a case by case basis.

Overview of Projects and Grade Calculation

Over the course of the semester, you will be completing a series of projects, each of them building towards and contributing to a multimodal object analysis. Failure to complete projects early on will make completing later projects that reuse or remix work from previous projects more difficult. It’s especially important, therefore, to keep up with the work in this course.

Each project includes multiple parts, including drafts, peer review, and reflection. See the project descriptions, above, for details about the process, deliverables, and deadlines associated with each project.

This course has five major projects:

  • Blog (5 posts) | 50-200 points each | 250-1000 points total
  • Object Description | 150-500 points total
  • Interactive Timeline (1) | 350-1000 points total
  • Multimodal Object Analysis (2 stages) | Compete draft=450-1250, Revision=300-750 points | 750-2000 points total
  • Critical Reflective Essay (1) | 350-1000 points

You will earn points for each major project. In addition, you will also earn points for class preparation and participation (300-??? points). At the end of the course, if you have completed all of the major projects (blog, object description, interactive timeline, multimodal object analysis, and critical reflective essay), your letter grade will be assigned based on the points you’ve earned. In order to pass the course, you must complete all five of the major projects. FAILURE TO COMPLETE ANY OF THE MAJOR PROJECTS WILL RESULT IN AN AUTOMATIC GRADE OF “D” or lower MEANING THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO RE-TAKE THE CLASS. In general, this course is designed to reward the quality and quantity of work you do. The more you put into the course, the more you will get out of it–with regard to both your learning and your grade.

If you complete and earn the minimum points for all of the major projects, complete all of the class prep, and attend every class, you will earn at least 2200 points and a grade of “C.” If you complete all of the major projects and accrue at least 3925 points you will automatically receive a “B.” Once you complete all of the major projects and class prep, and accrue 5225 points, you will automatically receive an A in the course!!!

Your points will be recorded on Gradian and feedback will be recorded in a Google doc, which will be shared with you and available for you to view at any time.

Overview of major project deadlines (subject to change, check course calendar and weekly overview, above, for up-to-date information):

  • Group 1 Blog Posts | 11:59 pm on Jan. 19, Feb. 2, Feb. 16, March 2, and March 23
  • Group 2 Blog Posts | 11:59 pm on Jan. 26, Feb. 9, Feb. 23, March 9, and March 30
  • Object Description and reflection | February 23, 11:59 pm
  • Interactive Timeline and reflection | March 23, 11:59 pm
  • Complete Multimodal Object Analysis Draft | April 13, 11:59 pm
  • Revised Multimodal Object Analysis and reflection | April 27, 11:59 pm
  • Critical Reflective Essay | April 30

Class Schedule

See the Course Calendar, above, for reading and assignment/project due dates.

Academic Honesty / Plagiarism

The Department of English expects all students to adhere to the university’s Code of Student Conduct, especially as it pertains to plagiarism, cheating, multiple submissions, and academic honesty. Please refer to the Policy on Academic Honesty (Section 409 of the Faculty Handbook). Penalty for violation of this policy will result in a zero for the assignment, possible failure of the course, and, in some cases, suspension or expulsion. Georgia State University defines plagiarism as . . . “ . . . any paraphrasing or summarizing of the works of another person without acknowledgment, including the submitting of another student’s work as one’s own . . . [It] frequently involves a failure to acknowledge in the text . . . the quotation of paragraphs, sentences, or even phrases written by someone else.” At GSU, “the student is responsible for understanding the legitimate use of sources . . . and the consequences of violating this responsibility.” (For the university’s policies, see in the student catalog, “Academic Honesty,” http://www2.gsu.edu/~catalogs/2010-2011/undergraduate/1300/1380_academic_honesty.htm)

Accommodations for Students With Disabilities

Georgia State University complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Students who wish to request accommodation for a disability may do so by registering with the Office of Disability Services. Students may only be accommodated upon issuance by the Office of Disability Services of a signed Accommodation Plan and are responsible for providing a copy of that plan to instructors of all classes in which accommodations are sought. According to the ADA (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s3406enr.txt.pdf): ‘‘SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY. ‘‘As used in this Act: ‘‘(1) DISABILITY.—The term ‘disability’ means, with respect to an individual— ‘‘(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual…major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. ‘‘(B) MAJOR BODILY FUNCTIONS.—For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

Learning Technology

If you have them, you may bring laptops or mobile computing devices to class for use in in-class activities. Students should use these devices responsibly for class-related work. If they become a distraction for you, me, or other students in the class, I will ask you to put them away. Occasionally I will will request a device-free learning environment for a discussion or learning activity, and students are expected to honor such requests.

Language conventions

This course presumes that because you were exempt from or passed English 1101 and then passed English 1102, you have a basic knowledge of standard American English, including but not limited to variations in sentence structure, subject-verb agreement, pronoun-antecedent agreement, parallel structure, dangling modifiers, grammatical expletives, possessives and plurals, punctuation, capitalization, word choice, and various other grammatical and mechanical problems. If you are someone for whom this knowledge and practice are a struggle, this course gives you time to improve. If you do not, your grades will be severely affected. You have resources available at GSU to help you improve your knowledge. In the Writing Studio (http://www.writingstudio.gsu.edu/) you can work one-on-one, in private, with a tutor to improve. Writing Studio tutors can also help you to help you refine already strong competence, moving from good to excellent. The Purdue OWL (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/) has resources to assist you with identifying and correcting common grammar, punctuation, and usage errors, and to help you with formatting citations and bibliographies.

Receiving a grade of “incomplete”

In order to receive an incomplete, a student must inform the instructor, either in person or in writing, of his/her inability (non-academic reasons) to complete the requirements of the course. Incompletes will be assigned at the instructor’s discretion (if you have specific criteria for assigning incompletes, put them here)and the terms for removal of the “I” are dictated by the instructor. A grade of incomplete will only be considered for students who are a) passing the course with a C or better, b) present a legitimate, non-academic reason to the instructor, and c) have only one major assignment left to finish.

Student Evaluation of Instructor

Your constructive assessment of this course plays an indispensable role in shaping education at Georgia State. Upon completing the course, please take time to fill out the online course evaluation.

For English Majors

The English department at GSU requires an exit portfolio of all students graduating with a degree in English. Ideally, students should work on this every semester, selecting 1-2 papers from each course and revising them, with direction from faculty members. The portfolio includes revised work and a reflective essay about what you’ve learned. Each concentration (literature, creative writing, rhetoric/composition, and secondary education) within the major may have specific items to place in the portfolio, so be sure to check booklet located next to door of the front office of the English Department. Senior Portfolio due dates are published in the booklets or you may contact an advisor or Dr. Dobranski, Director of Undergraduate Studies. See the English office for additional information.

Texts and Resources

In all of my classes, I make every effort to keep text and materials costs under $75. Unless otherwise noted below, I expect students will have access to all required texts and resources from the first day of class.

Students should not expect to “get by” without reading assigned texts. Unlike some lecture classes, where the lecture is a review of assigned reading, this is a seminar course in which the assigned reading is preparation for a discussion or application of the information and ideas presented in the text. To put it another way, by completing assigned readings before class, we establish a basic shared knowledge base upon which we can build thoughtful conversations and productive work sessions.

It’s OK if the reading sometimes raises more questions than it answers; I expect that to happen often, in fact. Make a note of your questions. Let them circulate in your thoughts in the hours before class, and then bring them up in your blog posts and our class discussions.

Required Reading

Arola, Kristin L., Jennifer Sheppard, Cheryl E. Ball. Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014) — http://bit.ly/1tbI2aI

Additional readings will be posted to the class website or to Google Drive

Recommended Reference

Lunsford, Andrea, et al. Everyone’s An Author. (WW Norton, 2013) — http://bit.ly/1tpOtr1

Many of the essays on material culture studies will be drawn from the following texts:

I have included here links to the listings for these books in the Georgia Interconnected Libraries (GIL) catalog. If you’d like, you can check out these books using GIL Express.

Required Materials and Resources

  • Access to a laptop or desktop computer for daily use.
  • Access to email on a daily basis.
  • Google account (You may use an existing account, or you may create an account just for use in this course).
  • Access to computer software and programs used for digital composition and editing (I am always able to recommend free or very low-cost open source alternatives to more expensive proprietary software such as Microsoft Office, InDesign, Photoshop, etc.)
  • A site on create.gsu.edu.
  • Funds for printing or binding class materials (posters, infographics, formal reports, etc.).

Recommended Materials and Resources

Image credit “labor day” by Ginny on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ginnerobot/2820269648.

css.php