Chalkface Rhetorics: Guidance for Research Paper and Presentations
Alan Taylor, J.f.k.-i /FU Berlin, 2015-2016 Research Hub is HERE
SKILLS TO BE ENHANCED: Interested in developmental knowledge and understanding: critical thinking, research depth and scope, quality of verbal and written articulation
STRATEGY: Three presentations and final paper. All based on same overall topic/subject area. This requires discipline and strategic foresight from the very beginning. The subject focus must be inspired from a link as sourced at the course Research Hub
WEIGHTING AND SUBMISSION DATES (Please note, presentation material to be submitted).
1. 10% – Dec 2nd, opening explorative presentation, testing the field, locating core issue and its relevance
2. 10% – Jan 13th second presentation, more focused update of research, readings, and surprises
3. 10% + 70% Jan 27th & Feb 3rd third presentation & submission of paper. 4,000 words, 10-12 sides
The presentations (30%): The first two presentations can be formal/informal. The final presentation, however, is more formal and clearly indicating the scope and depth of the student’s grasp of the chosen topic – engaging, well structured, genuine powers of critical thinking and a working struggle with the material.
The Response Paper (70%)
Rhetoric. You need to answer the unspoken question, So What? Convince your reader and listeners that this is relevant to do. The core argument is convincingly organised (fact and figures) and leads logically to certain concluding outcomes that contain elements of self-reflexive critique. Research therefore is in areas of content AND in forms and techniques of academic writing. Finally, the Response Paper should ideally have an interdisciplinary scope that reflects the JFK-I curricular departmental offer.
1. Titling- Each paper to be headed by title that details the concrete focus (time, place, person) with a subtitle that frames the theoretical scope of the paper – its claim to academic legitimacy.
2. The argument that follows can begin with a specific quote that the author of the paper sets out to contend with. Or agree with. Or both.
3. Context and text – each paper is strengthened with a detailed description and analysis of a core text – film, TV programme, newspaper article, image…and this is embedded in a contextual account.
4. Do not confuse description for analysis. The first is rudimentary; the second is framed by an academic question/approach. But with habitual thinking what was once analysis soon becomes description.
5. Details. Use whatever bibliographic reference (Harvard?) system you chose but make it explicit in the opening introduction; and pages to be numbered; block text; contact details; Times Roman (preferable)
6. The structure should abide by the usual academic paper genre – introduction, scope and depth of approach (relevant literature review), core description and analysis, core argument, summary and conclusion, bibliography, filmography (it usually follows the rudiments of the 3 act narrative structure).
7. Plagiarism is against the law and spotted quickly. All students are duty-bound to research this topic.
All shared work, whether it be in written or presentation form, should conform to the overall interests of the course which, in broad terms, considers media and cultural texts from North America with close reference to their contextual environment.