Microthemes are 500-word papers that serve as your "talking points" for that week's discussion, and they will be graded on a credit/no credit basis. Papers are due 48 hours prior to class, and late papers will receive no credit. Your work on these papers will account for 15% of your final grade. These papers must not exceed 500 words

If we are reading multiple pieces during a given week, please devote some space to each of the readings. However, you can devote more space to one of the readings if you'd like.

These papers need not be completely polished prose, but they should provide evidence that you've read the week's readings carefully and that you've developed some ideas for our discussions. They should be devoted to finding connections amongst our readings and to raising questions. They should not focus on whether or not you agree with the author(s).

Some questions that might guide a Microtheme paper are (this list is not exhaustive):

• What definitions of rhetoric and/or composition are assumed or outwardly stated by the author?
• What is the relationship of this text to others that we've read?
• How has the author constructed his or her argument? Why?
• Who are the possible audiences for this piece?
• What kinds of evidence are being used? Why?
• What possible counter-arguments could be raised? Who would raise them? Why?
• What scholarly problem is the author addressing? How have others addressed this problem?
• What body of scholarship is the author engaging with? What other scholarly conversations might we connect this piece to?

When writing these papers, remember to follow the rules of engagement

Each week, one student will provide a written synthesis of the submitted microthemes. This synthesis should locate common questions and topics raised by the microthemes and should serve as a launching point for the week’s discussion. The paper is due at the start of class, and the author will read the paper at the beginning of the class period. This paper will account for 15% of your final grade. This paper must not exceed 750 words.

When grading these papers, I will be looking for the following:

• Does the paper locate common questions and trends in the microthemes?
• Does the paper tell a coherent narrative of the textual conversation?
• Does the paper raise questions and concerns that should be addressed during that week's discussion?
• Have you followed the rules of engagement
• Is the paper written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors?
• Has the author observed the 750-word limit?

Once during the semester, each student will review an article or book that is cited by one of our central texts. Reviews are 4-6 pages and shared with seminar members. Your primary task in this review is to explain how the argument works and how it engages with other scholarship. You should not focus your efforts on an evaluation of the argument or on whether or not you disagree with the author. See the grading criteria below for some tips about how to approach these reviews, and please feel free to ask me questions.

While the review author will not read the paper aloud, s/he will give a brief (no more than 5 minutes) presentation explaining the text, its argument, and its relationship to the texts we've read in class. Papers are due at the beginning of class and will account for 15% of your final grade. Do not exceed 1500 words.

Note: Reviewers are not required to complete a Microtheme, but they are expected to read both the assigned text and the text they are reviewing.

When grading these papers, I will be looking for the following:

• Have you provided an adequate summary of the text and its argument?
• Do you explain the text's significance, its most important features, and its contributions to a scholarly conversation?
• Have you explained how this text connects with the texts we're reading for this class?
• Do you provide evidence for your claims?
• Have you avoided a discussion of whether or not you disagree with the author? Have you avoided a discussion of flaws or shortcomings in the argument?
• Have you followed the rules of engagement
• Is your paper written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors?
• Have you observed the 1500-word limit?

Wikicomp is a project that aims to allow scholars in rhetoric and composition to remix existing articles from College Composition and Communication. It describes its mission in this way:

We all know that composing is a collaborative process. But until very recently, our scholarship has been frozen in fixed products attributed to “authors.” Using Wiki technology, Wiki-Comp aims to make visible the networked realities of writing and knowledge-production, thereby opening new space to imagine and enact composition’s future. By remixing classic articles from “C’s,” and making them freely available to reshape for our current moment, we hope to show how writing and thinking in the field of Composition happens.

In this project, you will work in groups to remix one of two CCC articles:

Trimbur, John. 2000. "Composition and the Circulation of Writing." CCC 52: 188-219.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. 2004. "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key." CCC 56: 297-328.

In keeping with our method of "drilling down," both of these articles are cited in Shipka's Toward a Composition Made Whole. But in addition to serving as the central text of our final unit, Shipka's book also presents us with a framework for this final assignment. In chapter four, Shipka argues that a "mediated activity-based multimodal framework" presents a unique composition pedagogy that avoids the pitfalls of courses that focus on "the acquisition of discrete skill sets, skill sets that are often and erroneously treated as static and therefore universally acceptable across time and diverse communicative contexts" (86, 83).

When composing, Shipka suggests, students should be afforded the opportunity to determine the product, purpose, processes, materials, and conditions under which their product will be experienced. We will be putting this approach to the test as we remix these CCC articles. These remixes can take any form, as long as they do what Shipka asks. In groups, you will remix the article by determining what you want to create (this may or may not involve text), the purpose of your composition, the processes and procedures you will use, the materials necessary, and the conditions under which you'd like the audience to experience that composition. During the planning stages, you must "come up with at least two ways of addressing or solving the problem" (92).

In addition to creating your remix, I will ask each group to compose what Shipka calls a statement of goals and choices (SOGC). The SOGC should do the following:

• Address the three sets of questions listed on page 114 of Toward a Composition Made Whole
• "List all the actors, human, and nonhuman, that played a role in helping [you] accomplish a given task" (114)

The SOGC will count for half of your grade, and there is no minimum or maximum word-length requirement.

When evaluating these projects and their accompanying explanations, I will be looking for the following:

• Does the project represent careful and detailed engagement with product, purpose, process, materials, conditions?
• Have you chosen the representational system that best suits what you wanted to accomplish?
• Does the project demonstrate a rhetorical sensibility that is attuned to rhetorical situation and audience?
• Does the project demonstrate that all members of the group have worked through a meaningful revision and design process?
• Does the project build upon, extend, and reimagine the article in a meaningful way?
• Does your SOGC present a detailed explanation of your goals, choices, and collaborators (human and nonhuman) according to the questions laid out by Shipka?
• Have you followed the rules of engagement