Other| May 31 2018 Books of Interest Mark Schaukowitch; Mark Schaukowitch Department of English Language and Literature, University of South Carolina Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Michael Kennedy Michael Kennedy Department of English Language and Literature, University of South Carolina Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2018) 51 (2): 212–216. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.2.0212 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mark Schaukowitch, Michael Kennedy; Books of Interest. Philosophy & Rhetoric 31 May 2018; 51 (2): 212–216. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.2.0212 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2018 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2018The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2018 Review: Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric, by Jamie Dow Jamie Dow, Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric ( Oxford University Press) Oxford & New York, 2015. 248 pp. ISBN: 9780198716266 Daniel M. Gross Daniel M. Gross Daniel M. Gross English Department 435 Humanities Instructional Building University of California, Irvine Irvine, California 92697-2650 USA dgross@uci.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (2): 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.209 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Daniel M. Gross; Review: Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric, by Jamie Dow. Rhetorica 1 May 2018; 36 (2): 209–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.209 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2018 Review: Disability Rhetoric, by Jay Timothy Dolmage, and Rhetorical Touch: Disability, Identification, Haptics, by Shannon Walters Jay Timothy Dolmage, Disability Rhetoric. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2014. 349 pp. ISBN: 9780815634454Shannon Walters, Rhetorical Touch: Disability, Identification, Haptics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2014. 257 pp. ISBN: 9781611173833 Timothy Barr Timothy Barr Timothy Barr 5179 Kincaid St. Pittsburgh, Pa 15524 USA timothybarr@pitt.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (2): 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.205 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Timothy Barr; Review: Disability Rhetoric, by Jay Timothy Dolmage, and Rhetorical Touch: Disability, Identification, Haptics, by Shannon Walters. Rhetorica 1 May 2018; 36 (2): 205–208. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.205 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2018 Review: Style: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, by Ray, Brian Ray, Brian. Style: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press; Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearing house, 2015. 264 pp. ISBN: 9781602356122 Robert L. Lively Robert L. Lively Robert L. Lively 2055 Piping Rock Dr. Reno, NV 89502 USA Robert.Lively@asu.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (2): 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.211 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Robert L. Lively; Review: Style: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, by Ray, Brian. Rhetorica 1 May 2018; 36 (2): 211–213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.211 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Preview this article: Review: Disruptive Queer Narratives in Composition and Literacy Studies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/80/5/collegeenglish29642-1.gif

Kenneth Burke confessed that Permanence and Change was a secularization of the writing of Mary Baker Eddy that he learned in his Christian Science childhood. Eddy’s Platonic treatment of substance as “truth” engages with the tension between the symbolic and the nonsymbolic, foreshadowing Burke’s treatment of substance in relation to symbol, nonsymbol, and identification. The ways in which substance and identification interact in the works of Plato, Eddy, and Burke follow a line of discursive development that can illuminate critical review of how different forms of public discourse argue for “truth.”

&#8220;Brandt offers writing scholars, teachers of writing, and WAC program administrators, and consultants a way to understand writing as broadly as possible as it changes in practice and evolves in theory. Writing in the workplace, and everywhere else, happens in broad contexts and has vast social implications.&#8221;

This book examines the multimodal rhetoric of scientific arguments as they have been expressed in professional journals over the course of the past century. Through a series of chronologically ordered case studies, the author applies and develops a syncretic model for understanding scientific argumentation, which he articulates in Part 1 of the book and which relies heavily on major concepts in rhetorical theory. By applying the model to the case studies, the author demonstrates how rhetoric can provide the analytical machinery needed to grapple with the multimodal means used to create scientific arguments. In Part 2, the focus is a groundbreaking 1912 publication in the field now known as X-ray diffraction crystallography, specifically a set of X-ray photogram images included in the article that would help scientists at the time gain a better understanding of both the nature of X-rays and the atomic structure of crystals. Parts 3 and 4 present the book’s more interesting (from a multimodal perspective) case studies in terms of how arguments are assembled, circulated, and reassembled over time. In Part 5, Chapter 12 examines the rise of Photoshop as a material affordance for scientific arguments and the ethical dilemmas that this rise has precipitated. Chapter 13 provides description and tabular analysis of the use of videos in published scientific arguments, from an era when VHS tapes were mailed with journal issues through the YouTube era. It is in these chapters where the salience of and potential for the author’s model becomes clearer: As the use of multimodality rises in scientific arguments through the use of new technologies, new and better means for understanding how arguments are conceived, assembled, and circulated are needed both for authors and for teachers. Both audiences would benefit from reading Assembling Arguments. The book does not have a specific engineering focus, but it does provide a broad framework for professional communicators, teachers, and students to consider and improve visuals and multimodality in document design.

This book provides a thorough examination of the role of ethics in design and engineering. Drawing from a wide variety of cases, the author argues that ethics are already embedded in an engineer’s design decisions and offers engineers and technical and professional communicators (TPC) methods for thinking through the implications of design decisions. The book succeeds in illustrating how ethics is embedded in every design decision. The author notes that the aim of this book “is to show that ethical considerations enter into all design solutions and thus are integral to the intellectual core of engineering.” The target audience is engineering students and faculty. However, more general TPC readers and educators will find parallels between his discussions of ethics and morals with TPC’s usability concerns.

Despite the migration of letters and memoranda to electronic media, these documents are still occasionally written as hard copy and transmitted through the post, especially during risk situations. In two recent environmental situations, such letters were sent in 2014 to residents in Newark, NJ, who were affected by the discovery of high levels of lead in their school water and in 2016 to residents of East Chicago, IN, who were affected by the discovery of lead under their homes. In each of these situations, letters were sent to residents whose reactions ranged from fear in Newark to anger in East Chicago. In neither case did residents act as requested. However, in 2011, residents in Morgan City, MO, whose land would be flooded by the opening of the Morganza Spillway, followed the instructions they received and evacuated. Research questions: This study examines the failure of citizens and community institutions to respond positively, if at all, to requests transmitted in hard copy that are related to risk situations. It poses the following research questions: 1. Do commonalities exist among the rhetorical decisions made by the writers of letters to which readers responded positively in a risk situation? 2. If so, do these decisions differ from those made by writers of letters to which readers objected or disregarded the requests made? Literature review: Research related to rhetorical analyses of primary documents transmitted in hard copy between engineers and managers prior to and during risk situations was surveyed. In addition, the literature related to rhetorical analyses of primary messages transmitted electronically prior to and during risk situations was also examined. Methods: A rhetorical analysis of the letters focused on the writers' efforts to consider readers' reading patterns and styles, prior knowledge, need for background information and details, and the economic, political, and psychological context in which readers read the letters. Results: The results indicate that the Newark and East Chicago letters are writer rather than reader-based, the writers failing to consider the readers' reading patterns and styles, to provide necessary information, and to recognize the context in which the readers read the letters. On the other hand, the letters related to the Morganza Spillway are reader-based, providing the necessary information at the beginning of the correspondence, as well as providing sufficient details to enable readers to take the actions required to safeguard themselves and their families, businesses, and homes.

This study aims to delineate the rhetorical organization of research article (RA) discussion sections in an engineering discipline and explore the variations that distinguish discussion sections of high-impact and low-impact RAs. Research questions: What is the rhetorical organization of RA discussions in chemical engineering? What are the similarities and differences in the use of rhetorical moves and steps in RA discussions of high-impact and low-impact articles? Literature review: Some studies have been conducted using Swales' move analysis with regard to the identification and textual comparisons of RA discussion sections. However, it remains to be determined whether RA discussions of the high- and low-impact articles within a single discipline display the variation in rhetorical patterns. Research methodology: A total of 40 RA discussions published between 2005 and 2015 were chosen based on five-year journal impact factor and citations of the articles in which they were published. Swales' move analysis was used to compare rhetorical moves and steps in both sets of RA discussions. Results and discussion: The study identified the rhetorical organization of RA discussions in the field of chemical engineering. The findings indicate that discussion sections of high-impact articles tend to make use of the “comment on results” move. Explanations of the similarities and differences in the employment of moves and steps are provided. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Background: Undergraduate engineering students often receive insufficient support when crafting résumés. Most notably, there is often a lack of disciplinary-specific instruction and a lack of emphasis on the persuasive function of résumés. Ultimately seeking to strengthen instructional materials, this study investigates a way to quantify the quality of engineering résumés, focusing specifically on the use of disciplinary discourse. Research questions: How do engineering résumés exhibit disciplinary discourse? How can disciplinary discourse be quantified as a way of promoting strong engineering résumé writing and professional development skills? Literature review: This project builds on research exploring the qualities of effective résumés. It extends on work establishing disciplinary differences in desired résumé qualities, as well as work characterizing résumé writing as an opportunity for professional identity development. Grounded in activity theory, this project seeks to elucidate the “rules” of effective engineering résumés at the lexical level. Methodology: This project analyzed a corpus of 31 engineering résumés through both qualitative and quantitative means. Résumés were initially ranked via a rubric, then coded for disciplinary discourse according to the American Association of Engineering Societies' Engineering Competency Model. Disciplinary discourse scores were then analyzed through descriptive statistics. Results and conclusion: Significant differences in the use of disciplinary discourse were found among strong, moderate, and weak résumés. Though these results are not generalizable due to the small corpus size, they indicate that disciplinary discourse may be a fruitful area for future research on résumés and the development of pedagogical materials.

Reviews 211 Now for a catalog of some possible objections. Since Dow places sub­ stantial weight on Rhetoric 1354a 13—"for it is only the proofs that belong to the art, other things are mere accessories" (p. 40)—his interpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric is admittedly limited (p. 9). Dow can pay little attention to epideictic speech, for instance, or to the bulk of Rhetoric, Book III. At the same time Dow is invested in Aristotle's coherent "theory of the emotions" (p. 145), which obligates him to admittedly strained arguments including some speculation about what Aristotle "should hove said" when it comes to the passionate status of friendship and hostility, for instance (pp. 153-4, italics in the original). More lenient "dialectical investigations" of the pas­ sionate phenomena in question are studiously avoided when Dow goes to work (p. 145), and thus he is forced to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable. Aristotle's Book I carpenter's rule simile ("for one shouldn't warp the juror by bringing him into anger or envy or pity" as "that would be like someone warping the rule he is about to use" 1354a24-6) knocks up against the entirety of Book II and against Dow's principal claim about the legitimacy of passionate rhetoric. Finally, Dow's normative and representational take on Aristotelian emotion comes at a cost, including a social take on Aristote­ lian emotion that better explains how social status structures the emotions that Aristotle treats. (Konstan observes how, for instance, "the capacity for anger depends on status, and where power is unevenly distributed between men and women, anger will be similarly asymmetrical"; see The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, p. 60). All this is to say that Dow's philosophical mission has its disadvanta­ ges from the perspective of rhetoric per se. But I hope it is clear how Dow's orientation toward philosophical precision and coherence offers all sorts of new considerations for non-philosophers as well—far too many to mention in this brief book review. Dow's defense of rhetoric compels anyone inter­ ested to consider each careful step and conclusion, even if disagreement is the end result. The book thus invites just the sort of passionate deliberation Dow appreciates in Aristotle, and in this way Dow winds up appearing as just the sort of rhetorician he would endorse. Henceforth, scholars working on passion and persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric should look forward to debating Dow, as they will be obligated to do so in any case. Daniel M. Gross, University of California, Irvine Ray, Brian. Style: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy.Anderson, SC: Parlor Press; Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clear­ ing house, 2015. 264 pp. ISBN: 9781602356122 When people talk about style in rhetoric and composition, they often view it in dichotomous terms. On the one hand style is often viewed in the context of a very prescriptive grammarian tradition. On the other hand, style is talked about as a form of rhetorical composition. In Style. An 212 RHETORIC A Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, Brian Ray successfully places style in the long history of rhetoric. Alongside Kate Ronald's essay ("Style: The Hidden Agenda in the Composition Classroom," 1999), Paul Butler's book (Out of Style, 2008), and Mike Duncan and Star M. Vanguri's edited collection (The Centrality of Style, 2013), Ray's book may be one of the most important written on style in the last twenty years. Style is broken up into nine chapters and ancillary materials, including a glossary and an annotated bibliography of major works for further reading. With a book that traces the history of style from Ancient Greece through contemporary scholarship on style, it is impossible to fully describe the text, but I will examine several key features of this book. Ray begins his work defining the major threads of stylistic definition and research. Since "style" is used in a multitude of ways (the author calls it "A Cacophony of Definitions"), Ray explores "the major modes of thought" (p. 16) pertaining to style together with their research avenues. For scholars approaching style for the first time, anyone...

&#8220;Hidalgo’s unique video book addresses feminist filmmaking professionals and students of rhetoric and composition as she argues that moving images made by rhetoricians are teachable, publishable, and tenure-worthy projects.&#8221;

Preview this article: Review: Composition in the Age of Austerity, edited by Nancy Welch and Tony Scott, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/tetyc/45/3/teachingenglishinthetwoyearcollege29537-1.gif

Book Review| March 01 2018 The New Science of Communication: Reconsidering McLuhan’s Message for Our Modern Moment The New Science of Communication: Reconsidering McLuhan’s Message for Our Modern Moment. By Anthony M. Wachs. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2015; pp. 1–222. $25.00 Paper. Corey Anton Corey Anton Grand Valley State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 193–195. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0193 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Corey Anton; The New Science of Communication: Reconsidering McLuhan’s Message for Our Modern Moment. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 193–195. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0193 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: BOOK REVIEW You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 The Bully Pulpit, Presidential Speeches, and the Shaping of Public Policy The Bully Pulpit, Presidential Speeches, and the Shaping of Public Policy. Edited by Jeffrey S. Ashley and Marla J. Jarmer. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016; pp. vii + 266. $95.00 hardback; $94.99 ebook Justin Kirk Justin Kirk University of Kansas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 177–180. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0177 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Justin Kirk; The Bully Pulpit, Presidential Speeches, and the Shaping of Public Policy. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 177–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0177 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Rhetorics of Insecurity: Belonging and Violence in the Neoliberal Era Rhetorics of Insecurity: Belonging and Violence in the Neoliberal Era. Edited by Zeynep Gambetti and Marcial Gody-Anativia. New York: New York University Press, 2013. Texas A&M University Press, 1998; pp. viii + 258. $50.00 cloth. Evan Beaumont Center Evan Beaumont Center Christopher Newport University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 183–186. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0183 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Evan Beaumont Center; Rhetorics of Insecurity: Belonging and Violence in the Neoliberal Era. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 183–186. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0183 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence. By Timothy Morton. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016; pp. xii + 191. $30.00 hardcover. T. Jake Dionne T. Jake Dionne University of Colorado Boulder Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 189–192. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0189 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation T. Jake Dionne; Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 189–192. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0189 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Clockwork Rhetoric: The Language and Style of Steampunk Clockwork Rhetoric: The Language and Style of Steampunk. Edited by Barry Brummett. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2014; pp. ix + 210. $60 hardback. Andrea J. Severson Andrea J. Severson Arizona State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 180–183. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0180 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Andrea J. Severson; Clockwork Rhetoric: The Language and Style of Steampunk. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 180–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0180 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Kant’s Philosophy of Communication Kant’s Philosophy of Communication. By Gina L. Ercolini. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2016; pp. viii + 251; $30 paper. Nathan Crick Nathan Crick Texas A&M University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 186–189. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0186 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Nathan Crick; Kant’s Philosophy of Communication. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 186–189. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0186 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Transnational Feminist Rhetorics and Gendered Leadership in Global Politics: From Daughters of Destiny to Iron Ladies Transnational Feminist Rhetorics and Gendered Leadership in Global Politics: From Daughters of Destiny to Iron Ladies. By Rebecca S. Richards. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015; pp. vii + 231. $90.00 cloth. Tiara R. Na’puti Tiara R. Na’puti University of Colorado Boulder Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 196–199. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0196 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Tiara R. Na’puti; Transnational Feminist Rhetorics and Gendered Leadership in Global Politics: From Daughters of Destiny to Iron Ladies. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 196–199. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0196 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency. By David Greenberg. New York, NY: WW Norton, 2016; pp. xvii + 576. $35.00 cloth; $18.00 paper. Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Penn State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 175–177. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0175 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mary E. Stuckey; Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 175–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0175 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Review Article| March 01 2018 Materialism(s) in Recent Visual Rhetorical Histories: A Commentary Making Photography Matter: A Viewer’s History from the Civil War to the Great Depression. By Cara A. Finnegan. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015; pp. xiii + 240. $50.00 cloth.Posters for Peace: Visual Rhetoric and Civic Action. By Thomas W. Benson. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015; pp. viii + 214. $29.95 paper.Still Life with Rhetoric: A New Materialist Approach for Visual Rhetorics. By Laurie E. Gries. Boulder, CO: Utah State University Press, 2015; pp. xxiii +311. $27.95 paper. Eric Scott Jenkins Eric Scott Jenkins Eric Scott Jenkins is Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 157–174. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0157 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Eric Scott Jenkins; Materialism(s) in Recent Visual Rhetorical Histories: A Commentary. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 157–174. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0157 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: REVIEW ESSAY You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| February 21 2018 Books of Interest Mark Schaukowitch; Mark Schaukowitch Department of English Language and Literature, University of South Carolina Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Michael Kennedy Michael Kennedy Department of English Language and Literature, University of South Carolina Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2018) 51 (1): 98–104. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.1.0098 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mark Schaukowitch, Michael Kennedy; Books of Interest. Philosophy & Rhetoric 21 February 2018; 51 (1): 98–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.1.0098 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2018 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2018The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

With this issue, Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric begins its fifty-first year. It is an honor to play a role in this turn and a privilege to serve the journal as editor.Looking back for a moment, I remember my first encounter with P&amp;R as a young graduate student at Northwestern—Tom Farrell gave me the galleys of a forthcoming article, a gift that led me into the journal's archive and left me to hope that my first piece of scholarship would appear in its pages (almost, but not quite). Since then, P&amp;R has been a constant source of inspiration, provocation, and understanding. In 2005, I was quick to accept Gerard Hauser's invitation to serve as the journal's book review editor, all the more so as it offered a chance to work closely with a scholar that I had long admired. The opportunity exceeded every expectation. Over the course of a twelve-year collaboration, I benefited so very much from Hauser's sharp insight, intellectual generosity, and friendship. Jerry is a cherished colleague and a good friend.This is a moment to underscore the importance of the inquiry that has defined and distinguished Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric from its very first issue—with respect to this remarkable history, I strongly recommend reading Hauser's introduction to the fiftieth anniversary issue (50.4). Whether one looks inside or outside the academy, there is an evident if not urgent need for original scholarship that addresses the intersection of philosophy and rhetoric. This is a moment to extend and deepen P&amp;R's longstanding mission, not least in light of emerging lines of inquiry, shifting disciplinary constellations, new forms of writing and reading, and popular skepticism about the value of the humanities.The work ahead is a joint effort. From the beginning, I want to express my thanks to each member of the journal's editorial board, including several individuals who agreed to serve after the print deadline for this issue. In the same breath, it is my pleasure to announce Daniel M. Gross as the journal's new essay and forum editor and Kelly Happe as the P&amp;R book review editor. I am grateful for their willingness to serve the journal. All editors should be so lucky as to have the chance to work with such talented and thoughtful colleagues.Perhaps transition is the norm, not least for philosophical-rhetorical and rhetorical-philosophical inquiry. But transition is neither uninterrupted continuity nor unhinged change. With its fifty-first volume, the journal publishes articles that exemplify its best traditions. They are an original and important mix, a set of jointly-edited inquiries that ask after our most important questions, afford theoretical and practice insight, and open space for debate. With them appear select book reviews and a variety of forums and critical essays, along with a new “books of interest” list. The volume's fourth issue will be a guest-edited special issue.There will be time to speak more about what's to come. Here, in this moment, there is a more pressing call, a need to pause and reflect on a truly remarkable record of intellectual leadership and scholarly service.Gerard Hauser edited Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric for fourteen years, assuming the position in 2003. Fourteen years! Before that, between 1976 and 2002, he served variously as the journal's coeditor, associate editor, and consulting editor. And before that, from 1970 to 1976, he held the post of book review editor. One of Hauser's many articles appeared in the journal's second issue.This record is not simply commendable, though it is that. It is astounding, a truly extraordinary accomplishment, one that testifies to Hauser's sustained intellectual vision, tireless leadership, and steadfast commitment to interdisciplinary inquiry, all of which have served the interests of multiple fields, supported groundbreaking scholarship, and promoted crucial intellectual exchange. For the vast majority of the last fifty years, Hauser has served if not led Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric. He has broadened the journal's audience and deepened its reach. His patient and visionary work has distinguished the journal—nationally and internationally. Hauser's contribution to Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric is not simply self-evident—it is indelible, properly so.In this light, and on behalf of the journal and the Pennsylvania State University Press, it is my utmost pleasure to name Gerard Hauser as Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric's editor emeritus. I do so with abiding gratitude and in the hope that there will be moments in the future when I have the good fortune to work closely with Jerry.Last but by no means least, I want to express my deepest thanks to Jean Hauser, who has served as P&amp;R's managing editor for the last ten years. This extraordinary service demands the fullest possible recognition. As so many well know, Jean's work has made a crucial difference—to the journal's editorial group, its contributing authors, and its readers. I have personally relied very much on her skill, insight, dedication, and wit. On more than a few occasions, she has kept me out of the tall grass. In the last months, she has taken the time to introduce me to some of the more hidden ways and means of the journal—I am very grateful for this help.In the coming weeks, I hope that Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric's readers will take a moment to reach out and express their appreciation to both Gerard Hauser and Jean Hauser. Individually and together, they have served—and indeed built—Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric with grace and with the greatest distinction.

Over the past 100 years, user-centered design (UCD) has evolved from an idea to a developed area of research in design communication for academics and practitioners. Since UCD was coined by Donald Norman in 1986, it has slowly become a guiding theory behind many design practices, pushing user needs over technological desires. In Fundamentals of User-Centered Design: A Practical Approach , Brian Still and Kate Crane illustrate the history, implementation, and best and worst practices in UCD. This book pulls from expertise in both academia and industry to create a handbook on UCD in both a print and eBook edition. Using their combined experiences, Still and Crane provide thoughtful commentary on the current state of UCD by establishing theory and applying it to their own work and the work of others within the field of design.

Coding, like other forms of written communication, is both science and art. This is not a new or revolutionary idea. In 1974, Donald Knuth published "Computer Programming as an Art" and declared that "[a] programmer who subconsciously views himself as an artist will enjoy what he does and will do it better" (p. 673). In 1984, Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution introduced us to the Hacker Ethic, one tenet of which is that we can create art and beauty on the computer (p. 31). Many other authors and coders have argued similar cases about the socially situated nature of programming since.

Book Review| February 01 2018 Review: Menegaldi in Ciceronis Rhetorica Glose, Edizione critica a cura di Filippo Bognini Menegaldi in Ciceronis Rhetorica Glose, Edizione critica a cura di Filippo Bognini, Firenze, SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo 2015, pp. CLII-286. ISBN: 9788884505910 Francesco Caparrotta Francesco Caparrotta Francesco Caparrotta Liceo Classico “F. Scaduto” – Bagheria (Palermo) Via D. D'Amico, 37 - 90011 Bagheria (Palermo) Italy fr.caparrotta@gmail.com Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (1): 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.1.92 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Francesco Caparrotta; Review: Menegaldi in Ciceronis Rhetorica Glose, Edizione critica a cura di Filippo Bognini. Rhetorica 1 February 2018; 36 (1): 92–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.1.92 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2018 Review: Aristotele. Retorica, Introduzione, traduzione e commento, by Silvia Gastaldi and [Aristotele]. Retorica ad Alessandro, by Maria Fernanda Ferrini Silvia Gastaldi, Aristotele. Retorica, Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Roma, Carocci 2014 (ristampa 2017) ISBN: 9788843074198; Maria Fernanda Ferrini, [Aristotele]. Retorica ad Alessandro, Milano, Bompiani 2015. ISBN: 9788845279249 Cristina Pepe Cristina Pepe Cristina Pepe Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli cristina.pepe@unina2.it Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (1): 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.1.96 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Cristina Pepe; Review: Aristotele. Retorica, Introduzione, traduzione e commento, by Silvia Gastaldi and [Aristotele]. Retorica ad Alessandro, by Maria Fernanda Ferrini. Rhetorica 1 February 2018; 36 (1): 96–99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.1.96 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2018 Review: “Guiguzi,” China's First Treatise on Rhetoric: A Critical Translation and Commentary, by Hui Wu Hui Wu, “Guiguzi,” China's First Treatise on Rhetoric: A Critical Translation and Commentary, Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, xiv + 180 pp. 2016. ISBN: 9780809335268 Hua Zhu Hua Zhu Hua Zhu College of Arts and Sciences Miami University 143 Upham Hall Oxford, OH 45056 USA zhuh3@miamioh.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (1): 100–102. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.1.100 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Hua Zhu; Review: “Guiguzi,” China's First Treatise on Rhetoric: A Critical Translation and Commentary, by Hui Wu. Rhetorica 1 February 2018; 36 (1): 100–102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.1.100 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The present book addresses strategy-focused instruction in writing.This type of instruction proposes a global package of content and components, which together have shown effects in improving writing competence in children.Strategy instruction has been proven to be one of the most effective teaching practices for improving writing skills, as well as writing to learn in different content domains.The book starts with an introduction by the editors about the importance of strategy-focused instruction to promote writing in the school context, both as a content and as a learning tool.This book has a total of 12 chapters, divided in four sections.The first section includes an introduction and three chapters that approach writing instruction from different perspectives.The second section presents well-validated intervention programs for learning to write.This section includes two chapters presenting two specific instructional programs that can be used with full-range students in classrooms, across different educational contexts.The third part is composed of three chapters that address instructional programs focused on writing-to-learn.Finally, the fourth section includes the conclusion, as well as three chapters that discuss the strategy-instruction models presented in the previous sections.

&#8220;Reddit is like a tiny internet: a place full of memes that are often offensive and hilarious at once. A place for activism and knowledge-sharing, shitposting and trolling. A place where mob mentality and anonymity more often lead to abuse campaigns and conspiracy theories than not.&#8221;

Background: Research incorporating large data sets and data and text mining methodologies is making initial contributions to writing studies. In writing program administration (WPA) work, one could best characterize the body of publications as small but growing, led by such work as Moxley and Eubanks’ 2015 “On Keeping Score: Instructors' vs. Students' Rubric Ratings of 46,689 Essays” and Arizona State University’s Science of Learning & Educational Technology (SoLET) Lab. Given the information that large-scale textual analysis can provide, it seems incumbent on program administrators to explore ways to make regular and aggressive use of such opportunities to give both students and instructors more resources for learning and development. This project is one attempt to add to this corpus of work; the sample for the study consisted of 17,534 pieces of student writing representing 141,659 discrete comments on that writing, with 58,300 unique words out of over 8.25 million total words written. This data is used to examine trends in the program’s instructor commentary over five years’ time.  By doing so, this study revisits a fundamental task of writing instruction—responding to student writing, and from the data’s results considers how large writing programs with constant turnover of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) might manage their ongoing instructor professional development and how those GTAs will improve their ability to teach and respond to writing.Literature Review: Researchers have attempted to unpack and understand the task of instructor commentary for several decades; the published literature demonstrates a complex and occasionally ambivalent relationship with this central task of writing instruction. Recent scholarship has moved from the small-scale studies long used by the field to implement large-scale examinations of the instruction occurring in writing programs. Research questions: Three questions guided the inquiry:Does the work of new instructors (MA1s) more closely resemble the lexicon of novice or experienced responders to student writing?How does the new instructors’ work compare to that of more experienced (PHD1 or INS) instructors in the program throughout their time?How does their work evolve over a four-semester longitudinal time frame (as MA1 or MA2 experience levels) in the first-year writing program? [Please note that the abbreviations used above and throughout the article to designate instructor experience levels are as follows: MA1 (first-year master’s students); MA2 (second-year master’s students); PHD1 (first-year doctoral students); INS (instructors—those with 3 or more years’ experience teaching and who are not currently pursuing an additional degree—nearly all of these individuals held a Master’s degree)].Methodology: This study extends the work of Anson and Anson (2017) who first surveyed writing instructors and program administrators to create wordlists that survey respondents associated with “high-quality” and “novice” responses, and then examined a corpus of nearly 50,000 peer responses produced at a single university to learn to what extent instructors and student peers adopted this lexicon. Specifically, the study analyzes a corpus of instructor comments to students using the Anson and Anson wordlists associated with principled and novice commentary to see if new writing instructors align more closely with the concepts represented in either list during their first semester in the program.  It then tracks four cohorts for evolution and change in their vocabulary of feedback over their next three semesters in the program; the study also compares the vocabulary used in their comments to that used by experienced instructors in the program over the same time.Results: The study found that from the outset, the new instructors (MA1) incorporated more of the principled response terms than the novice response terms. Overall, in comparing the MA1 instructors with the most experienced group (INS), the results reveal three important findings about the feedback of both MA1s and INSs in this program.While there are some differences in commentary as seen via examination of the two lexicons, the differences are perhaps less than one might assume.The cohorts do increase their use of the principled terms as they move through the two years’ appointment in the program, but few of the increases demonstrate statistical significance.Few of the terms from either the novice or principled lexicon, with the exception of terms that also appear in the assignment descriptions, what I label as “content terms,” appear frequently in the overall corpus.Discussion: Based on the results, the instructors in this program had acquired a more consistent vocabulary, but not primarily one based on Anson and Anson’s two lexicons—instead, the most frequent and commonly used terms seem to come from a more local “canon,” that is, one based on the assignment descriptions and course outcomes. Regardless of whether the acquisition of a common vocabulary came from more global concepts or an assignment-based local canon, using common terms is something that Nancy Sommers (1982) saw as contributing to “thoughtful commentary” on student writing. As no one has previously studied how quickly new instructors acquire a professional vocabulary for responding to student writing, it is hard to know whether or not the results of this particular group of instructors would be considered “typical.” However, it may well be that the context of this writing program contributed to a more accelerated acquisition.Conclusions: Working with the lexicons developed via Anson and Anson’s survey is a useful starting point for understanding more of what our instructors actually do when responding to student writing, as well as for identifying critical differences in our instructors’ comments. The lexicons, though, only provide us with a subset of expected (thus acceptable) terms included in commentary—terms that afford students the opportunity to act upon receiving them via revision or transfer. Directions for Future Research: Additional research is necessary to expand and refine the lexicons and their impact on student writing. One possibility is to return to the current data set to engage in additional lexical analysis of both the novice and principled lexicons as well as the overall frequency tables to understand how terms are used in the context of response by the various instructor groups. Differences in the application of the terms might help us understand why comments might be labeled as more or less helpful to writers.  Another strategy is to examine the data in terms of markers of stance; finally, topic modeling could be used to locate more subtle differences in the instructor comments that are not as easily identifiable with lexical analysis. Such examinations could serve as a baseline for broadening the study out to other sets of assignments and commentary, perhaps helping us build a set of threshold concepts for talking about writing with our students. Ultimately, it is important to replicate and expand Anson and Anson’s survey to other stakeholder groups. As with much research on the teaching of writing, we default to the group most accessible to us—other writing professionals. Replicating this survey with other stakeholders—graduate teaching assistants, undergraduate students at both lower and upper division levels— could help us understand whether or not a gap exists in understanding what constitutes good feedback from the various stakeholders.

Background: Current research in composition and writing studies is concerned with issues of writing program evaluation and how writing tasks and their sequences scaffold students toward learning outcomes. These issues are beginning to be addressed by writing analytics research, which can be useful for identifying recurring types of language in writing assignments and how those can inform task design and student outcomes. To address these issues, this study provides a three-step method of sequencing, comparison, and diagnosis to understand how specific writing tasks fit into a classroom sequence as well as compare to larger genres of writing outside of the immediate writing classroom environment. By doing so, we provide writing program administrators with tools for describing what skills students demonstrate in a sequence of writing tasks and diagnosing how these skills match with writing students will do in later contexts. Literature Review: Student writing that responds to classroom assignments can be understood as genres, insofar as they are constructed responses that exist in similar rhetorical situations and perform similar social actions. Previous work in corpus analysis has looked at these genres, which helps us as writing instructors understand what kind of constructed responses are required of students and to make those expectations explicit. Aull (2017) examined a corpus of first-year undergraduate writing assignments in two courses to create “sociocognitive profiles” of these assignments. We analyze student writing that responds to similar writing tasks, but use a different corpus method that allows us to understand the tasks in both local and global contexts. By doing so, we gain confidence and depth in our understanding of these tasks, analyze how they sequence together, and are able to compare argumentative writing across institutions and contexts. Research Questions: Two questions guided our study: What is the trajectory of skills targeted by the sequence of tasks in the two first-year writing courses, as evidenced by the rhetorical strategies employed by the writers in successive assignments? Focusing on the final argument assignments, how similar are they to argumentative writing in other contexts, in terms of rhetorical profiles? Methodology: We first conducted a local analysis, in which we used a dictionary-based corpus method to analyze the rhetorical strategies used by writers in the first-year writing courses to understand how they built on each other to form a sequence. Having understood what skills students are demonstrating in a course, we then conducted a global analysis which calculated a “distance” between the first-year argument writing and a corpus of argument writing drawn from other contexts. Recognizing that there was a non-trivial distance, we then identified and evaluated the sources of the distance so that the writing tasks could be assessed or modified. Results: The local analysis revealed eight key rhetorical strategies that student writing exhibits between the two first-year writing courses. With this understanding, we then placed the argument writing in global contexts to find that the assignments in both courses differ somewhat from argument writing in other contexts. Upon analyzing this difference, we found that the first-year writing primarily differs in its usage of academic language, the personal register, assertive language, and reasoning. We suggest that these differences stem primarily from the rhetorical situation and learning objectives associated with first-year writing, as well as the sequencing of the courses. Discussion: The three-step method presented provides a means for writing program administrators to describe and analyze writing that students produce in their writing programs. We intend these steps to be understood as an iterative process, whereby writing programs can use these results to evaluate what rhetorical skills their students are exhibiting and to benchmark those against the program’s goals and/or other similar writing programs. Conclusions: By presenting these analyses together, we ultimately provide a cohesive method by which to analyze a writing program and benchmark students’ use of rhetorical strategies in relation to other argumentative contexts. We believe this method to be useful not only to individual writing programs, but to assessment literature broadly. In future research, we anticipate learning how this process will practically feed back into pedagogy, as well as understanding what placing writing tasks into a global context can tell us about genre theory.