An advanced exploration of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, focusing on its structural contributions to classical Roman rhetoric, the five canons, and its enduring influence on Western pedagogical traditions. Designed for doctoral-level analysis of rhetorical theory and practice.

A comprehensive 75-minute lesson for B2-C1 adult learners exploring the SINK and DINK lifestyles through advanced grammar (future perfect, passive, mixed conditionals) and nuanced discussion.

A high-level literary critique lesson exploring Toni Morrison's challenge to the 'universal' canon. Students will analyze how intersectional identity expands rather than limits a writer's scope, culminating in a debate or essay outline.

Helps students articulate the societal, educational, and economic impacts of their research to meet funding agency requirements.

Teaches students how to communicate complex research to multi-disciplinary panels by removing jargon and using effective analogies.

Covers the practical side of grant budgeting, including line-item creation, indirect costs, and writing persuasive budget justifications.

Focuses on writing the methodology section, outlining research designs, timelines, and feasibility, including risk assessment and backup plans.

Students learn to craft a concise problem statement that identifies a literature gap and frames research questions to demonstrate urgency and relevance.

In this culminating seminar, students present a formal critique of a foundational text in their field, assessing the durability of its claims against modern evidence. They must defend their critique against peer questioning, demonstrating mastery of evidentiary evaluation.

Students investigate the ethics of contextualizing evidence, looking at how selective quoting or ignoring conflicting data constitutes academic dishonesty. The lesson involves auditing a literature review to verify if the cited sources actually support the claims made.

Moving beyond basic fallacies, students analyze high-level rhetoric for subtle errors such as ecological fallacies, p-hacking in narratives, and the confusion of correlation with causation in policy proposals. The focus is on how sophisticated language can mask weak evidentiary links.

This lesson examines how different disciplines define 'valid evidence' (e.g., quantitative data vs. qualitative ethnography). Students compare methodologies to understand how epistemological stances dictate which data is included or excluded in a central argument.