Writing

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.

A simulated oral defense where students verbally justify their evidentiary choices and methodology under scrutiny.

Focuses on the honest and effective presentation of evidence through charts, graphs, and evidence matrices, avoiding visual manipulation.

Students apply the Toulmin method (claim, data, warrant, backing, counter-argument, qualifier) to analyze a dense academic article in their field. They will map the argument's architecture to identify implicit assumptions and the strength of the warrants connecting data to claims.

Students identify and strengthen opposing views (steelmanning) before refuting them, ensuring their final argument is robust and nuanced.

Students learn to move beyond summaries to synthesize literature thematically, identifying gaps in current knowledge that their central claim will fill.

Students transition from broad topics to specific, arguable claims suitable for graduate-level research, focusing on narrowing scope and ensuring claims are falsifiable.

Exploring how poets use allusion to borrow context and authority, focusing on intertextuality and the reinterpretation of source material in modern poetry.

Investigating how poets blend senses (synesthesia) to create immersive experiences and evoke emotional states, with a focus on Keats and the Romantics.

Distinguishing between tropes of association (metonymy and synecdoche) and examining their rhetorical effects in political and war poetry.

Exploring the 'conceit' through metaphysical poets like John Donne, focusing on how intellectual wit and disparate images are yoked together to form a poetic argument.

Students revisit the core of figurative language using I.A. Richards' terminology of tenor and vehicle to analyze how the distance between terms creates tension and depth.

Exploring how poets use allusion to borrow context and authority, focusing on intertextuality and the reinterpretation of source material in modern poetry.

Investigating how poets blend senses (synesthesia) to create immersive experiences and evoke emotional states, with a focus on Keats and the Romantics.

Distinguishing between tropes of association (metonymy and synecdoche) and examining their rhetorical effects in political and war poetry.

Exploring the 'conceit' through metaphysical poets like John Donne, focusing on how intellectual wit and disparate images are yoked together to form a poetic argument.

Students revisit the core of figurative language using I.A. Richards' terminology of tenor and vehicle to analyze how the distance between terms creates tension and depth.

Evaluate contemporary adaptations and subversions of fixed forms as a means of political and social critique.

Analyze the public and private nature of the Ode and Elegy, examining how stanzaic variability reflects shifts in tone and subject.

Deconstruct the complex lexical rotation of the sestina to see how six end-words govern narrative trajectory and semantic variety.

Explore the circular repetition of the villanelle to understand how refrains build obsessive emotional states and shift meaning over time.

Contrast the structural logic of Petrarchan and Shakespearean sonnets, focusing on the placement and function of the 'volta' or turn.

A culminating workshop where students apply a full narratological framework to deconstruct a passage of experimental fiction and engage in peer critique.

Examines the ethical gap between the narrator and the implied author, debating 'truth' in inherently deceptive narrative discourses.

Explores diegetic levels, frame narratives, and metalepsis as tools for thematic irony and challenging ontological stability.

Distinguishes between focalization (seeing) and narration (speaking), utilizing Genette's categories to critique how shifts in perspective alter textual reliability.

Students analyze non-linear narrative structures, focusing on analepsis, prolepsis, and achrony to understand how temporal manipulation affects thematic resonance.

A culminating workshop where students apply learned techniques to write and peer-review their own short piece of literary journalism based on campus observations.

Students map narrative arcs and analyze structural pacing, comparing the organization of nonfiction texts to fictional models to see how authors impose order on reality.

This lesson focuses on the author's presence in the text, evaluating how immersion and a subjective 'I' voice influence reader perception and journalistic reliability.

Students investigate the transformation of real people into literary characters, debating the ethical responsibilities of authors when portraying complex human beings on the page.

Students analyze the distinction between 'scene' and 'summary' in literary journalism, evaluating how authors manipulate time and pacing to achieve specific rhetorical effects.

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.

A simulated oral defense where students verbally justify their evidentiary choices and methodology under scrutiny.

Focuses on the honest and effective presentation of evidence through charts, graphs, and evidence matrices, avoiding visual manipulation.

Students apply the Toulmin method (claim, data, warrant, backing, counter-argument, qualifier) to analyze a dense academic article in their field. They will map the argument's architecture to identify implicit assumptions and the strength of the warrants connecting data to claims.

Students identify and strengthen opposing views (steelmanning) before refuting them, ensuring their final argument is robust and nuanced.

Students learn to move beyond summaries to synthesize literature thematically, identifying gaps in current knowledge that their central claim will fill.

Students transition from broad topics to specific, arguable claims suitable for graduate-level research, focusing on narrowing scope and ensuring claims are falsifiable.

Students synthesize their work into a multi-lens portfolio, presenting three distinct thematic interpretations of 'The Necklace'. The session ends with a metacognitive reflection on the active production of meaning.

Engaging with Post-Structuralist ideas, students locate 'aporia' or contradictions in the text. They participate in a 'Devil's Advocate' challenge to prove that the text undermines its own apparent themes.

Students examine gender dynamics and agency in 'The Necklace' through a Feminist lens. They perform a 'Bechdel Test' audit and debate whether the text reinforces or subverts patriarchal structures of the 19th century.

Applying a Marxist framework to 'The Necklace', students identify themes of commodification and class struggle. The lesson focuses on the economic hierarchy of the characters and how the text critiques the socioeconomic status quo.

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 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.

A simulated oral defense where students verbally justify their evidentiary choices and methodology under scrutiny.

Focuses on the honest and effective presentation of evidence through charts, graphs, and evidence matrices, avoiding visual manipulation.

Students apply the Toulmin method (claim, data, warrant, backing, counter-argument, qualifier) to analyze a dense academic article in their field. They will map the argument's architecture to identify implicit assumptions and the strength of the warrants connecting data to claims.

Students identify and strengthen opposing views (steelmanning) before refuting them, ensuring their final argument is robust and nuanced.

Students learn to move beyond summaries to synthesize literature thematically, identifying gaps in current knowledge that their central claim will fill.

Students transition from broad topics to specific, arguable claims suitable for graduate-level research, focusing on narrowing scope and ensuring claims are falsifiable.

Students synthesize their work into a multi-lens portfolio, presenting three distinct thematic interpretations of 'The Necklace'. The session ends with a metacognitive reflection on the active production of meaning.

Engaging with Post-Structuralist ideas, students locate 'aporia' or contradictions in the text. They participate in a 'Devil's Advocate' challenge to prove that the text undermines its own apparent themes.

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 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.

A simulated oral defense where students verbally justify their evidentiary choices and methodology under scrutiny.

Focuses on the honest and effective presentation of evidence through charts, graphs, and evidence matrices, avoiding visual manipulation.

Students apply the Toulmin method (claim, data, warrant, backing, counter-argument, qualifier) to analyze a dense academic article in their field. They will map the argument's architecture to identify implicit assumptions and the strength of the warrants connecting data to claims.

Students identify and strengthen opposing views (steelmanning) before refuting them, ensuring their final argument is robust and nuanced.

Students learn to move beyond summaries to synthesize literature thematically, identifying gaps in current knowledge that their central claim will fill.

Students transition from broad topics to specific, arguable claims suitable for graduate-level research, focusing on narrowing scope and ensuring claims are falsifiable.

Students synthesize their work into a multi-lens portfolio, presenting three distinct thematic interpretations of 'The Necklace'. The session ends with a metacognitive reflection on the active production of meaning.

Engaging with Post-Structuralist ideas, students locate 'aporia' or contradictions in the text. They participate in a 'Devil's Advocate' challenge to prove that the text undermines its own apparent themes.

Students examine gender dynamics and agency in 'The Necklace' through a Feminist lens. They perform a 'Bechdel Test' audit and debate whether the text reinforces or subverts patriarchal structures of the 19th century.

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.

Students synthesize their work into a multi-lens portfolio, presenting three distinct thematic interpretations of 'The Necklace'. The session ends with a metacognitive reflection on the active production of meaning.

Engaging with Post-Structuralist ideas, students locate 'aporia' or contradictions in the text. They participate in a 'Devil's Advocate' challenge to prove that the text undermines its own apparent themes.

Students examine gender dynamics and agency in 'The Necklace' through a Feminist lens. They perform a 'Bechdel Test' audit and debate whether the text reinforces or subverts patriarchal structures of the 19th century.

Applying a Marxist framework to 'The Necklace', students identify themes of commodification and class struggle. The lesson focuses on the economic hierarchy of the characters and how the text critiques the socioeconomic status quo.

Students are introduced to the concept of literary theory as a 'lens' that filters specific details. They review basic tenets of Psychoanalytic, Marxist, and Feminist schools and practice applying them to familiar fairy tales to see how meaning shifts.

A culminating mock defense where students justify a complex decision to a panel, demonstrating mastery of reasoning synthesis.

Students apply the Toulmin model to fine-tune the structural connections between different reasoning frameworks in their arguments.

Students practice pivoting between reasoning types during high-pressure Q&A sessions to maintain argumentative momentum.

Students engage in dialectical exercises to anticipate counter-arguments and draft pre-emptive rebuttals using varied reasoning models.

Students analyze complex thesis topics to determine the optimal deployment of deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning frameworks.

The sequence concludes with the business of writing. Students research literary journals, draft professional query letters, and write synopses. They learn to identify the appropriate 'market' for their specific voice and style.

Once the structure is solid, students zoom in to the sentence level. They hunt for passive voice, filter words, and weak verbs. This technical workshop focuses on tightening prose for rhythm and clarity.

In this immersive simulation of a formal writers' workshop, students submit work for peer review while adhering to strict rules of silence (the author cannot speak). The focus is on descriptive rather than prescriptive feedback.