Skip to main content
Unit of study_

WRIT3002: Rhetorical Traditions

Semester 1, 2023 [Normal day] - Remote

From Aristotle to Vico, Joyce to Oodgeroo, multiple traditions of rhetoric have influenced society. In this unit, experts in medieval, modernist, new and cultural rhetorics will help you understand how rhetorical traditions emerge as you form your own argument about language, thought and behaviour.

Unit details and rules

Unit code WRIT3002
Academic unit English and Writing
Credit points 6
Prohibitions
? 
None
Prerequisites
? 
12 credit points at 2000 level in the Writing Studies minor
Corequisites
? 
None
Assumed knowledge
? 

None

Available to study abroad and exchange students

Yes

Teaching staff

Coordinator Benjamin Miller, benjamin.miller@sydney.edu.au
Tutor(s) Benjamin Miller, benjamin.miller@sydney.edu.au
Type Description Weight Due Length
Assignment Descriptive Essay
A research-informed descriptive essay
35% Week 05
Due date: 20 Mar 2023 at 23:59
1800-words
Outcomes assessed: LO3 LO2
Assignment Comparative Essay
A medium-length research-informed essay
45% Week 09
Due date: 24 Apr 2023 at 23:59
2000-words
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO2 LO4
Assignment In-class Performance
A research-informed presentation using rhetorical strategies
20% Week 13
Due date: 25 May 2023 at 23:59
10-mins, equivalent to 700 words
Outcomes assessed: LO2 LO4 LO1 LO3

Assessment summary

Detailed information for each assessment can be found on Canvas

Assessment criteria

INTERPRETATION OF GRADES

This Guide indicates broadly the qualitative judgments implied by the various grades which may be awarded. These should be read in conjunction with the instructions and criteria for each task.

85%+ (High Distinction)

  • a deep understanding of material; nuanced analysis of focal texts or issues;
  • clearly presents a novel, critically supported argument;
  • indicates awareness of complexities and qualifications in argumentation;
  • demonstrates careful thought about an argument’s critical or historical context;
  • provides evidence of wide-ranging scholarly reading;
  • is properly referenced and well-presented.

The writing is characterized by creativity, clarity, and independent insight. A HD is distinguished from a D by an awareness of subtleties, nuances, and qualifications.

75-84% (Distinction)

  • an intelligent understanding of material; analyses issues appositely;
  • presents a well-argued, coherent case;
  • careful thought about an argument’s critical or historical context;
  • provides evidence of reading beyond what is strictly required for the task;
  • is properly referenced and well presented.

The writing is characterized by clarity and independent insight. A D is distinguished from a C by theoretical understanding and a range of intellectual enquiry.

65-74% (Credit)

  • evidence of independent reading and thinking about issues and their contexts;
  • clear understanding of relevant critical considerations and conceptual issues raised by a unit of study;
  • quotes and summarises to support analysis;
  • attempts a critical or theoretical argument;
  • is clearly and effectively written and adequately referenced.

A C is distinguished from a P by independent discussion, clarity of writing and an attempt at critical argument.

50-64% (Pass)

  • evidence of having read and thought about relevant texts or issues;
  • there may be errors, tangents, or a lack of clarity about the argument;
  • some critical analysis, often overshadowed by summary or paraphrase;
  • quotation for illustrative purposes only;
  • may present simplistic comment or unsubstantiated assertions;
  • is adequately expressed though there may be some weaknesses in this area;
  • may contain some referencing errors.

Below 50% (Fail)

Work may fail for any of the following reasons:

  • no evidence of having read course material or assessment instruction closely;
  • sloppy, inconsistent presentation; quotation without analysis; overuse of summary and paraphrase; excessive generality in answering a question;
  • inappropriate expression; writing style that is difficult to understand; incoherent general structure; inadequate referencing;
  • late submission of work without extension.

For more information see guide to grades.

Late submission

In accordance with University policy, these penalties apply when written work is submitted after 11:59pm on the due date:

  • Deduction of 5% of the maximum mark for each calendar day after the due date.
  • After ten calendar days late, a mark of zero will be awarded.

Academic integrity

The Current Student website  provides information on academic integrity and the resources available to all students. The University expects students and staff to act ethically and honestly and will treat all allegations of academic integrity breaches seriously.  

We use similarity detection software to detect potential instances of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breach. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breaches, your teacher is required to report your work for further investigation.

You may only use artificial intelligence and writing assistance tools in assessment tasks if you are permitted to by your unit coordinator, and if you do use them, you must also acknowledge this in your work, either in a footnote or an acknowledgement section.

Studiosity is permitted for postgraduate units unless otherwise indicated by the unit coordinator. The use of this service must be acknowledged in your submission.

Simple extensions

If you encounter a problem submitting your work on time, you may be able to apply for an extension of five calendar days through a simple extension.  The application process will be different depending on the type of assessment and extensions cannot be granted for some assessment types like exams.

Special consideration

If exceptional circumstances mean you can’t complete an assessment, you need consideration for a longer period of time, or if you have essential commitments which impact your performance in an assessment, you may be eligible for special consideration or special arrangements.

Special consideration applications will not be affected by a simple extension application.

Using AI responsibly

Co-created with students, AI in Education includes lots of helpful examples of how students use generative AI tools to support their learning. It explains how generative AI works, the different tools available and how to use them responsibly and productively.

WK Topic Learning activity Learning outcomes
Week 01 Lecture 1 – What is rhetoric? What is a tradition? Lecture (1 hr) LO2
Week 02 Lecture 2 – 'THE' Rhetorical Tradition Lecture (1 hr) LO2 LO4
What rhetorical traditions influence our lives? Seminar (2 hr) LO2
Week 03 Lecture 3 – Alternative rhetorical traditions Lecture (1 hr) LO2 LO4
How does 'THE' rhetorical tradition influence our lives? Seminar (2 hr) LO2
Week 04 Lecture 4 – Cultural rhetorics Lecture (1 hr) LO2 LO4
How do disability, climate, sexuality, gender intersect with rhetoric? Seminar (2 hr) LO2 LO4
Week 05 Lecture 5 – Presidential rhetorics Lecture (1 hr) LO2 LO4
What are ‘constellations of cultural rhetorics’? Seminar (2 hr) LO2 LO4
Week 06 Lecture 6 – Postcolonial rhetoric in Australia Lecture (1 hr) LO2 LO4
What traditions inform political and activist rhetoric? Seminar (2 hr) LO2 LO4
Week 07 Lecture 7 – Shakespearean rhetoric Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO3
Welcomes and acknowledgements as post/colonial rhetorics Seminar (2 hr) LO2 LO4
Week 08 Lecture 8 – The politics of citation Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO3
Performing rhetoric on stage and on screen Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 09 Lecture 9 – Case Study 1 – Mophead (Selina Marsh) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO3
Comparing traditions 1 - Mophead (Selina Marsh) Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 10 Lecture 10 – Case Study 2 – Dropbear (Evelyn Araluen) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO3
Comparing traditions 2 - Dropbear (Evelyn Araluen) Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 11 Lecture 11 – Case Study 3 – The Tragedy of Macbeth (Joel Coen) Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO3
Comparing traditions 3 - The Tragedy of Macbeth (Joel Coen) Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 12 Lecture 12 – Comparing rhetorical traditions Lecture (1 hr) LO1 LO3
Final Assessment workshop - comparing rhetorical traditions Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO3
Week 13 Lecture 13 – Next steps for research on rhetorical traditions Lecture (1 hr) LO4
In-class Assessment – STUDENT PRESENTATIONS Seminar (2 hr) LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4

Attendance and class requirements

Attendance will be marked for seminars and Canvas will provide data about lecture viewing. As a 3000-level unit, the academic concepts we discuss are complex and the style of analysis students attain should display high levels of critical thinking. Seminars are the most important learning activity in the unit as they offer an opportunity to practise, ask questions, discover, and receive feedback. In past versions of the unit, students who miss multiple seminars tend to fail assessments. So, students are reminded that the Faculty has a policy that requires 90% attendance (or 50% if absences are explained with supporting documentation) - students who fall below this threshold will have their performance discussed at the discipline Board of Examiners meeting, where an Absent Fail grade can be imposed if it is decided that absences have prevented the student from meeting the unit outcomes in depth.

If you know you will, or you have, missed a seminar, please email the coordinator to discuss how to catch up.

Study commitment

Typically, there is a minimum expectation of 1.5-2 hours of student effort per week per credit point for units of study offered over a full semester. For a 6 credit point unit, this equates to roughly 120-150 hours of student effort in total.

Required readings

All readings will be made available via Canvas.

Learning outcomes are what students know, understand and are able to do on completion of a unit of study. They are aligned with the University's graduate qualities and are assessed as part of the curriculum.

At the completion of this unit, you should be able to:

  • LO1. apply principles from rhetorical theories to analyse and create effective spoken and written texts
  • LO2. apply theories of rhetorical reasoning and argumentation in evaluating discussions on current issues
  • LO3. defend an ethical and logical argument effectively in various mediums (oral, visual, and written)
  • LO4. demonstrate advanced skills in research and analysis to link information in an original way

Graduate qualities

The graduate qualities are the qualities and skills that all University of Sydney graduates must demonstrate on successful completion of an award course. As a future Sydney graduate, the set of qualities have been designed to equip you for the contemporary world.

GQ1 Depth of disciplinary expertise

Deep disciplinary expertise is the ability to integrate and rigorously apply knowledge, understanding and skills of a recognised discipline defined by scholarly activity, as well as familiarity with evolving practice of the discipline.

GQ2 Critical thinking and problem solving

Critical thinking and problem solving are the questioning of ideas, evidence and assumptions in order to propose and evaluate hypotheses or alternative arguments before formulating a conclusion or a solution to an identified problem.

GQ3 Oral and written communication

Effective communication, in both oral and written form, is the clear exchange of meaning in a manner that is appropriate to audience and context.

GQ4 Information and digital literacy

Information and digital literacy is the ability to locate, interpret, evaluate, manage, adapt, integrate, create and convey information using appropriate resources, tools and strategies.

GQ5 Inventiveness

Generating novel ideas and solutions.

GQ6 Cultural competence

Cultural Competence is the ability to actively, ethically, respectfully, and successfully engage across and between cultures. In the Australian context, this includes and celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, knowledge systems, and a mature understanding of contemporary issues.

GQ7 Interdisciplinary effectiveness

Interdisciplinary effectiveness is the integration and synthesis of multiple viewpoints and practices, working effectively across disciplinary boundaries.

GQ8 Integrated professional, ethical, and personal identity

An integrated professional, ethical and personal identity is understanding the interaction between one’s personal and professional selves in an ethical context.

GQ9 Influence

Engaging others in a process, idea or vision.

Outcome map

Learning outcomes Graduate qualities
GQ1 GQ2 GQ3 GQ4 GQ5 GQ6 GQ7 GQ8 GQ9

This section outlines changes made to this unit following staff and student reviews.

This unit receives strong feedback based primarily on the in-class seminars, which offer a rewarding chance to discuss unusual traditions of rhetoric and to explore how they appear (or don't) in our everyday lives. Based on previous feedback, the in-class presentation has been moved to week 13 as a culmination of these in-class discussions - emphasising the importance of conversation as a form of rhetoric and slightly de-emphasising the written assignments as the epitome of academic assessment. Lecture topics have been adjusted to match the new assessment schedule, and two new, recent examples have been added to the unit (Dropbear, and the Coen adaptation of Macbeth).

As a student in a WRIT unit, you will gain valuable insight on your assessment work by attending a Writing Hub Drop-In Session. You can book a one-on-one appointment with a student writing mentor at the following site:

https://sydney.edu.au/students/arts-and-social-sciences-writing-support.html

Disclaimer

The University reserves the right to amend units of study or no longer offer certain units, including where there are low enrolment numbers.

To help you understand common terms that we use at the University, we offer an online glossary.