proposal for a revised outline

In looking back at our outline (and thinking over our last thread), I'm wondering if some planning revisions might help along our collaborative writing process. So: here's my draft of a new plan of work (focusing mostly on a first or introductory section). Please tell me what you think!

Rev'd WRT 235 article outline (in sections):

1. Introduction. Orient our article in terms of our development of the major and the redevelopment of the course. Introduce our article's attempt to contribute to the theorization of the major. Discuss our goals for this piece: thinking through the major in terms of what we're hoping to accomplish in WRT 235 and with the "environment" focus. Scale back or eliminate discussion of "symbolic analysis" work.

[1a. Begin by discussing the major historically: as proposed, approved, and being implemented. Highlight what kind of curricular thinking/theorizing this major makes possible. Compare/contrast this theorizing with what Linda and Bob did in their book. Emphasize the necessity for communication among CWP faculty members, the development of a common vision of a course, and the extension of that common vision to larger discussions about a collective vision for the major among CWPers (and among members of the field more generally?). ]

[1b. Next, discuss WRT 235 historically: its inception, its early constraints, its role as core course in our major (for multimedia writing instruction, for introduction of the portfolio), and in its role as a course undergoing redevelopment. Justify our article as a sort of writeup of the collegial work we've been doing: CWP meetings about the major, LJM meetings about WRT 235, the LJM reading group meetings, etc. ]

[1c. Discuss in detail what it means to theorize the major through this particular course and its concepts. Here's where we preview the upshot of the article. To my mind, our attempts to theorize the major through WRT 235 shouldn't merely highlight the role of technology in all writing--as a reader, that's what I'd expect from an article like ours, and I think it's a conclusion that's too easy. No: we should push ourselves to think about how the environment concept reflects our view of what it is that we're teaching our WRT 235 students and our majors more generally.]

[My view of the upshot: On one hand, we want to emphasize the teaching of rhetoric (conceived pretty traditionally) as rhetors' skillful negotiation between communicative purpose and argumentative means. On the other hand, though, we are pushing very hard on the meaning of "means,"and, hopefully, giving our students an expanded view of what is possible in electronic writing environments--environments that can seem, especially to developing writers, like fixed and immutable channels. In our major, as in WRT 235, we are teaching writers that the forums in which written communication takes place can and do change, that effecting such changes is actually at the heart of the writing/rhetoric as an art, and that writers who seek to accomplish their purpose for writing had better conceive of themselves as not only message-emitters but also as designers of the communicative environments in which their messages become legible. WRT 235 can give writers a fast introduction to such principles insofar as it is committed to electronic environments, where such changes are common and (usually relatively) easily effected. The major, on the other hand, is faced with teaching this principle (mostly) in the slow-moving and highly conservative world of print--a much tougher task. Again: my 2 cents--we can negotiate over this.]

2. A redeveloped concept for a redeveloped course: "environment." Present our sense of the concept. Distinguish it from other, similar concepts (architecture). Elaborate its meaning in terms of scholarly accounts (JJE's datacloud) and in terms of WRT 235 (how we understand ourselves teaching writing in electronic environments). Explain two WRT 235 course assignments (single topic IEDP-style discussions, Rhode Island travel wiki entries) by way of providing readers with examples of the concept in application.

3. Thinking environmentally about the major. Draw out the general teaching philosophy for rhetorical education that has developed in section 2. (Perhaps this is the moment to narrate our meeting, in which Linda helped me to see the importance of teaching something like best practice strategies for writing in electronic environments?) Discuss this philosophy in terms of the other core courses: 201, etc. Discuss this philosophy in terms of primarily electronic/online versus primarily print/document-centered courses. Summarize and conclude.