PWR

1 | The Rhetoric of Gaming | Fall 2017

THE RESEARCH-BASED ARGUMENT

Final revision
For this assignment, you should develop revise your RBA drafts into a powerful,
persuasive, and polished research-based argument on your topic related to gaming or
simulation culture.

Due: Final revision due: Wednesday, December 6 by class (upload to your RBA folder
and bring printout to class)

Format: 3600+ words (note: works cited/bibliography & reflective memo do not count
LOGISTICS

toward word count); using at least 12 courses (combining primary and secondary
materials); 1” margins; 1.5 spacing; separate title page including name, title, and date;
page numbers; in-text citations and works cited/references in MLA form; visual
evidence as appropriate, with rhetorical captions. A reflective memo is required for this
assignment.

Submission Format: Electronic posting of all materials to your RBA folder, including
reflective memo. Submit the final print out in your colored PWR folder (the one you
were given with your Rhetorical Analysis) if you have it.

Grading: The RBA is worth 45% of the overall class grade.

DRAFT REVISION: The Details

As you’ve moved from finding and researching a topic to drafting alternate introductions, composing an
outline, and expanding the outline into a full draft, you’ve undoubtedly been filling in gaps in your research
and sharpening your argument. Now’s the time to really bring your own argument center stage and revise
your draft into a powerful essay that makes a strong claim about your chosen topic, drawing on evidence
from primary and secondary sources to support your claims. This is also your opportunity to streamline
your structure (considering how to create effective transitions, how to best organize your information, and
whether to use subheads), polish your prose (thinking about voice, ethos, and levels of style), and spotlight
your argument and your research. Find your voice, make your claim, and say what you want to say about
this really interesting topic that you’ve been researching for the past month.

This revision is the version that will be graded; it should be fully polished, sophisticated researched
argument accompanied by a reflective memo. It should be at least 3600 words in length (excluding
reflective memo and works cited/references) and should use at least 12 sources, combining both primary
and secondary materials. In terms of format, your research paper should have

• A separate title page with interesting, relevant title and perhaps a rhetorical image
• A staple and page numbers
• Effective use of visual rhetoric as relevant to your argument (not all essays will need visual support
for their argument); if you use visual evidence please include captions and figure #s
• Image sources cited in a caption or in a separate “Image Sources” section that should follow your
works cited

1
 PWR 1 | The Rhetoric of Gaming | Fall 2017
• Parenthetical citations – the only footnotes permitted are informational footnotes (for tangents or
additional information), not citation footnotes
• Consistent, appropriate documentation of source material in MLA format unless you have had
approved an alternative style with me
• URLs in the works cited/bibliography UNLESS the source is from a database
• NOTE: your bibliography does NOT need to be annotated. All you need are citations in MLA form, no
annotations or notes on how you found the source.

Your revision is due Wednesday, December 6, by class. Upload the file (including title page, reflective
memo, and works cited) to your RBA folder AND bring a print out and supporting materials (reflective
memo; any non-digital peer review materials; annotated drafts) to class, preferably in your colored PWR
folder.

WRITING YOUR REFLECTIVE MEMO

In addition to revising your draft, you should write a final reflection memo for this revision, which you
should turn in to Stanford Box and also in paper form with your printed RBA. This memo should be at least
450 words in length and should be designed to give your reader insight into the decisions you made in
writing and revising your document. You may use an informal voice in this document, but your writing
should be clear and your development linear. You may use subheads if you want to structure your letter.

Note: I will accept an audio or video reflection as an alternative, if you prefer. The audio/video reflection
should be limited to approximately 5 minutes in length. If you choose this option, be sure to structure your
reflection with an opening, middle that draws on specific example, and closing rather than just being
digressive rambling. The audio/video memo should be uploaded to your Stanford Box folder; if you choose
instead to upload it to YouTube, please be sure to put a link to that YouTube video in your Box folder
(choose “New Bookmark” from the “New” menu in the folder) so I can find it easily.

To prepare for writing your reflective memo, you might want to look back at your blog posts or other
materials in your Coursework TiC and RBA folders, which reflect your topic at several different stages of
development.

Here's what should be included in your reflective memo (not necessarily in this order):

• A reflection on the process of writing this essay, from discovering the idea (invention), through
research, through drafting and peer review, to writing center appointments, to revision. Think of
this as the story of your project.
• Reference to your trials and triumphs in writing this essay, including any unique or interesting
research you did that you think I should be aware of (important interviews, archival work, etc.).
Think of this as a part where you establish your ethos as a researcher.
• Discussion of what you’re most proud of in the paper AND what you wish you had had more
time to work on. This is where you evaluate your own work.
• Reflection on how what you learned about rhetoric influenced the writing of this essay. Describe
how you used rhetoric in your writing: depending on your project, you might discuss rhetorical
appeals (pathos, logos, ethos), kairos, the five canons of rhetoric, and/or the rhetorical
situation.
• A brief reflection on how what you learned in our class (approaches to writing, research,
communication) might be useful to you beyond PWR, whether that be in PWR 2, your major,
your internship, or even life beyond Stanford.

Some of these sections may be more developed than others, depending on your project. Your goal
here is to give me an overview of your thoughts about the process of writing the essay and your
2
 PWR 1 | The Rhetoric of Gaming | Fall 2017
own evaluation of your work. Don’t forget to use specific and concrete language and example in
writing your memo.

This reflective memo is a required part of the assignment. Failure to submit your reflective memo
will affect the overall grade for your paper.

Evaluation Criteria

In brief, your research-based argument essay will be graded according to the following ideal qualities
(which are the same criteria used in your peer review rubric):

• TOPIC: Sophisticated or nuanced approach to a well-chosen topic that shows awareness of scope,
different perspectives and/or points of tension, and which is appropriate for the assignment
objectives and class theme.
• TITLE: Catchy, well-written title that gives the reader a sense of topic and argument
• THESIS STATEMENT: Clear, precise, and well-defined; sophisticated in both its articulation and
the ideas behind it, connecting to a larger issue, relevance or So What
• ARGUMENT: Underlying argument developed in the essay matches thesis statement; essay delivers
on the “promise” of the thesis; avoids tangents and digressions; author’s argument is clear and
sophisticated; it is showcased and drives the essay (rather than evidence driving the essay
• INTRODUCTION: Shows attention to audience and hooking the reader; clearly establishes topic and
argument
• BACKGROUND & DEFINITION: Provides effective background, context, or theoretical framework to
support the central argument (in a background section or integrated throughout, as
appropriate); fully utilizes any theoretical framework that is introduced; defines important terms
at the appropriate places
• CONCLUSION: Ties the paper together; resists relying exclusively on summary; works in conjunction
with intro to bookend the argument; includes reference to larger significance, conversation or
the So What of the argument
• EVIDENCE: Strong, effective use of specific forms of evidence to support the argument. Uses both
primary and secondary evidence. Synthesizes multiple arguments from different types of sources
appropriate to topic – strong sense of the conversation about the topic & evidence of rigorous
research
• EVIDENCE- INTEGRATION & ANALYSIS: Effective use of summary, paraphrase, and direct quotations
to support claims; polished use of signal phrases and attributions; consistently and effectively
comments on, adds to, qualifies, and critiques source material
• EVIDENCE – ETHICAL USE: Ethical use of source material; provides context and appropriate
citation/documentation
• VISUAL EVIDENCE: If uses visuals, uses as evidence to support argument rather than as decoration;
includes image source citations after works cited/bibliography
• STRUCTURE – COHERENCE & FLUIDITY: Well-constructed, purposeful coherent structure that
avoids tangents and digressions; arrangement of paragraphs leads the reader through argument
effectively; good sense of forward momentum; fluid transitions between paragraphs and ideas;
demonstrates conceptual relationship between paragraphs/ideas; develops, reinforces or builds on
central claim; if uses subheads, uses them in conjunction with transitions rather than instead of
and creates rhetorical, interesting subheads
• STRUCTURE – COHESIVE/COHERENT PARAGRAPHS: Each paragraph has a coherent, cohesive
purpose that contributes to developing the argument (rather than simply showcasing a
source); strong use of topic sentences to provide transition, identify topic of paragraph, and
connect to argument
3
 PWR 1 | The Rhetoric of Gaming | Fall 2017
• STYLE & VOICE: Clear, consistent, and engaging style appropriate to topic and audience; avoids
bias; shows attention to crafting language and structure through concrete, vivid language,
effective word choice and usage, varied sentence structure, and effective/strategic use of
rhetorical appeals and strategies of development
• DESIGN, DELIVERY, & CORRECTNESS: Shows clear attention to ethos in the design of the essay as
well as in proofreading (grammar, punctuation, spelling, MLA format for source citation and works
cited); demonstrates mastery of appropriate conventions of academic discourse and format;
follows the specific instructions in the assignment, grammar, punctuation, source citation, and
language usage

This paper is worth 45% of your overall grade for the class. Note: In case of late submission, the grade for
the RBA will be marked down ½ a grade (from an A-/B+) for everyday it is late beyond the established
deadline.

Final Checklist for your revision

Be sure to look at the checklist below to ensure you’ve been attentive to the final details for your revision:

ü Assignment sheet. Did you re-read this assignment sheet to make sure that you fulfill all the
components of the assignment, also looking over the evaluation criteria to inform your final revisions?

ü Title page. Do you have a separate title page that includes your name, a significant title, and the date?

ü Page numbers. Do you have page numbers on each page? (It’s fine if you omit page numbers on the
title page and/or the first page)

ü Page spacing. Are your pages set in 1.5 or double spacing?

ü Correctness. Did you correct all typos and punctuation, grammar, and usage mistakes?

ü Crafting. Did you “craft” your language to think about the rhetorical impact of your word choice and
sentence structure?

ü Design. Did you enhance your ethos as a writer by polishing the design/delivery of your document?

ü Visual evidence. If you use visual evidence, tables, charts or other information graphics, do you have a
caption for each one that includes a phrase/sentence that ties the visual into your argument (i.e. helps
the audience see what is important in the visual or how it relates to your thesis)? Do you cite your
source in your caption OR (preferably) in a separate “Image Sources” section, organized by Figure #,
after your works cited/bibliography?

ü MLA parenthetical documentation. Do you include appropriate citations in correct MLA parenthetical
documentation form where needed in your paper? You can use informational footnotes, but only for
providing your reader with additional information, not for citation. See the MLA Handout through the
“Writing Resources” link on the top menu of the website for help on parenthetical documentation form.

4
 PWR 1 | The Rhetoric of Gaming | Fall 2017
ü Works Cited/bibliography. Do you have either a Works Cited or bibliography attached to the end of
your paper? Is it in correct MLA form? Does it list at least 12 SOURCES? NOTE: You do NOT need to
include annotations with this final works cited/bibliography or how you found these texts.

ü Image Sources. Do you have a list of Image Sources, organized by Figure #, following your works cited
or bibliography? Is it in MLA form? See Envision, chapter 7, for samples of how to format image
source citations correctly.

ü Print out. Did you make a print out of your essay? If possible, did you double-side your print out (to
save trees)? Is your print out stapled?

ü RBA Box folder. Did you upload your final version (including title page and works cited and reflective
memo) to your RBA folder on Box?

ü Reflective Memo. Did you follow the assignment instructions and compose (a written or audio/ video)
a cover memo for your final research paper? If you composed an audio/video memo, please upload it
to your RBA box or put a link to it (if you upload it to YouTube) in your RBA folder.

Further Resources for your revision

You might consider the following ways to find extra help in revising your draft into a polished final essay:

• Look at the Boothe Prize winning essays (http://ual.stanford.edu/AP/univ_req/PWR/Boothe.html)

for examples of outstanding researched arguments.

• Look at Envision for tips on writing research arguments (chapter 6), designing documents (chapter
8) and incorporating accurate documentation style (chapter 7).

• If you're feeling a little shaky about what constitutes plagiarism or appropriate use of sources, you
should visit Diana Hacker's Bedford Handbook site (click on “Free and Open Website”; then
“Research Exercises”; then “MLA” – student registration is optional) and run through exercises 54-
1 and 54-2. You might also look at 54-3.
(http://www.dianahacker.com/bedhandbook/subpages/rs_menu.asp).

• For additional help on MLA documentation style (for in-text citations and your works cited), see the
MLA Style handout in the “Writing Resources” link on the top menu of the Rhetgaming website.

• Consult with a Hume writing tutor (go to sututor.stanford.edu to make an appointment; drop-in
appointments are also available); remember you are REQUIRED to meet with a tutor sometime this
quarter.

• Contact me if you have any questions (Alfano@stanford.edu).