instructor: Jentery Sayers 
~ classroom: smi 309 
& ougl 101 ~ TTh: 9:30-11:20
Response Paper 1.3: Re: Soundscaping [ Submit It Now! ]
Due: Tuesday, January 29th (length: three pages)
See Related .pdf for Pre-writing and Research: Sound-Script Worksheet!
In order to articulate arguments that matter, academic writers often ask what’s missing from the current archive and then add it. By asking what’s missing, a writer can engage the archive in new and important ways, which contribute to ongoing academic discourse.
The goals of Response Paper 1.3 are:
- To compose your first argument for an academic audience in 121.
- To practice intertextualizing multiple angles on evidence in a single, complex argument.
- To identify and better understand how warrants function in arguments.
For Response Paper 1.3, you will exchange Response Paper 1.2 with a peer, including your peer’s 1.2 object of inquiry (i.e., the clip that she or he chose). Now you’ll want to gather a better “sense” of what your peer was analyzing. Recall the steps from the 1.2 prompt (i.e., “no sound,” “as is” and “no visual”)? Acquire or locate your peer’s chosen clip and repeat those steps (taking notes all the while). Then, please carefully read, annotate, and analyze your peer’s paper in order to contribute to the analysis of her or his chosen clip. Since you, too, watched and listened to the clip, your primary question is now: “What’s missing from my peer’s 1.2?” What implications didn’t your peer capture in her or his analysis? To answer these questions, consider your own approaches to Response Paper 1.2, as well as your peer’s three research questions at the end of her or his 1.2.
Next, write a three-page, formal academic argument that reviews your peer’s 1.2 and makes a complex claim about why what’s missing from your peer’s 1.2 matters. (Here, your complex claim should acknowledge your peer’s 1.2 analysis and then add to it or somehow complicate it.) As you unpack your claim, you should integrate quotes from or paraphrases of (1) your peer’s 1.2 and (2) another text from the course (e.g., your own 1.2 or Kozloff). This second move should get you thinking how to intertextualize evidence.
Ultimately, your argument should be constructive. Even if you are pointing to what’s missing, you should do so in an affirmative fashion. Pose new questions for your peer. Mention what you like about her or his work. Suggest where her or his research might go. Provide ideas. In short, mobilize her or his work toward the first major paper.
Your audience is academia, including me, your peers, and faculty and students from your other classes. As you write, consider what your audience knows and needs to know.
During future classes, we’ll converse about how this paper might be a productive way of thinking about articulating how to speak for, about, and with your local Boys and Girls Clubs.
Targeted Outcomes
1: Your paper should adhere to the conventions of academic argumentation.
2: Your paper should use both your and your peer’s Response Papers 1.2 as evidence, intertextualizing them in the service of your claim.
3: Your paper should be based in a complex claim that emerges from your peer’s Response Paper 1.2.
4: By contributing to your peer’s 1.2 analyses, you should be helping her or him revise her or his angle on and approach to Response Paper 1.2 (as well as prepare for Major Paper 1
Things Not to Be Missed
Your Response Paper 1.3 should be three pages with one-inch margins, typed using twelve-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, and spell-checked. It should follow the conventions of academic writing. Please submit the paper via the class drop box and e-mail it to your peer by Tuesday, January 29th. Thanks!
uw english | jentery at u.washington.edu
