Now, Kinneavy himself already employs various schemes and hierarchies in order to extend (or argue to extend) Kairos more explicitly to college composition; however, you need not feel compelled to imitate his hierarchy. In fact, you are taking the meta-view, having read Kinneavy in the context of a theoretical turn. Similarly, Sheridan, et al, go so far as to visualize a place for kairos in the modern composition assignment, yet your schema will likely be more multilayered and rich than their venn diagram, so you should not feel compelled to imitate what they do.
I encourage you to think of your schema not as an outline, but as an intellectual map. This means it is more generative than demonstrative. In other words, consider how you might present either Kinneavy's or Sheridan, et al's hierarchy of concerns. How do they organize their theory of kairos (i.e., by critical question, by school of thought, by disciplinary problem, by writing task, by literary theorists, by philosophical figures, or something else) and what are the factors that might have led them to do so? But also, what are the various and potential outcomes of their theory? How does it overlap with other issues in composition studies, other texts, other fields, or even other disciplines?
Most schemas combine the visual and the textual, and sometimes they look like trees, database structures, venn diagrams, charts, or architectural drawings. You have absolute creative license in terms of how you will compose your schema. In fact, you may make it as layered as you would like—even topographic—if you think a multi-dimensional map would better demonstrate the depth of their work. Your schema will likely need some prose explanation (perhaps even selective quoting), as well as a symbol key or a guide. As such, please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations where needed.
Finally, feel free to draw on any resource available to you, including our online glossaries and easy reference guides. Texts from other classes or disciplines are absolutely welcome. In sum, though you are not required to draw on other sources, whatever you do find to help you enhance your schema is fair game, as long as they are trustworthy (e.g., robust, creative commons, or peer-reviewed), and as long as you report the sources and share how you came about them.
I'll arbitrarily suggest the following working teams:
- Erik and Travis
- Anna and Julianna
- Charise and Netty
- Mackenzie and Tyreek
- Mandy and Joe
Please upload your completed schema to our shared Google Drive space by the beginning of class time on Thursday, September 18, and bring a hard or digital copy to class for our discussion (just in case).
For your follow-up critical blog post (which you will do individually), please reflect on the schema assignment and how some aspect of the task illumined/complicated/addressed/extended your reading of our texts for this week. This critical blog post is somewhat formal, rather than a simple reflection. It should be a minimum of 2-3 well developed paragraphs in length (a couple of screens), and my great desire is to see you engage expertly with both task and texts, at times speaking through or alongside what we read, and speaking with some insight about what we read (citing where necessary and embedding links where relevant). Be sure to define terms and unpack assumptions for us, using your posts as occasions to teach. Because the blog is somewhat performative, I'll ask you to title your posts creatively (or insightfully). Feel free to compose your post as a response to someone else’s, if you see an interesting conversation starting on the blog.
This is work, but have fun with it!
