emu onlinehalle librarygooglegoogle docswriting center

326.2 Researched Project (30%, 30 points)

The researched project in ENGL326 extends directly from the P1.Inquiry Memo. You will develop the researched project over several weeks as you continue to weigh discoveries you make through the SSR Journal and the series of worknets. Project Two is a 10-12 page researched project that will 1) offer some proposition, stance, or claim, the gets beyond what is established by your sources, 2) incorporate appropriate forms of support, 3) reflect a command of sources, their incorporation, and their relationship to other sources, and 4) demonstrates facility with rhetorical considerations, such as audience.

Your work with sources should reflect a grasp of summary, paraphrase, and direct quotation, as well as the citation conventions in keeping with MLA, APA, Chicago formats or some other format you identify.

Assignment Details
P2 will consist, ultimately, of the a 10-12 page (3000-3600 words) document and a series of in-progress drafts that will be reviewed by your peers and your professor. If you are creating a word-processed document, you should establish the file in Google Docs no later than Friday, Oct. 8. If, on the other hand, you are adopting some other medium, such as a blog, you should have the space set up by Monday, Oct. 11.

Drafts, In-progress Feedback and Deadlines
The first substantial draft of P2 is due on Wednesday, Nov. 3. A second draft is due on Monday, Nov. 22. Bring a printed copy of your writing on each of these dates.

Develop a thoughtful title for your project.

Evaluation Criteria

P2 is valued at 30 points (30% of your overall grade in the course). Twenty-five points are assigned to the written project; 5 points are assigned to the roundtable during the final week of classes.

The written portion of Project Two will be evaluated according to the following four criteria:

  1. Rhetorical effectiveness: The project establishes some claim or proposition with appropriate forms of evidence and regard for audience.
  2. Research: The project reflects a range of research materials (and sources) appropriate in light of the plan and timeframe for development.
  3. Development (the project is complete, fully developed; all aspects, including required length and a thoughtful title, are available)
  4. Accuracy (concerning mistakes or errors; adheres to formatting and documentation conventions)

The roundtable presentation will be evaluated according to the following three criteria:

  1. Delivery: (eye contact, engagement with audience, presence, command of material, timing)
  2. Slideshow or handout: (coherence, technical precision)
  3. Explanation of research process, insights, and the value of this work: (compelling content, appropriate scope for five minutes)

Each criterion listed above will be evaluated on the following scale:


EX: Exceptional. The writer has applied the criterion with distinction.
AC: Acceptable/meets expectations. The writer has applied the criterion to a satisfactory degree.
NI: Needs improvement. The writer has minimally applied the criterion in the project.
NA: Not applied. The writer has not applied the criterion in the project.

Contact Information

Derek N. Mueller, PhD
Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Writing
Director of Composition
Department of English
Virginia Tech
Office: 315 Shanks Hall
Spring 2020 Office Hours: T, 12-3
Phone: +1-734-985-0485

"Really, we should say 'worknet' instead of 'network'. It's the work, and the movement, and the flow, and the changes that should be stressed." —Bruno Latour, "A Dialogue on ANT"

Creative Commons License
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.