NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Student: Steven Clark Bradley THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN Follow these proce !res" If requested by your instructor, please include an assignment cover sheet. This ill become the first page of your assignment. In addition, your assignment header should include your last name, first initial, course code, dash, and assignment number. This should be left !ustified, ith the page number right !ustified. "or e#ample: BradleyS$%&'(()*'*+ S#$e # cop% o& %o!r #ss'()*e)ts" ,ou may need to re*submit an assignment at your instructor-s request. .ake sure you save your files in accessible location. Ac# e*'c ')te(r't%" /ll ork submitted in each course must be your o n original ork. This includes all assignments, e#ams, term papers, and other pro!ects required by your instructor. 0no ingly submitting another person-s ork as your o n, ithout properly citing the source of the ork, is considered plagiarism. This ill result in an unsatisfactory grade for the ork submitted or for the entire course. It may also result in academic dismissal from the &niversity.
Course I% 1umber" $%&'(()*'*+

Instructor: /my 2ates

/ssignment" +

Course Title: /dvanced Scholarly 3riting

F#c!lt% Use O)l% 4"aculty comments here5

4"aculty 1ame5

42rade $arned5

43riting Score5

4%ate 2raded5

6unning head: /C/%$.IC 36ITI12 T768&27 67$T86IC/9 ST6/TI2I$S

/cademic 3riting through 6hetorical Strategies Steven Clark Bradley 1orthcentral &niversity

/C/%$.IC 36ITI12 T768&27 67$T86IC/9 ST6/T$2I$S

Deter*')#t'o) o& the Appropr'#te Rhetor'c#l Str#te(% The topic I chose for /ctivity : as the positive or negative impacts of the massive change in /merican education called Common Core and hether or not the results are quantifiable. I found several peer*revie ed articles on my topic, and I chose one titled 8pportunities and Challenges in 1e#t 2eneration Standards. It follo s the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy. In this paper, I ill summari;e this article and demonstrate ho it compares the current ell*founded traditional state*by*state methods of education, hich have been meticulously evaluated, to the still abstract, theoretical Common Core standards for educating /merican children. In addition, I ill describe ho my topic ill be best served by follo ing the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy. In the article, 8pportunities and Challenges in 1e#t 2eneration Standards, Stage et al., <:()=> discuss ho the harmoni;ation of sub!ects and increased preparation of students for college study and their future vocations ill be the catalyst for the national Common Core curriculum school standards. The authors predict that elementary, middle and high schools ill e#perience a great increase in learning related to science, math and $nglish 9anguage /rts based on the &.S. 1ational 6esearch Council?s <16C?s> structure that the first national education curriculum kno n as Common Core ill adhere to. Though the various aspects of Common Core standards have not yet met the test of time or scrutiny, Stage et al., <:()=> suppose that the ne standards and homogeny of curriculum into a united national system ill bring about more advancement in science, math and $nglish 9anguage /rts than previous traditional, individual state standards procured. The 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy is evidenced in this article in that it compares traditional standards that have been in place and scrutini;ed over many decades ith the more conceptual and unproven principles that are only no beginning to gain a foothold in /merican education.

/C/%$.IC 36ITI12 T768&27 67$T86IC/9 ST6/T$2I$S

Comparing untested Common Core standards to traditional ones, hich have stood the test of time, does not necessarily indicate that the Common Core standards are inferior to the traditional values in /merica. It only sho s that because Common Core standards are still more abstract than traditional ones, there is no ascertainable manner, as of yet, to kno of their efficiency or success. In this article, Stage et al., <:()=> insist that the past education standards that ere developed for science, $9/ and math, on an individual state by state basis, ere too e#tensive and created more curriculum and material than any school system could adequately teach <p. =>. /ccording to Stage et al., <:()=> Common Core creates a uniform national curriculum that is more precise and that tapers do n the scope and quantity of material taught to students. 8rder of materiality is certainly in play in such untried and untested statements that collide ith the much more concrete educational standards that have been in place, state by state, for years. The main premise of the article by Stage et al., <:()=> is based on a greater emphasis on analysis and investigative standards. The authors critici;e traditional education standards as, @a mile ide and an inch deepA even though the evidence indicating that a larger amount of school hours studying fe er sub!ects results in better scores e#ist only in high*performing countries, hich may not have the same positive results in the culture and social frame ork of students in the &nited States <p. =>. This point demonstrates that the authors are follo ing the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy in critici;ing concrete standards that have been in practice for many years ith abstract ideas that have not been established and have no real reputable form of evaluation or e#amples of success. Creating a common set of assessment tools, at least at the elementary and middle school levels and getting universities to accept the ne standards is key to Common Core-s success in school systems across the nation. Stage et al., <:()=> state that the old system limited access to higher learning in science, but they provided no data for such a claim. They insist that the ne

/C/%$.IC 36ITI12 T768&27 67$T86IC/9 ST6/T$2I$S

standards ill grant more access to all students, but there is no record of this and the authors only provide theory and opinion to support their claims. The ne system ill require purposeful resources to meet the ne higher standards. 3hat the resources are is complicated to ascertain, from the article. Stage et al., <:()=> strive to sho that the traditional system of academic standards does not inspire students and fails to appreciate students- interests and accomplishments, hile the ne Common Core standards enhance learning and students- drive <p. B>. These unsubstantiated hypotheses that pose ne and less accepted ideals for education against concrete standards provide confirmation that the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy is employed throughout this article. 8ne of the biggest challenges to Common Core standards is hether literacy and math standards ill be idely adopted throughout the &nited States. T enty*si# states have served as partners in the implementation and development of the ne standards. 1evertheless, it is feared that the impetus for the ne educational standards may be diminishing. Some states have suggested that they may choose to re!ect the implementation of Common Core, since evolution and environmental issues are taught throughout the curriculum <p. C>. 7erein, it can be itnessed that the success of common Core has not been fully accepted, and there is a fair amount of skepticism concerning the ne standards in contrast to the more recogni;ed, traditional standards. The 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy is also in use in this point. Deter*')#t'o) o& the Best Rhetor'c#l Str#te(% &or *% D'ssert#t'o) I ill employ the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy in my dissertation. 3ith this rhetorical strategy, I ill be able to demonstrate that the standard basis for evaluating success or failure in traditional education standards is effective, hile the abstract, yet undeveloped means of evaluation in the national curriculum called Common Core has no real manner of determining educational improvement or regression.

/C/%$.IC 36ITI12 T768&27 67$T86IC/9 ST6/T$2I$S

9ike the main premise of the article that compares the t o sets of educational standards, my dissertation ill be best served by employing the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy for this topic. The one persuadable manner to measure success or failure of traditional or Common Core standards is by employing definable tools of measurement to determine if the reduction of material studied actually helps a student-s education or impedes it. "or no , Common Core standards are a speculative theory. .y dissertation should logically use this rhetorical strategy to sho the contrast bet een a ell*founded set of standards and a more recent set, for hich there is no sure approach to identify if intangible Common Core initiatives are more successful or less than the concrete traditional educational standards no in place. This kind of comparison bet een the more concrete traditional standards, ith years of evaluation and reform behind them, and the more recent abstract Common Core standards that have almost no history to back them up ill form the structure of my dissertation. 3ith virtually no official evaluation mechanisms associated ith common Core, the 8rder of materiality rhetorical strategy of concrete verses abstract ideas or positions is a logical choice for the development of my dissertation.

/C/%$.IC 36ITI12 T768&27 67$T86IC/9 ST6/T$2I$S Re&ere)ces

Stage $0, /sturias 7, Cheuk T, %aro D/, 7ampton SB. <:()=>. 8pportunities and challenges in ne#t generation standards. Science, =+(<B)=(>::EB*E. doi: )(.)):BFscience.):=+()). Dub.ed D.I%: :=CGG+BB.