Project 2

Exploring Digital Identity: Rhetorical Analysis

Project 2 takes the theme of analytically exploring and “seeing” beneath the surface of text that
we began in Project 1 into the digital realm. We also continue developing your critical thinking
skills. Finally, this project provides an opportunity to build your vocabulary of rhetorical
terminology and enhance your Habits of Mind related to multimodal composing, as well as
further your progress toward mastering the WPA Outcomes.

Project 2 focuses on some of the most ubiquitous forms of persuasive communication in

Western culture: social media. Researchers have speculated that the average American
spends over two hours per day on social media (Cohen, 2017). It is difficult to fully understand
how much social media impacts our society at large as well as our personal lives—and that
makes the phenomenon ripe for analysis. Although it may not seem like it, most social media
posts (tweets, Facebook statuses, pictures on Instagram, YouTube videos, etc.) are
sophisticated multimodal texts, resulting in the construction of rhetorically complex (and
sometimes contradictory) digital identities and communities. What will you see when you
deconstruct a selected person’s digital account? For Project 2, you will analyze a specific
selected person’s social media account through a rhetorical lens.

The Assignment: Social Media Account Rhetorical Analysis

Your task is to compose a rhetorical analysis of part of the social media account of a relevant,
well-known public figure (see “Project Overview” below for selection parameters). Your
analysis must be substantially informed by at least two credible secondary sources. Ideally,
at least one of these sources will be a scholarly source found through the ASU Library. And,
since this is a multimodal project designed to be viewed and read online, your analysis must
include at least three multimedia files (such as visuals or audio files), which should be taken
directly from your chosen social media account. Since your rhetorical analysis should be
composed to be read and experienced online, other multimodal elements, such as hyperlinks or
embedded media, are strongly encouraged. (Note that these multimodal elements do not count
toward your secondary source total.)

This rhetorical analysis should be 1000 words at minimum (double-spaced with a 12-pt font)
and should not exceed 2000 words. All secondary sources and visuals should be cited with
APA in-text citations and an APA-style references page (which does not count toward the
minimum word count).
Your analysis should also have a creative, relevant title and be directed toward an audience of
external readers who might find your analysis in an online digital ‘zine that accepts rhetorical
investigations of popular culture (such as Harlot). How can you make such online readers care
about the topic, the focus, of your analysis? What level of formality is expected for an audience
of this type? How can you incorporate your sources/visuals in a reader-centered way?

Project Overview

Let’s break this project down piece by piece, starting with the most important decision you’ll
make: selecting a subject for analysis. As mentioned above, the subject of your analysis should
be a relevant and well-known public figure. Let’s define each of these terms for the purposes
of this project. The social media account you select should be for a prominent public
individual (not a company, organization, or brand) and should be relevant either to your local
community (where you currently live) or to your academic or professional goals. Use the
following parameters for selecting a suitable subject.

 For the local community angle, you should select a social media account that is
somehow important or influential in the community where you currently live. For
example, if you currently live in Phoenix, you might select the Twitter feed of a prominent
local entertainment personality or the Instagram account of a popular food truck owner.
Or, if you live in rural Montana, you might select the YouTube channel of a local
wilderness expert or the Facebook page of your state governor or senator.
 Your other option is to select a social media account of someone who works in your
current field of study or who works in your desired professional field. For example, if you
are a Political Science major, you could select the Twitter feed or YouTube channel of a
political journalist. Or, if you want to work in fashion, you might select the Facebook
page of a fashion blogger or the Instagram account of a popular fashion designer.
 The parameters for “well-known” are less specific, but, ideally, the social media account
you choose will have a large number of followers, be verified, or otherwise be somehow
 prominent in your local community or academic/professional field. (Work closely with
your Instructor to determine if your chosen account is sufficiently “well known.”)
 As stated above, you may not select a company, organization, brand, etc. For example,
you could select the personal Twitter account of Apple CEO Tim Cook, but not any kind
of general social media account for the Apple brand.
 Finally, you should limit your choices to one of the four social media sites/apps
mentioned above: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. You may explore
alternatives during the prewriting activities, but you will need Group Instructor
approval to choose a subject’s social media account outside of these four. Also,
note that due to its temporary nature, Snapchat is not an acceptable social media
platform for this project.

Once you’ve selected a suitable individual subject’s social media account to analyze, you
should begin to focus on the specifics of rhetorical analysis. This is a different genre than the
profile you composed in Project 1. Rhetorical analysis is concerned with exploring and
explaining the specific persuasive choices the author of a text has made. The rhetorical
concepts we are specifically practicing (ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos) are key tools you
must use in your analysis.

You will be looking closely at the rhetorical choices the creator of your chosen social media
account has made (e.g., words, visuals and other multimodal elements, timeliness) in their
posts, looking specifically for rhetorical choices you find interesting - and that you think external
readers will find interesting as well. For example, does the social media account’s
reasonableness (logos) contradict itself in different parts of the account? Is the emotional
message (pathos) inconsistent? Does the account have content that damages the owner’s
credibility (ethos)? Are the topics the owner of the account is posting on out-of-date or timely
(kairos)? Do parts of the account rhetorically “miss the mark” in terms of the audience being
targeted? How? Why? It is up to you to study your chosen social media account and find
content on the account that you find both meaningful and rhetorically interesting, and focus your
analysis around this content. Overall, what does your analysis of the social media account
reveal that will be of rhetorical interest to external readers?

To answer this question, you’ll need to craft a thesis statement to help you organize and plan
your analytical research and composing. Ask yourself, “What are the main ideas I am trying to
communicate to my readers?” Your thesis should communicate this main idea and preview your
analysis in one or two succinct, reader-centered sentences. That’s the hard part, of course!

Once you’ve articulated your thesis, you’ll be ready to collect and organize your analytical
support for that thesis, including your multimodal inclusions, design, and secondary
sources. This research allows you to practice multimodal composing as well as one of the most
important ways to raise your own ethos when composing: incorporating the ideas of other
credible writers or composers into your own to create new knowledge. The ideas of others can
provide lenses through which we can look to “see,” to understand, our analytical subject in new
ways.

While you are not required to use them in Project 2, the following secondary sources provide
helpful concepts and theoretical frameworks that you might find useful in your rhetorical
analysis. They are examples of credible sources that one might use to help “see” social media
in analytical and rhetorical ways. All are located within our course canvas shell in the Project 2
area.
  “Lifestreaming: We Live in Public” (Alice E. Marwick)
 “Writing in the Moment: Social Media, Digital Identity, and Networked Publics” (Jacob
Babb)
 “Speaking Back to Our Spaces: The Rhetoric of Social Soundscaping” (Fargo Ahern
and Jordan Frith)
 “Blogging Borders: Transnational Feminist Rhetorics and Global Voices” (Jessica
Ouellette)
 “Like Me, Like Me Not” (Paul Muhlhauser and Andrea Campbell)

Project Requirements

Below is a brief summary of the Project 2 requirements; see the full Grading Rubric that follows
for a more detailed breakdown. These requirements apply to both your rough and final drafts.

 Genre: Rhetorical analysis essay designed to be read and experienced online

 Subject: A social media account for a well-known person
 Audience: External readers who might encounter your analysis in an online ‘zine (such
as Harlot) devoted to rhetorical analysis of and commentary on popular culture (make
sure to include a relevant and creative title for this audience)
 Length: 1000-2000 words (not including citations)
 Textural Sources: At least two credible, written secondary sources
 Multimodal Sources: At least three visuals, audio files, screen captures, pictures, etc.
 Citations: APA-style in-text citations and References page
 Format: A double-spaced, 12-pt font Microsoft Word-compatible document
Project 2 Grading Rubric
Note: The Project 2 final draft is worth 150 points.
Criteria
Audience Awareness
Introduction
Development of
Rhetorical Analysis
Incorporation of
Multimodal and Textual
Secondary Sources
Expectations Points
 Analysis has a creative and relevant title


Voice, tone, and level of formality are audience
appropriate
All composition choices are reader-centered,
rather than composer-centered
10
 Grabs readers’ attention effectively and compels

them to read further
Identifies the subject of the analysis and provides
relevant context
Contains a clear thesis that prepares readers for
the content of the analysis
10
 Relevant and well-known public individual
60
selected
 Effectively describes the relevant contents of the
social media account, allowing readers to “see”
the subject of analysis
 Fully contextualizes the social media account
(including medium, target audience, purpose,
and message) in sophisticated ways to aid the
analysis of the account’s selected content
 Fully uses the rhetorical concepts (logos, ethos,
pathos, and kairos) in the analysis of the
account’s “interesting” rhetorical content
 Synthesizes the usage of the rhetorical concepts
in sophisticated ways to aid the analysis of the
social media account’s selected content
 Analysis consistently works to help “prove” the
thesis made in the introduction
 At least two credible textual secondary sources
40
are utilized
 Textual secondary sources are incorporated
effectively and contribute meaningfully in any of
the following ways:
o provides relevant context on the subject of
the social media account
o provides relevant context on the target
audience of the social media account
o provides a relevant critical lens or analytical
framework to aid the analysis of the account
 Textual secondary sources are not from the
account itself but are relevant to the analysis
 At least three multimodal sources from the
chosen social media account are included
  Multimodal sources enhance the analysis in
meaningful ways
 Multimodal sources are effectively placed and
synthesized within the surrounding analysis
 Secondary sources and multimodal sources
supplement and complement, not dominate, the
overall analysis

Conclusion  Effectively summarizes the main ideas of the



rhetorical analysis
Provides closure to the analysis
Leaves a strong final impression on readers 10
Citation and  Sources summarized, paraphrased, or quoted

10
Documentation effectively
 In-text citations follow APA guidelines
 References page adheres to APA guidelines

Final Draft Preparation  Structured logically/organized effectively




Clear transitions used between sentences and
paragraphs
All written and visual components are
aesthetically organized within the analysis
(including font, spacing, margins, indentation,
10
etc.)
 Evidence of sufficient time spent revising and
editing/proofreading (i.e., free of surface errors)

Total 150
 Making It All Manageable:

Working Through the Stages of the Project 2 Composing Process

Okay. Now that you have a sense of what Project 2 asks you to do, now what? It can be
intimidating, scary, and stressful to think about how to move from the beginning to the end of a
composing project. Successful composers work a little (or a lot) every day, breaking the thinking
and composing down into manageable stages. Delaying the real work of a composing project—
otherwise known as procrastinating—will prevent you from maximizing your potential and your
cognitive growth. Here, we outline a plan to help you avoid such procrastination. Try working
through the recursive steps outlined here as often as you can.

Step 1: Select a Social Media Account to Analyze

Reread the Project 2 assignment description again. Think deeply and critically about your local
community, as well as your academic and professional goals. Do any prominent individuals
immediately come to mind? If so, they likely have several social media accounts. Which account
would be the best subject for your rhetorical analysis? Take a cursory look at the content of
each account with an eye toward rhetorical analysis. You may need to consider several
individuals and their various social media accounts before you find the one you wish to analyze.
Make sure to follow the selection parameters outlined above in the Project 2 assignment
description.

If no prominent individuals come to mind, you’ll need to do a bit of research to identify potential
individuals in your local community or academic/professional fields. A simple Google search can
be a good starting point, as can browsing the various social media websites/apps. If you’re still
having trouble at that point, there are several resources available: the “Talk with Your Peers”
discussion board forum, your Writing Mentor, and your Instructor.

Step 2: Conduct Primary Research

This will involve actually sifting through the many posts in the account you’ve selected to
analyze. As kairos is one of your key analytical tools, try to limit your analysis to posts within the
last 6 months. What is the content of the posts? Who seems to be the target audience? How do
the posts appeal to the audience’s senses of trust, emotions, and rationality? Are there any
contradictions within the account’s many rhetorical decisions? What does your initial analysis
reveal that will be of interest to readers? As you research and begin to answer these questions,
you may start to formulate a thesis statement at this point. Try to identify posts you will
potentially want to include in your rough draft as evidence as well to support your working
thesis.

Step 3: Conduct Secondary Research

Now that you have gathered primary research and have an idea of the direction your analysis
will take, you will want to look for reliable and credible secondary sources to support your ideas,
strengthen your ethos, and give your analysis a rhetorical framework. These sources will help
you “see” and understand your subject in an analytical way. Although you may well be able to
find credible sources via a Google search, you will likely find greater success (i.e., stronger,
more credible sources) via the ASU Library databases. Try searching for sources related to the
subject of your analysis, scholarly research into social media, visual or textual rhetoric, the
target audience of the social media account, etc. You can also consider the secondary sources
made available to you in our Project 2 content area.

Step 4: Formulate a Plan for Your Rough Draft

Before you begin composing your rough draft, you should plan out how you want your analysis
to unfold. You should start by crafting a clear working thesis statement: everything in your
analysis should orient to that thesis. Once you have that thesis, plan how you want the various
elements of your draft to look (introduction, analysis, textual & multimodal sources, citations,
conclusion, etc.). Make sure to put some thought into the structure and organization of your
draft as well. This may involve using index cards, creating a physical outline, jotting some rough
notes down on paper, or any other strategy that works for you. But what you should not do is
simply start writing your first draft as a freewriting exercise. It is much more difficult to impose
structure on a haphazardly written stream-of-consciousness-style draft than it is to draft with a
structured plan already in mind.

Step 5: Compose a First Draft of Your Rhetorical Analysis

With plenty of research and planning completed, you’ll be ready to begin drafting your analysis.
Approach this drafting step knowing than it will be imperfect—it’s more important to get your
thoughts out in composed form at this point than making sure it’s “perfect.” The act of
composing will force you to organize your thoughts and integrate your sources; it will also
produce new thinking on your analytical subject. If you find your rough draft diverging from your
thesis statement, that’s not abnormal—it’s actually a good thing! This first draft will likely be
composer-centered, which is also normal, and a crucial step in the writing process. Note: This
first attempt should not necessarily be the rough draft you submit on Canvas for Instructor
review. You can—and should—compose multiple drafts at this stage.

Step 6: Provide and Obtain Written Feedback

You should receive written feedback from your classmates to deepen your understanding of
Project 2 and to learn how informed external readers respond to your writing and multimodal
composing. You will also provide your own written feedback on the rough drafts of two of your
classmates. The critical thinking skills required for effective peer review are the same skills you
will need to revise your own composition. Through the peer review process, everyone’s
understanding of Project 2 will improve.

You will also receive Instructor feedback at this stage, and you will receive Writing Mentor
feedback if you choose to attend a Revision Workshop. Learning to take in all this feedback,
synthesize it, and even reject some of it, is another crucial skill to help improve your composing
process.

Step 7 (Optional): Conduct More Primary and Secondary Research

Based on the feedback you receive on your rough draft and your own understanding of the
needs of your rough draft (your thesis might have changed!), you might need to gather
additional primary data or secondary sources to help your analysis reach its potential. This is
also a good time to ensure that your multimodal and secondary sources meet the Project 2
requirements (they should substantially enhance your analysis). Reread the Project 2 grading
rubric criteria carefully. This would also be a good time to do some more organizing/planning.
Step 8: Compose Further Drafts of Your Analysis
Based on the feedback you’ve received and any new research you’ve done, it is time to revise
your rough draft. This will likely involve revising (or perhaps simply tweaking) your thesis
statement. You will then need to revise the rest of your analysis to align with this new thesis
statement. Remember, to “revise” means to re-see and re-imagine your writing and multimodal
composing. Thus, revision is much more than fine-tuning your word choice, strengthening
transitions between paragraphs, or correcting surface errors. That’s editing (an important step to
be sure, but not the same as revision). True revision is substantial work—likely as much (or
more) than composing your rough draft. You will likely need to add new sections to your
analysis, delete unneeded ones, or rearrange existing ones. The most common pitfall at this
stage is thinking your rough draft was “perfect.” Don’t be afraid to make wholesale changes!

In this second round of drafting, you will also want to more carefully consider the audience of
your analysis; where your rough draft was likely composer-centered, your final draft should be
reader-centered.

Step 9 (optional): Repeat Steps 6-8 as Many Times as You Can

The writing and composing process is recursive: this means that you can always improve your
work with additional rounds of feedback, critical thinking, research, and new composing.
Remember: every time you compose or write, you produce new thinking. Go through these
crucial stages of the composing process as many times as your deadline allows.

Step 10: Submit Your Work

After this second round of drafting (which should be more than a single new draft), you should
have a draft you are happy enough with to consider “final.” When you have that draft, you will
first need to submit it in Microsoft Word format on Canvas through the assignment submission
link for Instructor grading. You will also need to embed it in your Digication Portfolio. (At this
point, you should also craft a rough draft of your Project 2 Portfolio landing page and begin to
upload all relevant invention work and drafts to the appropriate areas in your Portfolio.)

Step 11: Reflect on Your Work

Upon completion of Project 2, you should reflect on your learning experience in your Digication
Portfolio. (Ideally, you will be reflecting weekly, but this final reflection after completing the
project is critical.) What skills, what processes, what Outcomes, what Habits, will you be able to
transfer with you to composing situations outside of this class? How has your theory of writing
changed from the beginning of the session? Refer to the Post-Course Reflection assignment
description for more comprehensive instructions on this crucial metacognitive reflection. Include
sufficient evidence to support your claims about your Project 2 learning. Sources of evidence
can be excerpts from your many project 2 assignments, examples of your research/visuals, or
feedback from other course stakeholders (peers, Writing Mentor, Instructor).

Timeline
Please see the Course Calendar and weekly content areas on our Canvas site.
 References

Cohen, D. (2017, March 22). How Much Time Will the Average Person Spend on Social Media

During Their Life? Adweek. Retrieved March 7, 2018, from

http://www.adweek.com/digital/mediakix-time-spent-social-media-infographic/