ur district recently took up the chal-lenge of writing curriculum aligned to the Common Core State Stan-dards (CCSS). However, because of

the recent discussions at both the national and local level about how these new standards tied to new tests will affect curriculum and instruction, before start-ing to write curriculum, a few of us began to recon-sider what we want students to know and how we can effectively measure whether or not they know it. Furthermore, because the standards call for an inte-grated approach to literacy instruction across the dis-ciplines, and because we know that each discipline has its own discourse that students must learn to ne-gotiate, the discussion quickly turned to finding a common vocabulary—regardless of discipline—that our school could adopt and implement into the cur-riculum. Using the five components of the rhetori-cal situation—purpose, genre, audience, stance, and media/design—as defined by The Norton Field Guide to Writing (Bullock, Weinberg, and Goggin), we de-veloped a framework for approaching how teachers across the disciplines of science, social studies, and En glish discuss what students are expected to know and how students are assessed. This framework has been effectively used throughout various courses to design assignments and create rubrics that assess and measure students’ mastery of the standards.

The Rhetorical Situation and Argument

It is necessary to point out that we have been heav-ily influenced by the work of Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, authors of They Say/I Say: The

60 En glish Journal 103.1 (2013): 60–65

Sean Hackney and Brian Newman

The authors describe a framework for approaching how teachers across the disciplines discuss what students are expected to know and how students are assessed.

Using the Rhetorical Situation to Inform Literacy Instruction and Assessment across the Disciplines

O Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, and agree with them that “the name of the game in academia” is “argument” and that we must “make good on this bold claim in curricular and pedagogical practice” (W410). In fact, the creation of an assignment and assessment design using the rhetorical situation de-veloped from the concern of how to teach students that literacy is interdisciplinary and ultimately boils down to students being able to show that they can successfully enter conversations within the vari-ous disciplines. Graff and Birkenstein explain that “argument” is the “art of entering a conversation” and is “central to every academic department and discipline, from history to microbiology, where practitioners are required to state their views not in isolation, but as a response to what others in the field are saying” (W410). That is, students can go from physics to US history and then to En glish class knowing that in each class they will use the rhetori-cal situation as they learn how to navigate the con-ventions of argument within a specific discipline.

Moreover, as Irene L. Clark and Andrea Her-nandez note in their study focused on the “trans-ferability” of writing from one context to another, when students have a working understanding of “what is referred to as ‘genre awareness,’ the idea being that a metacognitive understanding of genre can help students make connections between . . . academic argument . . . and the writing genres they encounter in other disciplines” (65), students are better positioned to navigate the genre constraints of a particular discipline.

In an attempt to see whether students use the rhetorical situation, we gave an informal survey that

EJ_Sept2013_B.indd 60 8/28/13 4:22 PM

61English Journal

Sean Hackney and Brian Newman

coming standardized exams when literacy instruc-tion is mandated across the curriculum, using the rhetorical situation throughout multiple subjects to help instruct students how to enter into the work of each discipline is crucial, and the standards ex-press the necessity as well. Echoing the En glish standards, the CCSS emphasize in their standards for “Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects” that “students must take task, purpose, and audience into careful consideration, choosing words, information, structures, and for-mats deliberately” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 63). The standards also stress that students must become familiar with the “norms and conventions of each discipline” (60). To summarize, as Graff and Birkenstein assert:

To heal the divide between high school and col-lege, and ease the often confusing transitions that students experience between the academic world’s disconnected domains, educators need to identify some one set of skills or practices that students can hold on to as they move from one domain to another, that is framed broadly enough to win the assent of educators from a wide range of subjects, disciplines, grade levels, and types of educational institutions. (W410)

It is our contention that using the rhetorical situation across the disciplines as a way to frame instruction, assignments, and assessments will not only fulfill the requirements teachers currently face regarding standards, but it will also serve as an authentic means by which students successfully navigate the literacy demands of the various disci-plines, as they learn how to argue by engaging in, as Graff and Birkenstein explain, “conversation[s] with other perspectives, often by challenging and disagreeing with them” (W413–414).

How We Use the Rhetorical Situation for Assignments and Rubrics

To stay consistent with how we are asking students to think about argument in their various courses, assignments are outlined according to the rhetori-cal situation. Each assignment that we give in our En glish courses explicitly states the purpose of the assignment that explains what students are expected to demonstrate knowledge of, the audience they are to consider, the genre they are to work within, the

asked them to state if and how they consider the rhetorical situation when completing writing tasks in their various classes. One student said, “I think about the purpose of my writing and who I am com-municating that message to. I feel these are the two most important steps in the process in order to suc-cessfully argue whatever point is trying to be made. Knowing who my audience is allows me to deter-mine what type of language I should use and what tone I should convey.” A second student explained, “The rhetorical situation helps me realize that I’m not just writing something to write, but I’m writing for a purpose.” Finally, another student pointed out that “genre is important” because it helps him “un-derstand what [his] paper should look like and what [his] audience expects.” When students know the rhetorical situation they begin to acknowledge and gain a working understanding of the kind of nuance and choice that goes into crafting a good argument. In addition, students begin to understand that rheto-ric and argument are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, in contemporary educa-tion, many students have not even heard the word rhetoric— defined as understanding how effective persuasive arguments are made—used in their courses. In fact, as Aristotle asserts, the art of rheto-ric is the “ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (37), meaning that teachers across the disciplines should be ex-plicit about teaching students how to make effec-tive persuasive arguments by learning how to use the rhetorical situation as a means of entering con-versations in a variety of discourse communities. In other words, for our purposes, a student’s “ability to see” what is persuasive happens when he or she understands how decisions regarding the rhetorical situation—purpose, genre, audience, stance, and media/design—work together to make meaning.

Therefore, when it came time to write cur-riculum, it only made sense to highlight the im-portance of rhetoric and argument. Actually, our district’s En glish curriculum director implemented a “rhetoric for all” mantra that—while originally intentioned for all four levels of En glish—seemed to catch on throughout the district in other dis-ciplines. We presented to social studies and sci-ence teachers about how this approach to literacy instruction—fulfilling the new CCSS—would be successful. In this time of new standards and forth-

EJ_Sept2013_B.indd 61 8/28/13 4:22 PM

Using the Rhetorical Situation to Inform Literacy Instruction and Assessment across the Disciplines

62 September 2013

For example, in an Advanced Placement En-vironmental Science class, a colleague used our shared vocabulary of the rhetorical situation to help students navigate the difficulties of writing in the

stance they are to take, and the media/design options they have available to them. For example, in an as-signment that had students write a rhetorical analy-sis of a 2012 presidential campaign advertisement, students were told that their purpose was to “ana-lyze how and why” the text communicates certain in-formation. Their audience is stated as “the teacher and fellow classmates” because the genre of the paper is a “typical academic paper” that will be sub-jected to both peer revision and teacher assessment. In addition, students are told that they need to have a stance that is “thesis driven with a clear argument/reading of the text supported with evidence from the text” and that the paper should be designed like a “traditional academic paper that uses MLA format.” We find that when students have all of this informa-tion they are better prepared to more readily “enter the conversation.”

As noted in Figure 1, the rubric developed for the campaign advertisement assignment addresses the same components of the rhetorical situation, measuring students’ successes. In order to receive an A+ through B students have to meet the com-ponents detailed under each aspect of the rhetori-cal situation as they reflect the expectations from the assignment sheet. If they have not succeeded in one/some/all of the areas then the grade will fall be-tween a B- through C- . If students fail in one/some/all of the areas, the essay is unsuccessful and the grade will fall between a D through F. In addition, there is no category in the rubric designated spe-cifically to grammar and style. Instead, grammar and style are included in the “audience” section, because part of successfully meeting the expecta-tions of an audience is using appropriate language. One of the positives that we have experienced from using this rubric is that the framework of the rhe-torical situation stays the same from class to class, but depending on the assignment, the require-ments to complete the task successfully change and points can be divided differently throughout the five categories of the rhetorical situation. In other words, some assignments call for more attention to stance, whereas other assignments might emphasize media/design. The details of the rubric can change, but the benefit of the shared vocabulary across dis-ciplines has been crucial to clearly communicating the literacy demands that lead to good arguments in a specific discipline.

FIGURE 1. Rubric for a Single Text Analysis Assignment

Campaign Advertisement Analysis Rubric

Name: _________________________ Period: ________

Below are the criteria to achieve an A+ thru B in any particular category. The “Somewhat Successful” essay (B- thru C- ) has not succeeded in one/some/all of these areas, and the “Unsuccessful” essay (D thru F) has failed in one/some/all of these areas.

Notice there is no column for grammar and mechanics specifically. This will be included in the “Audience” section because part of successfully meeting your audience’s expectations is using language appropriate for your level of education and theirs.

Purpose (10):Successful (A+ thru B):•    As stated in the Norton, “Your goal in analyzing a

text is to lead readers through careful examination [considering the rhetorical situation] of the text to some kind of interpretation or reasoned judgment.”

Genre (20): Successful (A+ thru B): •    Exhibits a strong understanding of academic 

discourse •    Contains a thesis that argues for a particular reading 

of the advertisement•   Demonstrates insightful evaluation

Design/Layout (20):Successful (A+ thru B):•    Incorporates MLA formatting correctly including 

headers, heading, title, margins, spacing, and font •   A Works Cited page is formatted correctly 

Audience (25):Successful (A+ thru B):•   Uses vocabulary appropriate for a senior audience•    Uses grammar and punctuation appropriate for a 

senior•    Assumes a level of intelligence and sophistication for 

the audience

Stance (25):Successful (A+ thru B):•    Makes a sound argument regarding the success and/

or failure of the advertisement•    Thesis is supported effectively with examples from 

the text•    Includes a consistent tone that presents your take on 

the advertisement

EJ_Sept2013_B.indd 62 8/28/13 4:22 PM

63English Journal

Sean Hackney and Brian Newman

are supposed to be able to do. As the CCSS make clear, students must be able to successfully navigate the various disciplines and the rhetorical situation allows them to do so. Before the CCSS’s emphasis on literacy integration across subject areas, writing instruction was mainly re-served for the En glish class-room. As a result, students were not necessarily exposed to the expectations of writ-ing in the different disci-plines, and any exposure they did receive would have been geared toward format and style. That is, as Clark and Hernandez explain, “Explicit teaching of a genre may enable students to replicate that genre,” but “fostering genre ‘aware-ness’ enables students to gain a ‘threshold concept’” (67). Understanding the components of the rhetori-cal situation allows for this kind of transference from one discipline to the next.

The Rubric Debate

The rhetorical situation, then, is at its core a way to conceptualize the texts we create and the texts we read. Within that framework would be the rubric used to assess understanding. Michael Livingston, in his recent article “The Infamy of Grading Ru-brics,” skillfully discusses criticisms of the use of rubrics, most notably Alfie Kohn’s and Maja Wil-son’s work, and ultimately shows how rubrics can function as a powerful assessment tool. Livingston claims that critics of rubrics such as Kohn and Wil-son are “guilty of category error, forgetting that all important difference between tool and user” (111). Furthermore, we are in agreement with Eric D. Turley and Chris W. Gallagher, who state that “it makes little sense to dismiss or embrace [rubrics] . . . without careful attention to why, how, by whom, and in what contexts [they are] used” (87). As Liv-ingston notes, Turley and Gallagher “reframe the debate over rubrics into relative questions about appropriate or inappropriate use rather than bifur-cating judgments about right and wrong” (111). Questions about whether rubrics should be used are beyond the scope of this article. However, Liv-ingston does raise some important points about the individualized nature of rubrics, and that has been

sciences. In science class, students should write like scientists and critics of science, so by using the rhe-torical situation as a means to approach the moves needed to write successfully in that discipline, students’ writing was an authentic example of the kinds of writing expected in the sciences. In our discussions about scientific writing, our colleague explained to us—as she had for her students—that this genre encourages passive voice to keep the focus on the science and not on the scientists. This would be one of the items detailed under genre for the student work to be successful. So when the Ad-vanced Placement Environmental Science students worked on an assignment focused on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, they used the rhetorical situation by identifying the purpose of their work, identify-ing their audience, familiarizing themselves with the genre of scientific writing, developing a stance that effectively captured their contribution to the scientific community, and making media/design decisions about whether to present their work as a presentation or paper. Furthermore, as Amy J. De-vitt explains in Writing Genres, pedagogy concerned with “the process of learning new genres rather than specific linguistic features of specific genres” allows students “to approach a new genre and un-derstand it as more than formulaic features” (197). This is the goal. We want students, as Devitt makes clear, “to understand the intricate connections be-tween contexts and forms” and “to discern both constraints and choices that genres make possible” (198), so that “students understand the differences in rhetorical situations and contexts” (208).

When teachers across the disciplines are ex-plicit in using this shared vocabulary, students are able to see that literacy is in fact comprised of their ability to enter authentic ongoing conversations and contribute something meaningful, regardless of what class they are sitting in. In addition, this foundation gives teachers and students a context for examining content. For example, the AP Environmental Science assignment mentioned above asked students to an-swer questions regarding the effectiveness of various types of booms in an oil spill, the effect of motor oil on red minnows, and the effect of oil on the hydro-logical cycle. Having the shared foundation of the rhetorical situation as a way to approach argument instruction fulfills the demands of what students

As the CCSS make clear,

students must be able to

successfully navigate the

various disciplines and

the rhetorical situation

allows them to do so.

EJ_Sept2013_B.indd 63 8/28/13 4:22 PM

Using the Rhetorical Situation to Inform Literacy Instruction and Assessment across the Disciplines

64 September 2013

However, it is important, for example, that biology teachers are able to design their rubrics to fit specific writing assignments in their content area without having the worry of assessing them with a rubric that may not address the needs of their specific content area, not to mention the assignment. For example, we have seen language in rubrics that asks teachers to evaluate the “quality and development of ideas, organization of the essay, its use of proper MLA form, and grammar and style.” Some rubrics use words and phrases like “thesis,” “conclusion draws from content with originality and flair,” “topic sentences,” “unity and coherence,” “structure,” “superior analysis,” “va-riety of sentence structures,” or “appropriate usage and sentence formation” to evaluate a student’s suc-cess. At first glance, these words do not appear too difficult for evaluating a student paper, but what if the assignment isn’t for an En glish class? These words then become content specific. For example, a history teacher might have a different understanding of “superior analysis” or “unity and coherence” than an En glish teacher; in fact, two En glish teachers may differ here as well. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to offer teachers a framework to assess their stu-dents’ writing that can be tailored to the language and needs of their content?

Recently, one of us had the opportunity to do an informal norming session with a group of twelve colleagues who all teach at least one section of College- Prep En glish for seniors. Of those teachers, two have been using the rhetorical situation rubrics; the others have depended on a rubric that uses the language mentioned above, a rubric on which many colleagues have relied over the last four years. Teach-ers were given the assignment description and an unnamed student’s essay. The teachers first used the rhetorical situation rubric and assigned the student a score. Teachers then used the more traditional rubric with four categories—Quality and Development of Ideas, Organization, MLA Format, and Grammar and Style—and determined a grade. The former ru-bric includes information that only details what a student needs to do to be successful. The latter rubric includes details about what a student needs to do to earn an A, B, C, D, and F. After privately assign-ing scores with each rubric, teachers reported out the scores from the two rubrics. All the scores fell be-tween 88 percent and 92 percent. After discussion on using both, our colleagues agreed that the rhetorical

an area of critique of the assessment system we have outlined.

Many administrators have proposed the need for an objective rubric to normalize data collection. However, as Livingston explains, “No single system will fit all conditions, just as no rubric could possibly satisfy every teacher” (110). In fact, Livingston goes on to contend “that the use of any tool is ultimately specific to the user,” and “though the system as a whole is ultimately subjective . . . the rubric provides a small measure of objectivity by insisting that the teacher have a basis for the final assessment” (111). We believe that in a time of literacy standards across disciplines tied to new standardized tests, approach-ing the requirements of courses through the shared vocabulary of the rhetorical situation is an effective way to “objectify” the grading framework as much as possible, while still recognizing teacher autonomy and granting at least some level of subjectivity.

Although using a prescribed rubric to grade writing can be especially helpful for En glish teach-ers to normalize their grading practices, as writing instruction and assessment is integrated through-out the curriculum, it is necessary to use a rubric that offers enough flexibility to a particular content teacher to tailor the scoring criteria to the needs of a specific assignment, while still standardizing what categories should be used to assess summative writ-ing. Critics will say that a one- size- fits- all rubric, touted as objective, is the best approach. However, when it comes to the topic of assessment, most of us will readily agree that fair assessment is the goal. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is how we answer the question of how to fairly assess writ-ing. Whereas some are convinced that one rubric can accurately assess myriad assignments, we maintain that each assignment, depending on the purpose, task, and audience, may necessitate its own rubric for the teacher to fairly assess the writing. Though we concede that those who prefer the former method are right about the need to have an agreed- on means of assessment, we still insist that cannot be at the expense of developing rubrics that assess particular writing assignments fairly by taking the rhetorical situation into consideration.

Many will probably disagree with the asser-tion that the standardization a prescribed rubric of-fers is still possible with a rubric that is shaped by the rhetorical situation to assess specific assignments.

EJ_Sept2013_B.indd 64 8/28/13 4:22 PM

65English Journal

Sean Hackney and Brian Newman

communication to be examined in the context of the following categories: purpose, genre, audience, stance, and media/design. If we ask students to be considerate of these in their work, they can better negotiate expectations for any assignment. In addi-tion, teachers will have a shared framework to assess skills and understanding of content that is often so difficult to quantify.

Works Cited

Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George Alexander Kennedy. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.

Bullock, Richard, Francine Weinberg, and Maureen Daly Goggin. The Norton Field Guide to Writing, with Read-ings and Handbook. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2010. Print.

Clark, Irene L., and Andrea Hernandez. “Genre Awareness, Academic Argument, and Transferability.” The WAC Journal 22 (2011): 65–78. Print.

Devitt, Amy J. Writing Genres (Rhetorical Philosophy and The-ory). Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2008. Print.

Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2009. Print.

Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein- Graff. “Exploring the Continuum . . . between High School and College Writing.” College Composition and Communication 61.1 (2009): W409–W416. Print.

Livingston, Michael. “The Infamy of Grading Rubrics.” En glish Journal 102.2 (2012): 108–13. Print.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core State Standards. Washington: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010. Web. 18 June 2013.

Turley, Eric D., and Chris W. Gallagher. “On the Uses of Rubrics: Reframing the Great Rubric Debate.” En glish Journal 97.4 (2008): 87–92. Print.

situation is more manageable, less wordy, and offers a more authentic way to assess student work.

When teachers use the rhetorical situation in assessing student writing, a teacher can assess the skills more directly because the assignment and rubric clearly present the purpose, genre, media/design, audience expectations, and stance to take. In the Anchor Standards for Writing in the CCSS, Standard 6 asks that students “use technology . . . to produce and publish writing” (41). For teachers who allow students to choose the most appropriate tech-nology tools to convey meaning, they need only to create one rubric using the rhetorical situation be-cause the descriptors under each rhetorical situation component can be broad enough to allow for a blog or a screencast, for example. Furthermore, a teacher assigning a narrative may allow for more casual for-matting than what may be expected from a student composing a 2,500- word research paper. The points can be distributed within the rhetorical situation based on the importance of each to the particular task. Although we grant that this process of creat-ing assessments around the rhetorical situation may be messy at times, we still maintain that it is neces-sary to successfully integrate a program and culture of writing across the disciplines.

Ultimately, what is at stake here is the reality of a collaborative writing culture across the content areas that gives content teachers the power to shape students’ understandings of the nuances involved with writing in their subject area, all while work-ing from a shared framework for how to approach any writing task. The rhetorical situation calls for

Sean Hackney teaches ninth- grade Honors En glish and dual- credit Rhetoric at Joliet West High School, and he is an adjunct En glish instructor at Joliet Junior College. He can be contacted at shackney@jths.org. Brian Newman has worked at Joliet West High School for 13 years and currently teaches a dual- credit Rhetoric course. In addition to teaching, Brian is the school’s instructional coach for En glish. Email him at bnewman@jths.org.

READWRITETHINK CONNECTION Lisa Storm Fink, RWT

The students in the article analyzed campaign advertisements, much like in the lesson plan “Propaganda Tech-niques in Literature and Online Political Ads.” After reading or viewing a text, students are introduced to propa-ganda techniques and then identify examples in the text. Students discuss these examples and then explore the use of propaganda in popular culture by looking at examples in the media. Students identify examples of propa-ganda techniques used in clips of online political advertisements and explain how the techniques are used to per-suade voters. Next, students explore the similarities of the propaganda techniques used in the literary text and in the online political ads to explain the commentary the text is making about contemporary society. Finally, students write a persuasive essay in support of a given statement. http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom- resources/ lesson- plans/propaganda- techniques- literature- online- 405.html

EJ_Sept2013_B.indd 65 8/28/13 4:22 PM