"Preparing to Write a Rhetorical Analysis - Questions"

 

 

·         There is more than one writer to this article, they would be: Doris C. C. K. Kowaltowski • Giovana Bianchi • Vale´ria Teixeira de Paiva There is really not much information on the author’s background? Only thing is this article was based on the writer’s creative stage where creativity is highly valued.

 

·         The writers purpose is to further the discussion on creativity and design education this paper presents a study on methods that may enhance the creative process and their application in architecture Courses around the world.  I think the write is trying to achieve exploring more fully the richness of the literature on the enhancement of creativity, structured applications of methods are recommended in controlled experiments to analyze results.

 

·         The topic the writes decided to write about is to further the discussion on design education a study on methods that may enhance creativity is presented. The results of an exploratory interview inquiry with design instructors, to investigate the application of such methods, are discussed. I would say the topic is broad because the writers are talking about creativity in schools around the world.

 

·         I would say this situation “Contemporary goals in higher education and particularly design education include giving students tools to stimulate the search for creative solutions to problems, as well as a solid scientific basis for decision-making processes. To achieve such goals, the introduction of methods that may enhance creativity can be found in the discussion on curricular reforms.” Was the need to start an argument in this paper?

 

·         I would say the points about studies that were done towards creativity, and enhancing creativity in the schools appeals to logic. The emotion in the article would be, the authors talking about enhancing the creativity in schools, knowledge of learning the creativity and styles in most students. I think the author backs up there credibility though different studies that have been done by different people on the creativity studies.  Also the writers show methods and techniques used in schools and through people for the creativity styles.

 

·         I would say the arguments thesis is: The results of an exploratory interview study, on the use of methods that may enhance creativity in architectural design-studios, showed that most design instructors make an effort in using tools to enhance creativity. This thesis is stated at the end of the article. I think this thesis is stated at the end of the paper because it raps up the paper and states the main idea of the whole article in that sentence before ending the whole paper in the conclusion.

 

·         The authors organized the argument by having the introduction, and then the main arguments in the paper that follow shortly after the introduction. Showing two different processed of creativity enhances that come along with creativity in schools and students Then the conclusion.  I would say the argument of ideas is very effective because that is what gives people an idea of what creativity is all about, and also it may make the definition to someone who’s not really sure about creativity in schools, a clear idea and image of what creativity is schools mean and are.  It puts together more information that builds arguments and good viewing on creativity in schools which is very important to have in a paper.

 

·         I would say the writers used research and studies that have already been done to back up statement that concluded during their own studies of creativity.  The writers also used methods in creativity with definitions that helped showed evidence to.  I think the writers use more than enough evidence in the paper they wrote, because it backs the writers up and shows more proof to what there writing and talking about in the paper.

 

·         I didn’t really pick up on any similes, metaphors because it wasn’t necessary to have that kind of literature in the paper. I think the writers used a lot of allusions in the article trying to give the readers a more visual to creativity while reading the paper.

 

·         I would say the authors did use parallelism in the paper by talking and writing about the six or more different method to enhance creativity. Also showing a lot of results from creativity as well.  Yes the writers use a lot of repetition because they repeat a lot of the words creativity and enhancing throughout the paper. I think it helps get a better idea to the author if some of the information is repeated to better understand. I didn’t really see any rhetorical questions because it was more of a demand the way the writers were stating information. The information in the article left the writers concludes their own questions from the author’s demands of statements in this article about creativity.  There are no straight forward questions in this article for the reader to answer.

 

·         My overall assessment of this argument in “Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education” would be they wrote a very effective argument together on creativity. They justified what creativity is to the readers, and gave more vivid detail for the reader to learn about.  In some of the article there was logos, and ethos used in this paper with logic and emotion. There points were made throughout allusions, evidence, research, and many studies that were already done towards the effect of creativity in schools around the world. The authors wrote a paper that justifies the argument of creativity, and how board the significance is beyond the use of creativity and how it affects students around the world. Environmental comfort and the question of sustainability have increased the need for exact science and technical education. Social sciences need to instill sensitivities towards the relation of human behavior and elements of the built environment were covered well throughout the whole article from the writers.