DWRL Lesson Plans - Procedural rhetoric

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Software

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To develop in students an understanding of persuasive speech and writing as rhetorical decision making.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

NovaMind Pro. (Note that Mac and PC versions of this software differ significantly. The concurrence seems to be that the Mac version is more user-friendly.)

Other mind-mapping technologies should work as well.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In preparation for the class, students read three persuasive essays. The student’s task is to read each essay and break it down into its rhetorical steps: i.e. the author starts by doing x, then she makes y claim, then she makes z claim, and concludes with w. The class begins with discussion of the steps, until we’re all settled on how each argument proceeds. Then the instructor brings up a NovaMind map that visualizes each argument as its own “arm.” While it would be possible to have students make their own maps of the arguments, I recommend completing this preparation work for the students, to save time. You may ask students to make changes to the map depending on what came out of our discussion of the articles. You should also devote a little time to familiarizing the students with the software.

The instructor asks the students to get into small groups and then collaborate to combine the three arms of the map. They should do so by, 1) finding nodes in each arm that are similar, 2) taking the arm that follows from such a node and attaching it to the similar node on another arm. These steps are intended to be performed recursively, and while it is not necessary to end up with one big argument, arms should lead off of arms that lead of off other arms. (See instructor preparation below on how to facilitate the rather complex cognitive work this lesson requires.)

I ask students to think about what they come up with as a sort of “potential” argument. It could be navigated, from beginning to end, in a linear fashion. I ask students to traverse the map, making decisions at “crossroads” nodes that put you on a new track, which in turn brings further options “down the line.” Depending on decisions you make, the persuasive purpose of the argument may change.

In my class, students present a mind-mapped modular version of their persuasive essays as their final presentation. Instead of giving a persuasive speech, they tell us what options were available for them as they wrote their final essay, and why they chose to go one way as opposed to another.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This is a heavy preparation lesson because the instructor must first make a map that contains lots of possible connection points. When students pull up the main map, they can click over to the connection points map, which I color code to emphasize possible connections. I do this because NovaMind can be a bit cumbersome to work with, and I want my students thinking about rhetorical decisions rather than how to untangle one arm from another (a common occurrence, once maps get bigger. I recommend using the auto-arrange feature liberally: “Command =” in the Mac version.)

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for reading homework:

Read the following each of the following articles.
After reading each, make a bullet-point list that enumerates each “step” in the article:

How does the author start? What does the author claim next? What’s the following move, etc.? How does the article conclude?

3. Bring your list with you to class. You’ll use it to construct a mind map in class.

Instructions for in-class NovaMind exercise:

Use the possible connections point map to find nodes that are similar on two different arms. Notice that arms are color-coded to emphasize similarity, but do not feel constrained to connect where suggested only. I recommend that you start by filling out one of the original argument arms, and then developing other arms if you have time.
Connect arms from similar nodes, wherever possible. Select the node from the connection points map from which the arm you want to connect begins. Push Command/Control C. Then select the node on the modular argument map, from which you want to attach the copied arm. Push Command/Control V.
If the arms get tangled, push Command/Control = sign. Remember that you can always push undo if something undesired occurs. Be patient and deliberate.
Follow argument paths and eliminate redundancies while preserving the greatest possible number of options.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use this assignment to prepare my students for their final presentations. I encouraged experimentation and thus wanted to create a low-stakes environment; so I didn't grade the in-class exercise.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students seemed to really enjoy making larger argument structures, but I found one class doesn't provide enough time to get to the second part of the assignment, in which you step back and consider how you might traverse the map from start to finish. I'd recommend you use two classes for this lesson, and I'd also recommend you provide the starting materials for the students. The materials I provide below could be improved upon: as one of my students pointed out, the exercise works best if you break the articles down into the rhetorical decisions that went behind the progression of each argument. In the materials below, I do the much easier task of listing the steps in each argument. There's a fine but real distinction there

Additional Resources:

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE306, a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance students’ ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate their own position effectively. Students’ work in this course will help them advance the critical writing and reading skills they will need to succeed in courses for their major and university degree.

Tags:

Using MASS EFFECT 1 to Teach “Critical Situations”

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:14:50 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

unknown

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan uses the interactive video game Mass Effect 1 (BioWare, 2007 for XBOX 360) to teach students about making situated speech acts that effectively address a certain audience in a particular rhetorical situation.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

I use Mass Effect as a rhetorical modeling technology that affords for students to “play” in and with rhetorical situations in order to expand students’ understanding of the following notions:

“rhetorical situation”
“rhetorical purpose”
“rhetorical appeal”
“intended audience”
“stakeholder”

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

X-Box 360 linked up to the over-head projector

Mass Effect 1

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

The situation is that you, the gamer, are playing as Commander Shepard, captain of the starship Normandy. You have just been assigned a mission by Milky Way’s “United Nations” to save the galaxy from an evil master-mind species of Borg-like computer-assimilators. Shepard is considered by some of the galaxy’s denizens to be a savior who will bring peace to a warring galaxy, yet Shepard is considered by others to be a no-good, power-grubbing, monomaniac. Mass Effect 1 leaves developing Shepard’s character up to the gamer. Will you play to forge a coalition between alien species or will you play to better the position of the human species on the galitco-political stage?

In the scene I have the students play, Shepard has just been given full command over the Normandy and s/he (the character’s gender is player selectable) is about to give a speech to the crew to rally them behind her/him. The Normandy’s crew is unlike that of any other human-military vessel, since it is composed of both humans and aliens. Shepard’s crew is highly distrustful of one another and of Shepard. The purpose of Shepard’s speech is thus to build trust among the crew by getting them fired up about their mission. You the gamer get to choose Shepherd’s rhetorical decisions, while the character/avatar Shepard “decides” how to articulate your rhetorical decisions.

See this YouTube video for further illustration.

I have one student play through the scenario in class. As she or he is playing, I ask the other students to observe 1) the crew’s reaction to each rhetorical decision, and 2) the way in which Shepard translates the player’s rhetorical stimuli into actual language. I also ask them to consider why might the game award certain rhetorical decisions with “paragon” points and others with “renegade” points. Then, I have another student play through the same scenario, and ask the observing students the same questions. Finally, I lead a discussion where we discuss the different choices the game affords and the rhetorical consequences of each decision.

My purpose, ultimately, is to get the students to see how Shepard’s rhetorical decisions are afforded by the rhetorical situation. As a modeling technology, Mass Effect 1 puts the gamer into a rhetorical situation through the character/avatar Shepard. By allowing the gamer to experiment with the different sorts of appeals Shepard uses to get the audience to believe his or her claims, while simultaneously providing a perspective from which the gamer can judge the consequences of Shepard’s rhetorical decisions, Mass Effect 1 positions the gamer at once “inside” and “outside” the game. Rhetorical modeling technologies like Mass Effect are thus particularly useful pedagogical tools because they afford positions from which students can both “play” and “observe”—two fundamental ingredients of effective learning.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I’ve played the game up to the relevant scene and saved it just before this scene several times. Use saves 22-24 (at 1hour 42min into the game) to run this lesson. If you’re careful not to save the game over any of these saved games, you can use the same load point each time you play through the scenario. I saved it several times just in case you accidentally save over one of the games (since in Mass Effect, you can’t go back but only start over).

The scene itself lasts about one and half minutes, so you should be able to play it through several times before moving on to questions and discussion.In order to start the scene, walk Shepard's character into the starship Normandy. To select rhetorical options, push and hold the left thumbstick in the direction of the option, and push A.

I use this plan on the day the students turn in their final "short assignment" essay. At this point in the semester, the students tend to be a little burned-out and maintaining their interest can be difficult. I frame this plan as a sort of "reward" for their hard work: since we are playing and talking about a video game, students consider this a "fun" day, which has the added advantage of getting them to think about rhetoric in a low-pressure environment. The lesson plan thus requires no pre-class preparation, but you could append a homework assignment (see questions below).

Instructions For Students:

Take notes while you watch. After you’ve watched several play-throughs, answer the following questions:

1) When does the game give you a chance to make decisions? In other words, at what points in Shepard’s speech does the game offer you decisions?

2) What decisions can you make? (Try to make a list as you watch).

3) How does Shepard articulate the option you choose? In other words, how does what Shepard says differ from what you ask her to say? (Use direct quotations to answer this question).

4) How does Shepard’s overall speech change depending on the paths you take?

a) First, think about where Shepard invents her ethos in the speech. How does this ethos change depending on the decisions you make? Be specific.

b) Now think about where Shepard appeals to her crews values (that is, where does Shepard try to evoke an emotion from her audience. How does this pathos change depending on the decisions you make? Be specific.

c) Finally, think about where Shepard reasons with her audience. Can you change this logos by making different rhetorical decisions? If so, where does this happen?

5) Is there one decision that changes the speech more drastically than others? If so, how does that decision change the speech: does it send it in a new “direction”? does it change its purpose? does it make Shepard seem like a different sort of person?

a) Why should that decision change the speech more drastically than others?

6) How does the crew react differently depending on the sorts of speeches you give?

7) Why do you think some speech-paths earn “paragon” points, while others earn “renegade” points?

a) What implicit criteria is being used to judge your decisions?

Evaluation Suggestions:

Because I intend this lesson to offer a low-stake opportunity for students to re-learn some of the concepts I introduced earlier in the semester, I grade this assignment as complete/incomplete.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I was thrilled with my students responses to the game. I had several different students play through the same scene, choosing different rhetorical options each time. Depeding on how you play, the camera shoots to different sections of Shepard's audience (who also react differently depending on what Shepard says. In one shot, for instance, an alien species either crosses his arms and turns away from his human crew-mates or uncrosses his arms and turns towards them depending on whether Shepard emphasizes the superiority of humans to other species or humans' willingness to cooperate with other species). Students wanted to discover every possible audience reaction, and they were helping each other to select options we hadn't yet tried. (Students would say, "oh! try that one, because that will bring up all those other options, and we've only tried one so far). This way of thinking led into a wonderful discussion about how persuasive essays are "modular," so that decisions you make early on in the paper afford other rhetorical options later on at the same time that they take some options out of play. I wouldn't have been able to explain this complex concept had not the students been playing around with the way rhetorical decisions lead on to others.

I might have used this lesson plan earlier in the semester to introduce the notion of "critical situations," or to teach the concepts of "ethos." Next time, I also intend to incorporate this plan into an assignment series that will take up more than one day. I think the pedagogical value of the lesson would have been more fully realized had I required the students to transfer their interactive/visual experience onto paper, either by having them systematically answer the questions above, or by completing a correlated writing assignment. (For instance, you might have students mind-map their own Essays 3 by translating them into "Mass Effect-style" rhetorical prompts: what rhetorical tactics were available to you in the first paragraph? which did you choose? which further rhetorical options were opened up by that decision? and so on).

Additional Resources:

Once you've put the disc into the XBox, be careful not to disturb the console (in particular, do NOT move the console from vertical to horizontal, or vice versa, while the disc is running, as this will gouge and ruin the disc). I recommend laying the console down flat to play the game; otherwise, the disc might make a distracting rattle while it runs.

My other plan, "Using Mind-Maps to Make Modular Arguments, MASS EFFECT Style," pairs nicely with this exercise.

Course Type:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Course Description:

RHE306, A course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance students’ ability to analyze the various positionsheld in any public debate and to advocate their own position effectively. Students’ work in this course will help them advance the critical writing and reading skills they will need to succeed in courses for their major and university degree.

Tags:

Prototyping Procedural Rhetoric

Scott Nelson — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:37:04 +0000

Author:

Scott Nelson

Image Credit:

Scott Nelson

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using procedural, verbal, visual and aural rhetoric, students work in teams on a multimedia presentation that outlines a video game prototype and the ways it makes arguments. While this lesson plan was designed for a course centered on video games and the arguments they make, it can be adapted to any 309K topic if the instructor is willing to discuss procedural rhetoric with students. Additionally, the lesson plan outlined here is the "Cadillac" version, in that it uses multimedia to present the procedural arguments students devise. A simpler version with pen and paper can be used instead, where students storyboard a video game and its procedures.

Type of Assignment:

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Course Unit

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Organization

Technical Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goals for this lesson is to have students think about multiple modes of communication and the affordances and constraints of each mode when arguing. By the end of the lesson, students should leverage verbal, visual, aural, and procedural rhetoric to argue their case for making their video game.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

computers, various multimedia authoring software (e.g., Photoshop, Audactiy, Camtasia, Illustrator, Flash, Game Salad, etc.)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Unit 3 will work toward a concept of a single video game produced by you in groups. You will work in groups to design a game that puts forth an argument about the world. Topics will vary with your interests, but research will be necessary to discover the background of the issue and to be able to mount your own procedural arguments. In addition to why your argument is important and the right course of action to take, you'll need to outline the basic plot of the game (if there is one), the characters (if there are any), and most importantly, how the procedures enacted in the game make the argument you say they do.

This project will proceed through two stages:

Stage 1:

Your group will research and write a classical argument on a topic of your group's choosing (within reason). In writing this paper, you should go beyond public web research and pay attention to classical appeals. This paper should have a real target audience and the argument should be tailored to them. You are encouraged to use supplementary digital media, but it is not required at this stage. Use all available means to you: books in UT's libraries, articles in the private databases, government documents, UT's video game archive, interviews, etc. Your group should keep a working annotated bibliography of the sources you research, and this bibliography can be used as a Learning Record work sample.

Stage 2:

Your group will craft a proposal and presentation for a socially conscious video game development company. Working from your Stage 1 deliverable, you will proceduralize the reasons from your argument into actions taken within a video game. Your group will then present a digital media "pitch" to a development company about why this argument is important and what the game would be like.

Deliverables:

Stage 1:

Your initial argument should be between 1500 to 2200 words. Include any necessary digital media you believe adds to the focus of your paper. Be sure to indicate at the top of your paper who your audience is. All of your citations within the paper should be done in MLA format, and you should include a Works Cited. If you feel some other format beyond a Word document would be better to present this deliverable, run it by me first, and we can work something out.

Stage 2 (group):

1. A digital media presentation given by your group to a philanthropically-minded video game development company. That is, you don't have to sell them on the idea that games can persuade, but you do have to convince them that your argument is important and it can be argued procedurally. The presentation should last approximately 20 minutes (Also, be prepared for about 10 minutes of questions afterward.), and should incorporate some form of digital media. For example, you could create a short film, a machinima using an existing game platform, an animation or animatic using Flash, static image promotional materials using Photoshop, remixed sounds & music, or even a working prototype using Game Salad. Remember that the digital media must be rhetorically constructed. If your group is having trouble coming up with your presentation format, schedule a meeting time with me and I can give you some ideas. I'm not looking for prowess with a particular program. You're encouraged to step outside your comfort zone with regard to digital media production programs, and as such, I'm looking for professionalism, not a professional-quality product.

2. A proposal that explains your game and its argument (with digital media supplements as necessary). We will cover the parts of a proposal in class, and you should use your Stage 1 deliverable as your Background section (with some tweaking). Think of this proposal as a document for board members who couldn't attend your presentation; it ties together all of your digital media artifacts in your presentation for those who couldn't be there. This document is also important for submitting your project to the Journal for Undergraduate Media Projects (see below), as it will contextualize your digital media artifacts.

3. A brief (one paragraph per group member) email to me evaluating your group members' performance throughout the project.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Since this lesson plan is fairly involved and takes up one paper unit, some preparation is necessary. Students will need to be familiar with procedural rhetoric beforehand, and for maximum effect, it would help to go over basic principles of visual and aural rhetoric as well. Matt King has outlined an excellent lesson plan for analyzing the procedural rhetorics of Serious Games, and I implemented a similar lesson plan in a prior unit to accustom students to the procedural rhetoric used by others. It is important that students understand the concept of procedural enthymemes, outlined in Ian Bogost's Persuasive Game: The Expressive Value of Video Games. The first chapter of the book can be found on the MIT press website.

For basic training in multimedia authoring, the Web has a variety of free tutorials to instruct you and your students. I hold three multimedia authoring workshops, each designed as a elementary overview to Photoshop, Audacity, and Camtasia. For Photoshop, I show students You Suck at Photoshop, a tongue-in-cheek tutorial series covering basic layers, masks, cropping, cutting and photomontaging. Audacity's website has a list of tutorials for getting started with the program, and TechSmith provides excellent tutorials for Camtasia, most of which can be accessed through the program's interface on demand.

My aim in having students create multimedia is to get them used to some of these programs' graphical user interfaces, the metaphors of which get repeated across different programs. If you feel this step is too involved, the lesson plan can be implemented using pen and paper is less time (about 1-2 class periods). Creating multimedia artifacts seems to get the students more invested in the project, but the major aims of the lesson plan can be achieved through just having students think about procedural rhetoric and how to create procedural arguments.

Prior to this lesson plan, students wrote a standard classical argument to an audience of their choice. Since I'm having students create multimedia (which is a time-intensive endeavor), each group turned in one paper that was researched and written collaboratively. If you choose to not have them create multimedia, then a possible alternative would be to have students read each others' final arguments in small groups, and then each group chooses one argument to proceduralize.

Instructions For Students:

Unit 3 will work toward a concept of a single video game produced by you in groups.

A philanthropic organization has agreed to meet with you about funding your Serious Game. You are tasked with creating a multimedia presentation for this organization that argues why your game is important for the audience you chose, and how you plan to proceduralize this argument into a video game.

The presentation should last approximately 15-20 minutes, and should incorporate some form of digital media. For example, you could create a short film, a machinima using an existing game platform, static image promotional materials using Photoshop, remixed sounds & music, or even a working prototype. If your group is having trouble coming up with your presentation format, schedule a meeting time with me and I can give you some ideas. Outstanding presentations will be submitted to the Journal for Undergraduate Multimedia Projects, a peer-reviewed online journal.

Pay close attention to the rhetorical choices you make in creating your multimedia artifacts. How does the use of jump cuts in your video juxtapose two ideas? How does the addition of music to a scene argue for a particular interpretation? How do the visual elements of your game cover work together to argue your point?

The most important part of this assignment, however, is the procedures you use to enact your argument. To proceduralize your argument, you'll need to think of both the reasons you have for your thesis being the way to think or what to do, and the assumptions your audience already holds about the topic. Think of the "gap" in a procedural enthymeme, the logical step you have players enact. What will your video game ask the player to do? How can these actions argue either implicitly or explicitly for your thesis?

Note: if you choose the non-multimedia route, I would suggest revising the multimedia paragraphs to outline a deliverable of storyboard sketches and text.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Since I use the Learning Record Online for evaluation, this assignment was not graded. However, the processes students used in participating in this project can be used in their Learning Record assessment. In addition to the various documentation of their process, I require each student to submit an evaluation of their group's work. Both the documentation and their group's assessment can be used in the Learning Record.

Were I to use this in a "traditional" assessment course, I would most likely assign a completion grade. If students focus too much on the product, I believe it could stunt some of their personal growth. For example, if the assignment had an evaluation at the end, some students may be more inclined to stick with what they know and not branch out into using other programs for multimedia authorship. The quality of the final product is not what's important here (as this isn't a course in how to use Photoshop professionally), but instead the processes they used to collaborate and proceduralize arguments.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

So far, there has been an overwhelmingly positive response to this project. Students have pushed the boundaries of the assignment, opting for multimedia authoring tools not covered in the class and investing themselves in creating fascinating games. One group decided to use the game Little Big Planet, not as a platform for their game, but instead as a presentation platform (something I might look into in further lesson plans), while another is using the program Game Salad to prototype their game. The goals of getting students immersed in a project and thinking creatively about multimedia authoring seem to have been met.

I approached the multimedia component as studio work, where students learn basic principles from the workshops, but are free to develop other skills and teach them to the rest of the class (myself included). I believe this freedom led to much of the innovative work on the students' part.

Were I to change anything in the lesson plan, it would probably be the amount of time needed to complete it. I, personally, am interested in multimodal scholarship, but would also like to see how the "pared down" version of this lesson plan would pan out. Is it the multimedia that is engrossing students, or the prototyping of the game?

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

This course seeks to explore video games as a moderndiscursive medium. Far from being mere “mindless entertainment,” many videogames make explicit or implicit arguments about gender and sexuality, economicsystems, corporate practices, geopolitics, and both real and imaginedsocieties. What arguments do these simulations and simulacra mount about howthe world is? What arguments do they mount about how the world should be?

Much of the past and current study of digital rhetoric seemsto look at the content of computers through applying older means ofrhetorical analysis, looking at the text and images contained on computersrather than the processes through which this content is represented. What weseek to explore is a relatively new field—procedural rhetoric—and the ways thisnew field can inform video game criticism. How do the procedures inherent invideo games make arguments about the world?

Tags:

Multimedia Presentation

Group Project

Close Reading Through Interactive Storytelling

Wiese — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:48:15 +0000

Image Credit:

Screen shot from ARIS website

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this assignment, my students used a game-authoring platform called ARIS (Augmented Reality and Interactive Storytelling) to create augmented reality games based on scenes or passages from novels studied in our course.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Arrangement

Audience

Procedural Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Cultural Context

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Close reading, procedural rhetoric, digital literacy, and, in a general sense, a pragmatic appropriation (and demystification) of literary texts that imbues them with “real-world” relevance.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

A computer and iPhone for each group. In my class, about 6 students out of 18 had iPhones, which was plenty. But this is obviously something you would need to check on before moving forward.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Before continuing, I should explain what ARIS is and what I mean by “augmented reality game”:

ARIS is an open-source program created by a research group at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. It’s sufficiently simple and user friendly for students to learn the basics by watching a couple of instructional YouTube videos and playing around with the program for about 15 minutes in class.

The augmented reality games ARIS allows you to create are location-based, interactive experiences played in real-world spaces using a free iPhone app (unfortunately, ARIS isn’t currently supported by other smart phones). Through GoogleMaps and GPS technology, ARIS enables you to create games by embedding virtual characters (complete with dialogue) and media (images, sound, videos, text) in real locations of your choice. Players must then physically move from location to location to access content – to speak to characters, to view media, to get the rest of the story, etc. And as designer you can use a simple system of requirements to structure game play (i.e., the player must have spoken to character x to meet character y or pick up object y).

Working in groups of four, I instructed my students to select a scene and “translate” or “remediate” it into an augmented reality game. In the process, I encouraged them to play freely with the source text: Their goal was not to “accurately” or “authoritatively” interpret the passage, but to put it to some well-considered interpretive use. However, the games were supposed to make arguments (much like the theses of the close-reading-based papers my students had recently finished writing). I told them that the games should – by the rules of play and goal, by the selection of characters and media, by the specific language of dialogue scripts, etc. – encourage players to think about the chosen passages or scenes in a certain way. But that interpretation need not need be fully grounded in or supported by the details of the original passage.

As indicated in the assignment description below, I included some fairly specific requirements about the kinds of content that needed to be included in each game (number of characters, range of media, etc.). This was a response to the unusual nature of the assignment: I felt that a list of clearly defined tasks would make the project less intimidating without limiting creative range. For similar reasons, I gave my students three areas to particularly focus on when designing their games (and in their subsequent design justification essays):

1) The real world location selected for their game.

2) The types of media chosen for each part of their game.

3) The game challenge – i.e., what players have to do in the game.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

First, I assigned several ARIS how-to videos as homework. In the following class, I walked students through the creation of a simple dialogue script in the context of a separate, in-class group work assignment. In this mini-project, I had each group interpret a particularly ambiguous passage from a novel that we were discussing by adapting it into a straightforward, two-person theatrical script. I then showed them exactly how to plug this script into ARIS, and we shared each group’s work on an iPhone (projected on a doc cam). After the videos and this mini-project, my students were fairly comfortable using the program.

After the project finishes, I’ve set aside a class day for us to walk around campus and play each group’s game. I’m also following the project up with a more traditional writing assignment in which each student will explain and justify their group’s specific design decisions vis-à-vis their underlying interpretive thesis about the chosen passage. This essay will also give them a chance to reflect on and evaluate the project itself.

Instructions For Students:

“In this project, you will select a passage or scene from one of the texts we have studied this semester. With the ARIS interface in mind, you will map, outline and “script” a game inspired by this scene (you have considerable latitude in your fidelity to the source). You will then select a real world location for your game and actually create an augmented reality experience for the rest of the class (and anyone else interested in playing).

We’ll go over the technical details together, but each game should meet the following requirements:

At least 3 non-player characters or NPCs
At least 3 “scripts” or dialog progressions.
At least 3 additional objects (“plaques” or “items”).
At least one video and at least one still image (but probably more).
Some kind of challenge. In other words, the player has to do something.

In this creative process, you’re team will need to make a number of rhetorical decisions. Questions might include:

What real world space will be most effective for the kind of experience we want to create for players (so that they’ll see this scene the way we want them to, and so that they’ll have fun).
How big should it be? How far should we make them walk?
Should we use QR codes in addition to GPS locations?
What media should we include (video, audio, still images, text, etc.), and for which “objects” (including “characters”) in the game?
What sort of game challenge will both meet our rhetorical purposes and also be fun and engaging for players?

Evaluation Suggestions:

This assignment will be graded on two levels: First, each group will be given a composite grade based on how well the three design criteria mentioned above (location, media, game goal) supported their interpretive thesis. Second, each student will be graded on their reflective essays about the project.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Despite a little initial anxiety, my students were genuinely excited about their games. And they came up with some really interesting ideas. For example, one group created a game based on Holden Caulfield’s fantasy about being a catcher in the rye. In their game, the player takes the role of Caulfield and has to move around the space “catching” characters that appear on their GoogleMap (including characters from other parts of the novel, such as Phoebe). But for every character the player saves, two more appear. Like Tetris, it’s an unwinnable game.

I was particularly impressed by how quickly this and other groups understood the connection between earlier assignments requiring them to make written arguments by emphasizing certain formal aspects of a text, and the idea of making a game as a kind of argument (through remediation) of a text with certain formal features of its own. Procedural rhetoric (although I never used the term in class) seems to make intuitive sense to them.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This section of Banned Books and Novel Ideas is a literature class that examines a range of censored texts that challenged political, religious, or social powers by “picturing” the status quo from a dangerous or outside perspective.

Tags:

Procedural Rhetoric: Analyzing Video Games

King — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:16:43 +0000

Author:

Matt King

Image Credit:

September 12th. A game making an argument about our response to terrorism.

Brief Assignment Overview:

This activity asks students to practice rhetorical analysis with reference to Ian Bogost's understanding of "procedural rhetoric." This mode of rhetoric focuses on the ways that procedures, processes, logics, and rules can be expressive and persuasive. Video games offer particularly rich embodiments of procedural rhetoric. Analyzing the procedures and logics embedded within video games allows students to practice a new mode of rhetorical analysis on texts that many students are familiar with but that rarely become objects of study in academic settings.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Open Access Software

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rhetorical analysis, introduction to procedural rhetoric

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Students can access many games online. For these games, students would need access to the internet on machines that support Flash animations. If the activity were done outside of class, it could incorporate any gaming systems to which students have access.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Today, you will be playing a video game and analyzing its procedural rhetoric. As you play the game, you should keep the following questions in mind:

- What are the rules of the system?

- What is the significance of these rules (over other rules)?

- What claims about the world do these rules make?

- How do I respond to those claims?

[note to instructors: these questions come from Bogost]

Once you have finished the game or played it enough to understand its rules, write out your responses to these questions.

[note to instructors: it will be up to you to guide students to the game and to let them know where to write their responses]

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The first step in preparation for this activity would involve some reading. Ian Bogost develops the concept of procedural rhetoric in his book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. The preface and the first chapter of the book are particularly helpful, and sample copies of these can be found here. Instructors would need to understand procedural rhetoric well enough to discuss it with students. The selections from Bogost are generally accessible enough that students could read them as well.

The next preparatory step would be deciding which game to have students play. There are a number of games online that students can play in 10-30 minutes. Theoretically, this activity could be done with any game, although I like to have students play games that are in some way "serious" or "political" or otherwise rhetorically charged. Here are some games I've used:

- Passage. This game makes an argument about life, relationships, and achievement.

- Every Day the Same Dream. This game makes a different sort of argument about life, relationships, and achievement, focusing on the routine of office work.

- September 12th. This games makes an argument about our response to terrorism.

- Hey Baby Game. This game puts the player in the role of a woman who is continuously confronted by men hitting on her. You get to shoot them.

- Lose/Lose. You and your students shouldn't actually play this game because it deletes files on your computer, but your students can watch the video to understand the procedural rhetoric of the game.

- Rhetorical Peaks. Created by the DWRL, this game presents students with a murder mystery and ultimately asks them to reflect on their own analytic and argumentative procedures.

In addition to reading Bogost and selecting a game, you might consider setting up a page for this activity on a class site/forum/wiki if you are using one. You can find the in-class activities I did with my students here and here.

All preparation before class will probably take 1-3 hours. In class, you will probably need to spend at least 10-15 minutes introducing procedural rhetoric to students and setting up the activity. Depending on the game (and perhaps allowing students to play a game multiple times), game play will take 10-30 minutes. I like to give students 10-15 minutes to write up their responses to the activity. Class discussion about the activity could last 10-30 minutes. So, the activity could be completed in 45 minutes but could also take upwards of 90 minutes.

Instructions For Students:

Today, you will be playing a video game and analyzing its procedural rhetoric. As you play the game, you should keep the following questions in mind:

- What are the rules of the system?

- What is the significance of these rules (over other rules)?

- What claims about the world do these rules make?

- How do I respond to those claims?

[note to instructors: these questions come from Bogost]

Once you have finished the game or played it enough to understand its rules, write out your responses to these questions.

[note to instructors: it will be up to you to guide students to the game and to let them know where to write their responses]

Evaluation Suggestions:

I have only used this activity in class as a way of helping students practice rhetorical analysis. Evaluation was based only on completion.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My Writing in Digital Environments class had already played Rhetorical Peaks and discussed video games more generally, so they were not surprised to be analyzing games in class. Most students enjoyed the activity and were excited to realize and think through the ways that games can make arguments. Students who were already gamers were the main ones somewhat disappointed by the activity; they were less inclined to find these short and "serious" games enjoyable.

Additional Resources:

It could be helpful to refer to Ian Bogost's site for more of his writings and some of the games he has designed. The DWRL's own Rhetorical Peaks takes a different approach to the question of procedural rhetoric by asking students to reflect on their own analytical and argumentative procedures.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

While digital technologies make available a range of tools that shape our physical interactions with the world in new ways, they also offer us new metaphors, new ways of talking about these interactions, and new ways of organizing ideas. To use a favorite term of twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke, these technologies make available new possibilities for identification. In the 2.0 world, we not only find new ways to identify and form communities with others; we also experience a shift in the process of self-identification and in the ways we define ourselves.

This class will explore a range of digital technologies and writing environments as well as the discourses surrounding them to give students a more thorough understanding of the ways that they have already begun to establish virtual identities and of new possibilities for digital identity formation. By exploring and participating in these technologies and discourses, we will hope to achieve the following course goals:

- Continue to develop rhetoric skills related to summary, analysis, and argumentation;
- Gain fluency in digital technologies and examine the ways that these tools shift our understandings of rhetoric and writing;
- Identify and participate in conversations surrounding writing in digital environments.

Tags:

Using Inform7 to Make Procedural Arguments

King — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:03:01 +0000

Author:

Matt King

Image Credit:

Screen shot of Inform7 interface by Matt King

Brief Assignment Overview:

My students had been studying communities of their choice all semester. For the last unit, I asked them to contribute their perspective on their communities in two ways: first, in a more traditional editorial-length argument, and then through an interactive, procedural text using Inform7. This software is commonly used for interactive fiction. It allows the author to set up different rooms/spaces with various people and objects. The author in turn defines the parameters and rules through which a "reader" can engage with these people and objects. Following Ian Bogost's understanding of procedural rhetoric, creating a system like this allows students to make arguments about their communities through the rules of the system.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Audience

Enthymemes

Procedural Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Invention, delivery, procedural authorship

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Inform7 is the main software, and you can download various versions of it here. (The DWRL has Inform in the applications folder.) This is the main software for creating the interactive text. You might also want students to have access to interpreters, software that can read Inform files and allow people to "play" a text but not change the code. Zoom worked well for me.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

You can find the full assignment on my instructor site.

This assignment will include three components: an editorial style argument about your community, the code for an Inform7 procedural argument, and a reflection/comparison section. Your purpose in the first part (2-2.5 pages) is to advocate for a position that you take toward your community. Your argument can take a number of forms, but it should take into account the knowledge and understanding you have gained from studying this community all semester long. The third section of your paper (2-4 pages) will allow you to reflect on your procedural argument and compare the similarities and differences between the two approaches to argumentation. You are welcome to draw on your research and incorporate outside texts in any way that helps you advance your argument.

Specifics

Part One

You should conceive of this section of the paper as an editorial for The Daily Texan. (If you would rather have a different publication in mind as you consider your argument and your audience, perhaps one that you feel is more appropriate for your community, you should identify a specific alternative and inform me before submitting your peer review draft of Paper 3.) There are no specific requirements in terms of arrangement, style, rhetorical appeals, or incorporating sources, but you should draw substantially on the understanding of your community that you have been developing throughout the semester. In other words, this isn’t an opportunity for you to simply share your opinion about the community; rather, it is an opportunity to address some aspect of the conversation around your community and to contribute a perspective that members of the community will find relevant, thoughtful, and well supported. We will discuss different approaches to argumentation and persuasion in class, and you should chose an approach appropriate for your given audience. This section should be 2-2.5 pages.

Part Two

Your work in Inform7 will result in code that can be played as an interactive text. In your paper, after you complete Part One, move to the next page and paste the code for your procedural argument. Your interactive text should be inspired by your community in some way. You might incorporate people, places, social practices, or objects relevant to your community; you might use the text as an opportunity to comment on the community positively or negatively; you might use the text as a means for revealing some aspect of the community’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. There is not a specific length requirement for Part Two, but the code should work and it should be playable.

Part Three

This 2-4 page section should address four prompts: 1) Explain how your procedural argument draws on your community. What did you use as inspiration? 2) Explain how you engage Bogost’s notion of procedurality and how your project embodies a procedural rhetoric. 3) Explain how you incorporated feedback that you received during the testing phase. 4) Compare the similarities and differences between your arguments in Parts One and Two and between the two approaches to argumentation generally.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I introduced students to the notion of procedural rhetoric through Ian Bogost's article "The Rhetoric of Video Games." The next challenge was to introduce them to the software, and here's where things can get tricky. Inform7 can be a difficult and frustrating environment to work in, since you have to follow it's particular coding language. While this language will be familiar to students (it's in English and involves basic sentence patterns; for example, to create a room, the code would be "DWRL Lab is a room"), Inform can be very particular about some things, especially verbs. So, the challenge is figuring out what exact code you have to use to get the result you want. Some students picked this up quickly, but some did not. To help students prepare, I set up a help page with links to resources, videos, manuals (both the Writing with Inform and The Recipe Book manuals), and examples. While I generally encouraged students to figure out the software on their own, I tried to help them trouble-shoot any specific challenges they faced, and I helped them share what they were doing and even the code they created as much as possible.

Instructions For Students:

You can find the full assignment on my instructor site.

Specifics

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Evaluation Suggestions:

Grading

You will submit three versions of this paper: a peer review draft, 3.1, and 3.2. The peer review draft is mandatory, but it will not be graded. The next two submissions will be graded according to the following criteria. (As you read the criteria, keep the following in mind: “argument” will refer to Part One, and “reflection” will refer to Part Three. For Part Two, you will receive credit for making a good faith effort, although an exceedingly limited or extensive effort can lower or raise your grade.)

“C” paper:

Fulfills the assignment, though there may be some flaws or limitations in terms of general conception, persuasiveness, or thoroughness of your argument and reflection. Is written in a mostly clear and readable style, though the style may have minor flaws (in terms of grammatical correctness, clarity, or appropriateness) that do not significantly impede readability.

“B” paper:

Fulfills the assignment well, with few flaws or limitations. Presents an insightful and persuasive argument and a thorough reflection. Is written in a clear, effective, and appropriate style, with few to no errors.

“A” paper:

Fulfills the assignment with distinction. Presents a detailed, nuanced, and sophisticated argument and reflection. Is written in a style that is vivid, voiced, and distinctive, with few to no errors.

“D” paper:

Makes a good-faith effort but falls short of the assignment. Lacks a clear or adequately developed argument or reflection. Style is significantly flawed (in terms of grammatical correctness, clarity, or appropriateness) in ways that impede readability. Fails to meet the length requirement; or is not properly formatted.

“F” paper:

Fails to address the assignment, or, severely violates basic norms of civility or decency.

Additional Resources:

This assignment was modeled on a similar assignment designed by Jim Brown. You can find his original assignment description on his website.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

For twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke, the act of persuasion was bound up with identification, that is, with our capacity to identify with one another's attitudes and orientations toward the world and to negotiate this sharing through symbols. Our processes of and possibilities for identification are made available and constrained to some extent by the various communities that shape and inform our attitudes and orientations. From this perspective, our understanding of the available means of persuasion in any given situation can benefit from careful attention to the communities invested in it. The attitudes and orientations circulating in particular communities call forth certain modes of argument and lines of reasoning, and our awareness of these possible channels of identification better prepares us to engage and respond to specific contexts and audiences. This class aims to introduce students to rhetoric as an art of civic discourse by attending to various communities that help constitute the public sphere.

Tags:

Inform7

Procedural rhetoric

Procedural authorship

Argumentation

Procedural Enthymeme with Inform7

OyP — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:30:58 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Screenshot of Inform7 Interface

Brief Assignment Overview:

Even though we use enthymemes in our everyday speech, teaching the concept presents difficulties. By making enthymemes in the interactive fiction design system Inform7, students develop a deep understanding of implied reasoning. They also learn procedural reasoning, or how the authorship of rules that constrain action might also make claims.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Software