DWRL Lesson Plans - Peer Learning

Composing Short Writing Assignments for the Internet: Confronting the Digital Native Myth

Steel — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:13:32 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Digital native image found at http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/144-digital_native2...

Brief Assignment Overview:

This peer learning assignment and lesson plan series gives students the opportunity to explore digital composition. It allows students to research container designs for themselves; set up a website or blog; peer-train each other to use the site; develop writing standards for content; and write peer-editing and publishing content. This plan can be adapted equally well to short rhetoric or short literary criticism assignments.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

1) To develop ideas of critical reception in digital formats by asking students to analyze and benchmark websites and blogs

2) To develop standards for on-line writing by having the students generate the writing prompt

3) To access on-line composition technologies by choosing a product capable of meeting their aesthetic goals within their resource limits (i.e. free and within time constraints)

4) To develop research skills by selecting books for review appropriate to the blog theme

5) To develop collaboration and oral argumentation skills through an in-class debate and final selection of aesthetics, technology and writing standards

6) To formulate ideas for logos and arrangement of multiple textual pieces

7) To write a short review essay. (The short reviews become the final product and content for the website).

8) Peer review and copyediting of short essays

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

A computer classroom; or enough laptops that every two students could share

Internet access

Students

An idea for a short writing assignment relevant to course content that would be interesting to potential audiences outside of the class room, such as book reviews on a particular theme, or research summaries on a coherent topic of current interest

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

I designed this series in response to the 'Digital Native' myth. The 'Digital Native' myth goes something like this: today's students grow up surrounded by technology, and therefore, magically know how to use it. But when I surveyed actual students at the beginning of a course "Literature and Artificial Intelligence," I found that the number of students who knew how to compose on the internet was very small. When I showed the aggregated results to the students they noticed immediately a large gender bias in our class--only one of the young women had ever started their own blog. This raised a sort of accessibility issue that we decided to address as a class. Further discussion revealed that instructors tend to set up courseblogs or course websites for students, and then just ask the students to create a login and add the content. Many did not understand the data input side of things well enough to explain it to a peer. The majority of students did not know how or why those containers had been chosen or how to set up a blog of their own, thus indicating a significant barrier to entry for digital composition in spite of access to the relevant hardware. In response to the students' survey results and comments, I expanded the original blog post assignment to include the full range of steps required to get from Step A to Step B in digital composition for the internet. This series was designed for a computer lab classroom (I have done similar things with a series of reservations for a computer lab).

This is a series of in class workshops and take home assignments. The entire class functions together as a collective to produce a single website with a common theme composed of multiple short essays. These are the skeletons of the prompts I used to guide the students through the process of selecting a container, developing standards, writing, editing and publishing content.

TAKE HOME ASSIGNMENT #1—Selecting Texts Prompt

As a take home assignment, I asked students to post three suggestions (each) for texts to review on the website we would build. The idea here was that the texts selected might influence the overall aesthetic choices. The stories needed to fit the course theme of science fiction involving artificial intelligence with the added dimension of a female author as we found a shortage of information about female science fiction writers on the internet. Here’s the discussion board prompt:

“List three stories by giving MLA citations for the copies you find (on Amazon, at the PCL, your local bookstore, etc). If someone else checked them out of the library, recall them now! If we don’t own the book/story, use Inter-Library Loan to request a copy from another university.”

Then we whittled down

WORKSHOP #1—Brainstorming and Benchmarking Writing Standards and Technologies

In order to accomplish the next goal the class was divided into four teams representing different types of decision making steps. Each team is giving a specific task building towards decisions that will effect the writing of the whole class. The instructor should leave some time at the beginning and end of class for discussion and should check in with each team to make sure they understand their job and how their job fits in with the other jobs.

Technology Selection Team: This team consists of students with prior web/blog/wiki experience. It is this teams job to compare notes on the usability of programs they have used and come up with their top recommendations for the class. (Tumbler and Word Press are favorites).

Aesthetics Team: This team's job is to identify sites that do similar types of work and look appealing. What might be the technical challenges of making something similar? They come up with a list of sites and narrow it down to their favorite four to show the class.

Writing Standards Team: This team is given the task of developing standards for content. In this case the students benchmarked the genre elements in a graduate level E3W Review of Books and adapted them to a shorter on-line format. Students should think about word limits (discourage anything longer than 500 words) and types of questions they want answered in the review, and think about things like pictures.

Managing Editor Team: This small team (two students is fine) compiles, polishes, organizes and removes the duplicates from the lists of books in the discussion forum. At the end of class, final decisions are made as to who will read and review which texts. Everybody commits.

HOMEWORK #2—Find and begin reading your story

Prompt: “This past week you were supposed to find and start reading the text you will review for our blog/wiki on Women and Science Fiction. BRING YOUR STORY TO CLASS on X Date! If it is something you are accessing through EEBO or other on-line source PRINT the cover/title page and the way to access it (website/database) onto a sheet or two of paper and bring that to use. Come to class ON-TIME and ready to do some creative workshopping.”

GAP CLASS—Schedule a day for something else while you give students the time to find/buy/read their books.

WORKSHOP #2—Caucusing and Decision Making

First half of class:

1) At the beginning of class students turn their books and book covers over to the General Editing Team. The Gen-Ed Team gets a delegate each from the Tech and Aesthetics teams to come up with two creative ways to organize texts in the on-line exhibit. (Total of four people). They will present these to the rest of the class.

2) The Tech and Aesthetics Teams caucus to figure out which of their favorite aesthetics are ones that are technologically feasible. They will come up with their best two options to show the class.

3) The Writing Standards Team meets with the professor to publish a handout with their content requirements. This will be distributed at the end of class.

Second half of class:

1) Managing Editor Team presents the final list of books.

2) Tech and Aesthetics teams present their recommendations.

3) Voting on container choices.

4) The Writing Standards team explains the content requirements prompt.

5) Final Decisions are posted as a plan on the discussion board (by the professor) for students to refer to at home and in the next workshop.

HOMEWORK #3—Short Content Writing Assignment

Students write their content using the standards developed as their prompt. They are asked to bring their work to class in electronic format (we used Word).

WORKSHOP #3—Peer Review and Content Building

1) Students read and peer review each other’s content. (This could also be a homework assignment).

2) Students copyedit and correct their work.

3) The tech team peer trains everybody to upload their content. People who "get it" first become peer trainers for the person next to them.

4) Uploading and final proof reading.

5) Troubleshooting. More troubleshooting.

FINAL SHOWCASE

Some students may need to take their time with the content upload. Give them the chance to finish their upload and editing during office hours or for homework. The instructor can review the site for typos or you can leave the remaining mistakes. Extra credit opportunities can be offered for students to add bells and whistles to the site, or for submitting an extra writing assignment.

At the beginning of the next class show off the final product and give the students a chance to discuss what they learned. A fun follow-up is to ask everyone to publicize the site by posting it on their social networking accounts (like Facebook, Twitter or their own blogs). Follow up in a later class by reporting the number of hits.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment/lesson plan requires clear communication with the students, and a certain amount of patience with utter chaos. By that I mean, the students did all the things I would normally do for them, like picking the website technology and designing the prompt, and I had to stand back and let them take control. Basically, my main job was to keep the teams communicating, to keep them aware of how their jobs fit into the bigger picture, and to help them figure out how to do things without micromanaging. This meant letting them make and learn from minor productive mistakes. There were a couple of challenges, which are described below.

Instructions For Students:

The series of steps are listed above in the Assignments section. Assignments and content can be flexibly adapted to course themes. The in-class workshops were designed for a 1 hour 15 minute class format. When lesson planning, it is important to include time for explaining tasks clearly to students and for getting their feedback at the end of class sessions. This time could vary quite a bit depending on the size of the class, the experience level of the students, and how well they have bonded as a group. I save this type of series for the end of the semester when students already have experience with writing, editing and conducting peer review. This assignment builds off those skills and teaches them new ones.

Evaluation Suggestions:

GRADING

This is a multi-piece project, so I split the grading into smaller chunks, which could be adapted to a variety of syllabi. This also encouraged class attendance.

1) Homework grade for the discussion post listing book choices (credit/no credit--went into the homework grade built into my syllabus)

2) Quiz grade for bringing books to class so that the general editors for workshop number 2. (Pass/Fail--went into the reading quizzes part of my syllabus)

3) Writing assignment for content, and upload completion—Students were given a letter grade. The writing assignment was worth 10% of the syllabus total.

4) Peer review quiz credit for editing during the third workshop. (Pass/fail quiz grade).

5) A small extra credit bonus was given for the “best peer editing team.” This was awarded to the peer editing pair that had the fewest number of copyediting mistakes in their final blog entries.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The students chose to make a wordpress site. The following is a representative entry of the work they produced.

http://womenofsteel.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/34/

Their target audience was potential high school and lower division college instructors looking for science fiction texts for their courses. They decided each entry should include an image; a quote reflecting the author's writing style; a brief gloss of plot, genre, and themes; and an indication of the relative reading difficulty, along with pricing information. Two of the students were radio/television/film majors and the class decided it was OK if they reviewed science fiction films by women directors. Tagging and navigationals levels were added to reflect time periods, genres, theme and popular media. One challenge occurred when it was discoverd that the blog's default is to list entries by the date of upload. This wasn't a useful navigational feature but the students discovered it after they had already committed to their container theme. Another challenge appeared with the image uploads. Some of the book cover images load exactly as they are supposed to and others don't (in spite of a uniform training session). Overall, they did a nice job with the content and peer editing. The feedback from the students was that their overall confidence in trying to build a website or blog on their own had increased with knowing the types of decisionmaking steps to make, and their overall ability to explain what they were doing to a peer increased.

The site has since become the target for trolls. As a consequence there are some random unauthorized entries dating after May in the blog. A blog's flexibility for multiple users is an advantage, but sometimes older static website designs have better security. So, that's something to think about.

Additional Resources:

They needed to read books to complete this assignment.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This lesson plan was developed for a writing intensive sophomore level course designated as "introduction to the major/introduction to literary methods." The course variant was titled "Literature and Artificial Intelligence." Course content bridged the canons of English and Artificial Intelligence with a selection of science fiction, philosophy, literary criticism and scienctific essays. In the second half of the semester, students were asked to build a website featuring book reviews for relevent science fiction stories by women authors. Their potential audience was instructors in high school and lower division college courses.

Tags:

Generating Consensus on Textual Interpretation Through Circulating Critique

OyP — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:28:09 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This exercise has groups of three students answer questions about an assigned reading; read and revise other groups' answers; consider other groups' revisions of their first answer; and revise their first answer--all in preparation for class discussion.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rigorous and accurate reading is at the heart of this exercise: it is designed to argue to students that not all readings are correct and some are better than others. The goals are to get students to read closely and to use textual evidence to support their answers. Having each group critique (or agree with) each other's answers raises the stakes enough to make the students try in earnest; putting the students in groups of three reduces the fear of offending that often prevents productive peer review. Discussion is used to bring the students into concurrence and a sense of certainty, two things often lacking in humanistic discussion, which I believe often leaves undergraduate students feeling like texts mean anything at all, which is to say nothing.

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Required Materials:

An assigned reading and loose-leaf paper

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The exercise has students break up into groups of three (a magic number for discussion purposes). The groups answer three questions about the reading (see "Instructions for Students"), writing down their answers on paper. Each group passes the paper to the next group. This group considers the other group's answers: any one they agree with in its entirety they place a check mark next to. If they think something needs changing, they revise the original sentence in a space provided on the sheet. If they think the answer is wrong, they place an X next to the answer and, in the provided space, explain why they think the answer is incorrect. Then they hand the sheet to the next group and repeat the process. Each group criticizes the original answers, but they can also see other groups’ work. This generates consensus or disagreement. At the end of the exercise, the groups pass back the sheets until they get back their original answers. They then consider the other groups’ responses: Did they get check marks? Were there revisions? Did they get X’s? They then have a chance to revise their original answers. Now they are prepared for discussion: I ask one student the first question. Heads nod in all directions and hands start to go up; there is consensus and even side-taking, because each person now has a strong idea of their own answers. The discussion after this exercise was the best I have witnessed in my short experience as a teacher.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The success I experienced was likely due to asking the right questions. We were reading John Ruskin’s “Of the Pathetic Fallacy,” which suits itself well to three very straightforward questions: 1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin? 2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?) 3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?) There are better and worse answers to these questions, perhaps even right and wrong answers, and that is key, because it gives the students a stake in their responses. Select a text and write questions that students feel they can answer with some degree of correctness and comprehensiveness.

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for Students:

Part I. In your group, answer the three questions after discussing it with one another. Record your answers in the space below and then hand the sheet to the group on your right.

1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin?

2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?)

3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?)

Part II. Read the answers from the other group. Are they different than yours? If you agree with one of their answers and believe its entirely comprehensive, please place a check mark in the left margin next to the answer. If you think its missing or wrong about something, rewrite their sentence in the space below, indicating which sentence you're rewriting by numbering it accordingly. If you think the sentence is incorrect, please place an X in the left margin next to the sentence and explain below why you think the sentence is incorrect. Once you're finished, pass the sheet to the right and repeat Part II for the original group's answers.

Evaluation Suggestions:

If you evaluate what students are saying as they discuss, you can know whom to ask to get discussion started on the strongest possible foot. Evaluation is written into this assignment, since each group is evaluating the answers of the others to complete each pass. I believe this is why making small groups works well, since individuals are often more shy to criticize than groups. This exercise generates some team spirit. Since I use the exercise to generate classroom discussion, I don’t give it a grade.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise, although very simple, holds several advantages. When it came time for discussion, I asked a student I’d been listening in on to answer the first question, "What is the Pathetic Fallacy?” Her response was concise and strong; I was satisfied. But two other students added nuances in Ruskin's text they found when critiquing other groups' answers. The first question took care of the second. Then I asked the third question (to a different student), and again the student provided a superior answer, which also tied in a previous comment from a different student. I think we all left class feeling like we were sure what Ruskin means by the “Pathetic Fallacy,” why he thinks it is a fallacy, and why he believes we pity a person making it. To emerge from discussion with clarity like this is very rare in my experience.

Additional Resources:

Another advantage of this exercise is that it requires very few resources.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

E314J: Psychology and Literature::

This course explores key literary and psychological works in which the two fields become deeply indebted to one another. The course is designed with both English majors and non-English majors in mind. The skills it focuses on help students succeed in upper-division courses in many majors across campus, including English. These skills include close analytic reading and critical writing, as well as methods for understanding texts in their formal, historical, and cultural dimensions.

Tags:

Composing Tutorials for Navigating Databases

Schultz — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:18:29 +0000

Author:

Patrick Shulz

Image Credit:

"Database cleanup work" by windsordi on Flikr

Brief Assignment Overview:

RHE 306 group work: Students write short manuals outlining how to use databases (LexisNexis, Infotrac Newsstand, Academic One File, Opposing Viewpoints, Google/Wikipedia).

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Audience

Delivery

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Summary

Technical Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Teach students how to use databases; students familiarize themselves with advanced search techniques

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Each group needs at least one computer with internet access; probably will not work very well outside computer classrooms.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

We look at the UT library website to find opinion, editorial and viewpoint articles.

Then students work in groups of four or five; each group produces a guide (including screenshots) to one database to help their classmates use this database. I usually make them them look at LexisNexis, Infotrac Newsstand, Academic Onefile, Opposing Viewpoints, (Factiva), Google/Wikipedia.

They basically write down (1) how to search the database most efficiently (2) how to find opinion articles as opposed to news reports (3) what kind of material this database offers. See below for detailed instructions.

They then present their findings to class and e-mail the completed manual to me. I put the .pdf on the wiki for students to use later on. We talk about strengths and weaknesses of each database (How to use texts from Opposing Viewpoints? Is it okay to use Wikipedia? etc.).

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Print out worksheets and familiarize yourself with databases enough to assist students.

Instructions For Students:

This is the worksheet (needs a little adaptation to work with Google/Wikipedia).

Group X: Database X

Go to the University of Texas Libraries website, and access the databases

Pick a topic you are interested in (or just use the "Texas textbooks" example) and search for material in this database.

1. Do you get useful results? How can you sort your results?

2. Does the database focus on a specific sort of text, e.g. scholarly articles, newspaper reports, editorials? Does it include other media such as videos?

3. Is it easy to tell opinion articles and news texts apart? What is the easiest way to find an opinion article?

4. Take screenshots* of the homepage and the results page, be prepared to show your classmates how to navigate the database.

5. Does the database have an “Advanced Search” feature? How can you filter your results? (For example, can you restrict the search to a text genre like “editorial” or a newspaper, e.g. “The New York Times”?).

6. Take a screenshot of the “Advanced Search” interface and be prepared to show your classmates how to use this feature.

7. What is good/bad about this database? Does it have any special features that seem helpful?

8. Is it a good place to find material for your research summary? Why (not)?

9. Put all the screenshots in a word document (one per group) and write a little manual on how to use this database. Present to class and email the document to the instructor. Make sure to put the names of all group members in the document.

*Taking a screenshot on a Mac: Press Command-Shift-3. The image will be saved to the desktop. In Word, click “Insert”, then choose “Picture”/”from file” in the drop down menu to insert the image into your word document.

Taking a screenshot in Windows: Press F14. Open “Paint”. Click paste. Save image to desktop. In Word, click “Insert” and then “Picture”.

Evaluation Suggestions:

It was not graded.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE 306:

This course is grounded in the rhetorical analysis of "controversies," broadly defined. It is divided into three units, each one requiring some sort of outside research. The first two units are devoted to rhetorical analysis; they are mostly descriptive and allow students to become familiar with what is being said and how. The third unit is devoted to advocacy; having become familiar with the controversy, students now take a position within it and produce an informed argument for that position.

Tags:

Advanced Search Techniques

Group Work