DWRL Lesson Plans - Advocacy

Student Digital Activism as Rhetorical Advocacy/Analysis

Hoag — Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:05:39 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Graphic posted on xomariee.wordpress.com

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment challenges students to become digital activists/advocates for a cause of their choosing, and aids them in developing a portfolio of work in the service of that cause.

Type of Assignment:

Semester-long Project

Assignment Length:

Semester-long Project

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Textual Analysis

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

This ambitious assignment challenges students to become digital activists/advocates for a cause of their choosing, and aids them in developing a portfolio in the service of that cause. Students begin the class by researching a cause to advocate for such as vegetarianism, marriage equality, or gun rights. Students then produce a series of compelling “media artifacts” for that cause such as social media websites, blog sites or websites, an image or infographic/meme, an “anti-artifact” in the form of information deletion/lockdown, a digital map or timeline, and finally, a collaborative project. Instructors can also ask students to “justify” their artifacts by theoretically analyzing them and by comparing them to other analogous artifacts.

Note: Many other options for artifacts exist such as games, videos, and more.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Not for the faint of heart, instructors who wish to employ this assignment arc must familiarize themselves with a number of different technologies including, for example: Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress, tumblr., Wix, easel.ly, Wordle, quickmeme, Storify, and many other applications. However, instructors should not fear discovering and learning new technologies alongside their students as it encourages a more “horizontal” classroom structure. An instructor who attempts such an assignment will learn much!

Instructions For Students:

In this course on digital writing/humanities, you will become a digital activist in the service of a cause. You will develop a portfolio of work in the service of this cause that you will present at the end of the semester. You are also responsible for theoretically analyzing the “media artifacts” that you create by applying course readings as well as comparing the rhetorical strategies you have employed with other similar (or different) media artifacts.

Step #1: Research a cause to advocate for across the arc of the semester. You have a lot of options, so make sure you care deeply about the cause for which you are advocating. Students in past courses have become digital activists regarding, for instance: body image, disability, cheating in sports, net neutrality, vegetarianism, cyber-bullying, women’s health services, marriage equality, and much more!

Step #2: Once you have an exciting/fulfilling cause to advocate for, you will now begin producing and analyzing “media artifacts” in the service of that cause. In this particular course, you will produce six different types of digital media/humanities writing: a social media website (or sites), a blog site or website, an image or infographic (which can include a series of memes), an “anti-artifact” in which you will delete or lock down information online, a digital map or timeline, and finally, a collaborative project with others in the class. You do not have to have any prior knowledge of the technologies that you employ to develop your artifacts—a big part the assignment is just exploring! So take a look at the following examples, create accounts on whatever sites you think will work best, and go to town!

P.S., It’s a big help to find others in the class who are using similar sites/technologies or advocating for similar causes at any given time. Start collaborating as soon as you can, and you’ll find it eases your classroom tasks immensely!

REMINDER: Every artifact is accompanied by a 1-page theoretical analysis. For example, one might discuss one’s Twitter feed in reference to, say, Denis Campbell’s Egypt Unshackled: Using Social Media to @#:) the System. Likewise, all deletions should engage Viktor Mayer-Schonberger’s Delete: The Virtues of Forgetting in a Digital Age. Analyses are also encouraged to include comparisons/contrastings of rhetorical strategies with other similar artifacts, whether those of student colleagues or “outsiders.”

Artifact A (Social Media—Facebook, Pintrest, Twitter, etc.)

https://www.facebook.com/veggiedc?ref=hl

https://www.facebook.com/NoSpecialTreatmentofReligiousOrganization?ref=hl

http://pinterest.com/pin2891/rhe312/

http://pinterest.com/gendernorms/genders-created-by-society/

https://twitter.com/kidsaresponges

https://twitter.com/ChurchesTax

Artifact B (Blog or Website—tumblr., Wordpress, Blogspot, Jux, Wix, etc.)

http://loverealyou.tumblr.com/

http://lgbtmarriagenow.tumblr.com/

http://fucknoqueerfetishization.wordpress.com/

http://healthstartfoundation.wordpress.com/

https://aforactivism.jux.com/

http://copywritecopy.wix.com/copyrightorwrong

http://getyourkidsoffline.blogspot.com/

Artifact C (Image—easel.ly, quickmeme, Photoshop, Paint, etc.)

http://i.imgur.com/1vX9GVx.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/92675/Drugusage/image.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/94299/Queerfetishization/image.jpg

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t8ws8/

http://www.wordle.net/

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/analytics/manyeyes/

Artifact D (Deletion)

Note: The deletion is in some ways the hardest artifact to produce. Essentially, your goal is to “become-imperceptible” by removing yourself from the Web, or by blocking access to content that’s related to you and/or your cause. You can also find a website or application to analyze that “deletes” something for you. Be creative and try your best! (See also: http://lessonplans.dwrl.utexas.edu/content/becoming-imperceptible-or-how-disappear-completely)

https://duckduckgo.com/

http://suicidemachine.org/

Artifact E (Map or Timeline—Google Maps, Text2MindMap, Storify, Zeega, Tiki-toki, ManyEyes, Wordle, etc.)

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=210792301150685076515.0004d98cf1fb8dcdd07a1&msa=0

http://www.text2mindmap.com/vBL47F

http://storify.com/Dopeandsports/drug-enhancement-in-professional-sports

http://storify.com/ryleegonzalez/queer-fetishization-and-gay-marriage

http://storify.com/dawn1/women-s-sports-uniforms-across-time

http://zeega.com/103969

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/115265/Idiot-Nerd-Girl-Meme/#vars!date=2012-01-04_21:28:09!

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/analytics/manyeyes/

Artifact F (Collaboration)

Note: The collaborative artifact can be approached in a couple different ways. One is to use a familiar technology but in tandem with others. Another is to find a wholly new technology and try it out. It’s up to your group—what matters is that you’re writing and advocating/analyzing with others!

http://i.imgur.com/kCTt3xF.jpg

https://twitter.com/kidsaresponges

Other (Video, Reddit, etc.)

http://vimeo.com/63134670

http://www.reddit.com/r/occupyaustin/

Step #3: Now that you have produced a series of sophisticated media artifacts (that is, various forms of digital media/humanities writing), it’s time to show off your work to your classmates in the form of a presentation. Keep in mind that this presentation isn’t merely show-and-tell, but yet another opportunity to rhetorically advocate for your cause. Aim to persuade!

Note: Your instructor will be extra impressed if you use a presentation platform other than Powerpoint!

Presentation Examples:

http://prezi.com/2w58dqz1nlm0/untitled-prezi/

http://prezi.com/wwjfvklxd8wx/untitled-prezi/

http://prezi.com/uz0fbnnbqb_l/genders-game/

Evaluation Suggestions:

There are many ways to approach evaluating the above assignment(s). The simplest is via “completion” grades, but what “completing” the assignment means may vary widely from instructor to instructor. I would recommend developing a rubric for evaluating each artifact. For instance, one might have a ten-point scale where the following criteria are considered (I use the following rubric myself):

Does the artifact make a clear argument (or series of arguments)?

Does the artifact provide evidence for any claims it makes (e.g., by citing any and all sources)?

Does the artifact respectfully engage an opposition and an audience?

Is any written text on/in the artifact clearly and carefully composed?

Is the artifact accompanied by a theoretical analysis/comparison that is sophisticated (that is, considers/cites either the readings for the course or similar artifacts)?

How well does any analysis grasp the theoretical texts it employs?

Does the artifact employ good design (for instance, color, arrangement, etc.)?

How persuasive is the artifact in terms of rhetorical appeals? Does it contain any fallacies?

Has an “appropriate” amount of effort been exemplified by the student (e.g., number of posts on a social media site, number of pages on a website, and so on)?

Has the artifact been peer-reviewed twice?

Have peer and instructor comments been integrated following peer review?

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This assignment arc has been employed to great success at the University of Texas in a “Writing in Digital Environments” course. The students seemed to really enjoy the work, though were sometimes frustrated by how surprisingly hard it is to get outsiders interested in what they are/were producing. However, whether a particular student project is getting feedback from outsiders is often an opportune moment to discuss kairos. If I would recommend anything, it would be: get students to really think about and research their topics, make sure to show students lots of examples, don’t be afraid to let a student use a technology no one is familiar with, encourage theoretical analysis of artifacts, assign whatever media types you like and don’t be confined by what I’ve listed above, stick closely to a rubric and encourage students to pay close attention to whatever rubric is provided. This will better the life of all involved!

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

Writing in Digital Environments/Writing for the Digital Humanities

Tags:

Mapping Memorials: Research and Public Advocacy on Campus

Hoag — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:13:47 +0000

Author:

Trevor L. Hoag

Image Credit:

Cesar Chavez statue on the University of Texas campus.

Brief Assignment Overview:

Through this assignment, students learn to close-read (critique) monuments on campus and consider the rhetorical nature of memory.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Research

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimodal

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment promotes student research by having them look into what monuments and memorials are on campus, learning why those objects exist along with their histories, and considering arguments and controversies concerning those monuments and memorials that already exist. Through this assignment, students also practice advocacy by making a “two-fold” argument (dissoi logoi) concerning whether or not (and why) a monument or memorial should exist. Moreover, this argument is made in a public forum, which may invite response from persons outside the university. Finally, this assignment helps familiarize students with two digital programs, Google Earth and Panoramio, programs that students can use again in the future for other courses, projects, professional applications, and personal enjoyment.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

A digital camera; access to a computer as well as the programs Google Earth and Panoramio.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

In this assignment, students learn to digitally map and critique on-campus monuments and memorials. Unsurprisingly, then, students are first asked to find an interesting monument or memorial on UT-Austin’s campus. After finding a monument or memorial (e.g., the Caesar Chavez or Barbara Jordan statue), students must take a photo of that statue and load it into the on-line program Panoramio. Once logged into Panoramio, students must post the photo to Google Earth with a comment/critique that explains a.) what the monument or memorial is about, i.e., its history and so on, b.) a very brief argument concerning why the monument is appropriate and should remain in UT’s public memory, and c.) a very brief counter-argument concerning why the monument is inappropriate and should be forgotten. After the photos are approved by Panoramio’s site administrators, anyone can visit UT’s campus in Google Earth and learn more about its monuments and memorials, as well as read students’ critical reflections upon those monuments and memorials. One can also have students tour the campus on-line later in the semester, reading each others’ entries and posting responses.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before having students do the assignment, I highly recommend that the instructor first do the assignment him- or herself. This way, the instructor can become familiar with the computer programs as well as any potential hang-ups that may occur. Moreover, by doing the assignment ahead of time, the instructor will have a nice example to show their students. Once again, keep in mind that Panoramio photos require approval from the site administrator.

Instructions For Students:

RHE 309K: Rhetoric, Memory, and Forgetting

Mapping and Critiquing UT-Austin Monuments

In this assignment, you’ll find an interesting monument or memorial on UT-Austin’s campus to photograph, research, and critique—offering both an argument for the monument’s existence as well as one against its existence. You’ll then post your findings to the web.

To begin, you’ll need to find an object on campus to work with. It can be a statue, a memorial, a monument, an artwork, and so on; all that I ask is that its existence have something to do with remembering (or forgetting). Let’s say you pick the Caesar Chavez statue near the Student Union. First, you’ll want to take a picture of statue with a digital camera so that you can load the photo onto the internet. If you don’t have a camera, let me know and I can pair you up with someone who does (or we can use my camera). Next, you’ll want to do a little research on the statue: Why is it near the Union? Who built it? Who paid for it? What is its significance? And so on. After reading about the statue, you’ll then want to envision two arguments, one for why it should remain on campus and one for why it should be removed.

At this point, you’ll create a Word file and write three concise, but dense, paragraphs explaining: 1.) what the statue is all about, 2.) an argument “for” it, and 3.) an argument “against” it. Then, on the appropriate day, you’ll bring this write-up plus your photo to class—though you’ll only turn in the write-up.

In class, I’ll show you how to use the programs Google Earth and Panoramio. We’ll load both your photo and write-up into Panoramio, and after they’re approved by the site administrator, everyone who goes to UT-Austin’s campus on Google Earth will be able to see what you’ve come up with. Thus, you’ll not only educate yourself through the course of the assignment, but you’ll also educate people visiting the Google Earth website! Who knows, what you write may even elicit a response from someone outside the university, but it’s up to you whether or not to keep the conversation going.

Finally, later in the semester after all your photos are approved by site administrators, we’ll take a digital tour of UT-Austin’s monuments and memorials in class. That way, everyone can learn about the different monuments and memorials that people researched, as well as comment upon what you’ve written in your critique.

Points: This assignment will count for as much as a research summary (i.e., four pts). Good luck! And please let me know if you’ve got any questions!

P.S., If you’d like to do something non-traditional for this assignment, please ask. For example, you might take a picture of the bullet-holes left by the 1966 tower shootings, offering an argument both for and against replacing the stones scarred by the event. If you’ve got something like this in mind, just ask!

Evaluation Suggestions:

For this project, I gave students credit equivalent to a short writing assignment. They were evaluated on: a.) whether they successfully posted their photo and comments, b.) whether they provided ample background on their monument or memorial, and c.) whether they respectfully and responsibly advocated in writing for at least two positions concerning the monument’s or memorial’s continued existence (or non-existence).

Note: For evaluative purposes, it’s a good idea to have students submit their write-ups to the instructor, along with posting them on-line. And this assignment can easily be preceded by a short peer review, which promotes evaluation of student work by the students themselves.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

All in all, students were excited about this assignment, and found using the digital technology fairly easy. They enjoyed taking photos as well as investigating on-campus “artifacts” that had previously eluded their attention. Many were surprised by what they discovered in their research, and felt strongly about relating their views on-line. Students also expressly mentioned looking forward to the digital campus tour later in the semester, not only in order to see what monuments and memorials their colleagues had highlighted, but also their colleagues’ critical evaluation of these monuments and memorials.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

Rhetoric, Memory, and Forgetting

Tags:

How to Advocate a Course of Action via Excel

gertken — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:11:20 +0000

Author:

Matt Gertken

Image Credit:

"Spreadsheet" by Jon Newman via Flikr

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students will use a combination of rhetorical analysis and Microsoft Excel formatting to brainstorm and write a two-page policy proposal that advocates a particular course of action. Students will watch and discuss a presidential speech and read a short literary essay to generate ideas, and use Microsoft Excel to draft an outline for their own policy proposal before writing it.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Software

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To advocate a position within a controversy with recognition of strongest arguments against it; to understand difference between advocating opinion and advocating policy; to craft a policy proposal that considers questions of feasibility and implementation; to answer or appeal to skeptics and opponents by means of anticipating, refuting or conceding to their claims; to understand important organizational, rhetorical and logical features of a policy proposal or statement; to gain awareness of ethical considerations inherent in policy advocacy.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Computer work stations with Microsoft Office and an Internet connection. Optional: access to Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO), an electronic database.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Day One:

The class begins with a video clip showing a rhetorical moment devoted to advocating a policy: President Barack Obama’s speech requesting Congress to vote for his proposed jobs act - a video avaiable on YouTube. Students watched a brief introduction to the speech (3:08-3:35) and then a section covering education (7:35-9:45), since education is the broad theme of the course to which all students’ writing topics relate.

After the video, we held a discussion. I asked students what policy or course of action the president proposed, and what he proposed in particular for education? Then they discussed a series of general questions that I raised. I made it clear that they should ask these questions when analyzing any policy:

Is the proposal desirable? Is it possible? Is it feasible?
What are the pros and cons of the proposal?
Would the proposal require formal (official) or informal (unofficial) action?
Would the proposal reinforce the status quo or change it?
Qui bono? Who would benefit (or suffer) from the proposal’s adoption?

Following discussion, I asked students to go to their work stations and begin writing a draft of their own policy proposal by applying these questions to their stance. I instructed students to put emphasis especially on (1) making sure that their proposal addresses the strongest arguments against their own position and (2) ways in which their proposal demonstrates compromise with at least one major objection. I also told them to recognize obstacles to implementation, whether economic, political, ethical, or otherwise.

I asked students to come to class on on Day Two having read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," showing them how to access it through ECCO's facsimile or (in modern type) Project Gutenburg's version. I warned students that although the essay is short, the slightly archaic language and drawn-out sentence structure can make it a challenge to read, and I made it clear that nevertheless they were responsible for reading it closely and preparing to discuss it.

Day Two:

Day Two was devoted to making use of the reading assignment, Swift's essay. The purpose of this session was to discuss the logical, rhetorical and organizational aspects of policy proposals by showing the greatest parody of one. My goal was to teach the lessons of Swift's satirical policy proposal in an accessible way, so I started the class by clarifying problems with comprehension. We then discussed students' general responses to the essay, and I guided discussion to make sure that we adequately addressed the essay's demonstration that there are ethical implications for every political or economic policy, and also that intentions (however "good") do not ensure ethical or effectual policy.

One of the indispensable mechanisms of the satire is Swift's successful appropriation of the organization of a genuine policy proposal. Working through the text section by section, I asked students to identify the purpose of each section, and we arrived at the following outline:

Identify main problem and need for solution
Define scope of problem and group of people to be most affected by proposed solution
List minor problems to be solved or averted by upcoming proposal
Present policy proposal itself, explaining how it solves main problem directly
List additional benefits of proposal
Consider anticipated objections, refute them
Explain willingness to consider other proposals, but insist that they address root of problem
Disavow any conflict of interest on part of author

Finally, I asked students to identify the use of logical and rhetorical figures in the essay. Some examples included the three chief rhetorical modes, the lesser of evils, the law of unintended consequences, Ockham's razor, reductio ad absurdum, etc.

After discussing the essay's organization, and logical and rhetorical methods, I encouraged students to review genuine policy proposals (from think tanks, corporations, NGOs, and other organizations) to think about they could utilize these methods in their proposals for non-satiric purposes.

Day Three:

Students arrived at class with the draft of their policy proposals. I had them pair up and conduct a peer review of each other's proposals, with the specific purpose of probing the series of questions outlined on Day One, identifying objections to the policy or difficulties in feasibility that the writer had not considered, and analyzing the organization and rhetorical style of their argument, as discussed on Day Two.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

On Day One, students will come to class already having written papers both summarizing and analyzing different arguments in a particular controversy in an impartial manner, and aware that they will now need to choose a side of the debate and advocate it. I familiarized them with the concept of rhetorical stasis, and basic questions arising from stasis such as conjecture, definition, quality, and especially policy. But even if an instructor has not spent time teaching rhetorical theory, the students should come to class already having formulated their own opinion about the controversy they are investigating and having decided their answer to the question “What is to be done?”

On Day Two students should come to class having read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." On Day Three students should come with a typed draft of their own two-page proposal.

Instructions For Students:

In order to solidify these lessons, I asked students to create a short (one page) spreadsheet on Microsoft Excel that contained three columns (see image below). First, in the left column, students named the organizational components of their partner's essay, section by section, so that the entire structure would appear in sequence in that column. Second, in the middle column, students paraphrased each section of their partner's text, being careful to cover the key arguments or rhetorical figures. Third, in the right column, students explained their response to the section, for instance by stating an objection or qualification to the argument or evaluating the success of a particular rhetorical figure. After completing the Excel sheet, each student emailed it as an attachment to each partner, so that the partner could use it to help revise the draft.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The best way to evaluate the assignment is to compare the students' first draft of their policy proposal with the revised draft. Excel sheets are sometimes cumbersome to print off, although in this particular case it is feasible since they are short (see image below). But the important evaluation is whether the assignment was helpful in giving each student a clearer mental picture of the organization of their paper in a way that will help them anticipate objections to their argument or to their rhetorical techniques in specific sections. The only way to evaluate that is to compare the revised draft.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students responded variously to each component of the assignment. Day One was easy and trouble free. Day Two was more difficult because it focused on Swift's essay, which (as expected) was a challenge for student's reading comprehension abilities. However, students responded enthusiastically to having a prototypical structure to use for their own policy statement. Day Three was successful: students did not generally have trouble using Excel and could assist each other as needed, and the process of laying out each paper in the three-part format (organization-argument-objection) seemed helpful in visualizing it and preparing for revision.

Additional Resources:

Clearly my decision to use Swift led to complications that some instructors might wish to avoid. Another way to execute this lesson plan would be to draw the reading assignment from a sincere policy proposal published by credible think tanks, institutes, corporations, NGOs, or other organizations. My reason for avoiding sincere proposals is that I think parodies of policy proposals make for better and more enjoyable reading, which is helpful when talking about organizational and stylistic principles and makes the lesson more memorable. If an instructor wanted to use a parodic form without bothering with Swift's slightly archaic diction and numerous subordinate clauses, he or she would find ample material from the Onion, or even the local satirical paper (UT has the Texas Travesty, which, for instance, recently featured an article entitled,"Congress Discussing Failure as an Option.")

Here is a sample image of what this spreadsheet might look like:

swift excel_0.png

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE 306 – Rhetoric and Writing is a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance a student's ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate his or her position effectively. Work in this course will help the student advance the critical writing and reading skills he or she will need to succeed in courses for the university degree.

Tags: