DWRL Lesson Plans - Argumentation

Identifying Reasons and Evidence with Friends

sariddick — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:21:31 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

his"File:Friends (letras brancas, fundo preto.svg." Wikimedia Commons. Last modified 24 Dec 2014. Web. 5 Mar 2015. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friends_letras_brancas,_fundo_preto).svg>.

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson uses the popular sitcom Friends and the classic public debate of "Faith Vs. Reason" to create a fun, accessible way of understanding the relationship between claims, reasons, and evidence.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Video

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

1. A media console/projector

2. A computer

3. A whiteboard or chalkboard

4. Access to Friends "The One Where Heckles Dies" (Season Two, Episode Three).

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In this lesson, students will watch a few brief clips between two characters, Phoebe and Ross, on the sitcom Friends. In these clips, Phoebe and Ross argue about whether or not evolution is real, but not in the way that this argument tends to be portrayed. Ross, a paleontologist, insists that evolution is real, but Phoebe is unconvinced that it is absolutely better than any other possible theories. In teams, students will locate the reasons and evidence that their character gives in support of his/her claims, and they will look at how these components contribute to the most convincing argument, as identified by them, the show's audience.

This lesson is intended to be a fun, fast-paced, and engaging way to illustrate the differences between and significance of reasons and evidence in an argument. Because the argument featured in this assignment is an inoffensive play off of a common, longstanding public debate ("Faith vs. Reason"), this lesson also reminds students that looking at the parts of an argument from a rhetorical standpoint can be done without letting personal opinions affect the process. The "Faith vs. Reason" debate is one that students will likely have encountered before this lesson, but its comical, unusual, and lighthearted treatment in this episode will allow the students to easily respond from an analytical perspective, rather than an emotional one.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instructors must have a way of playing the episode of Friends called "The One Where Heckles Dies" (1995). This can be viewed on DVD, online rentals (e.g., iTunes, Amazon), or through a paid streaming service (e.g., Netflix).

If the instructor does not have a chalkboard or whiteboard on which to write, they should prepare a chart that clearly separates the following: Ross's reasons, Ross's evidence, Ross's claims, Phoebe's reasons, Phoebe's evidence, and Phoebe's claims.

Instructions For Students:

Instructor should divide the room into two teams: Team Ross and Team Phoebe. From there, half of each team should be responsible for reasons and the other half for evidence. For example, in a room of twenty students, there should be ten Ross students and ten Phoebe students. There should be five students looking for reasons from Ross, five for reasons from Phoebe, five for evidence from Ross, and five for evidence from Phoebe. Everyone is responsible for recording any claims that they hear. This should make the task feel more manageable to the students, and it increases the chances that the students will capture a wide variety of points from the clips.

1. On your computer or tablet, or on a piece of paper, record any claims that you hear from your Team Leader (Ross or Phoebe) as you watch this debate. Also, write down all of the reasons or evidence that you hear he/she give. You may hear multiple claims, and you may hear reasons/evidence that support different claims. Do not worry about putting those pieces together yet. Just write down the reasons or evidence that you hear (depending upon your assignment), and write down all of the claims that you hear from your Team Leader.

The instructor should play clips at the following minutes: 4:10-6:00, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-10:00, and 15:00-17:10 (6 minutes total).*

2. Share all of the reasons, evidence, and claims that you identified.

Instructor should record these on a visible chart for the class. As the discussion progresses, students can see (1) who provided more reasons and/or more evidence (2) and which pieces of reasons and evidence affected them more as an audience. Have the class vote on who they believed won the argument, and have them discuss why that is based on the reasons, evidence, and claims that they heard and the ways in which all of those components were presented.

*Note: A bonus round can be the female characters vs. Chandler at the end of the episode (beginning at 17:10). If time permits, students really enjoy this round, and it ought to be worthwhile because it reinforces the lesson. Watching the show from 4:10 through the end may be helpful because it contextualizes the content a bit more, but it is not necessary.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students loved this episode, and later in the semester I received praise for it from a student.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

This lesson was designed for "RHE 306: Rhetoric & Writing," an introductory writing and research course.

Tags:

Rhetorical Analysis of "Sugar Dating" Ads and Audience(s)

Wiedner — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:59:46 +0000

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/sugar-daddy-website-has-coeds-rationalizing...

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students work on argumentation techniques, rhetorical fallacies, and other concepts via reading a heavily-biased article from the New York Post discussing the relatively new but quickly growing phenomenon known as "sugar dating," which consists of web sites that pair older men (sugar daddies) who are willing to pay money for the company of young girls ("sugar babies"). The amount that any potential sugar daddy can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

While sugar dating sites seem to be happy to recruit young girls of all stripes, they are clearly most interested in attracting students, as evidenced in part by the fact that membership fees are waived for any potential sugar baby who registers with a .edu email address. The banner ad above is illustrative of most common underlying technique found on these sites. That is appealing to the fact that the typical undergraduate student is cash-strapped, and that being a sugar baby is an easy way to solve the problem. The titillating subject matter and the fact that half of the classroom are part of the demographic being so narrowly marketed towards caught everyone's attention from the get-go.

After they finish reading the article, displaying and bouncing through one of the sites on a projetor is great in a classroom that is equipped to do so, but it is by no means necessary.

The class is divided into two groups who assemble their respective arguments as to the propriety of selling such a product using the rhetorical appeals employed and the audience to which they are marketing (primary and otherwise); a loosely-moderated class debate/discussion ensues.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Social Media

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Increasing Classroom Participation, Building Rapport Between Students, Building Rapport Between Instructor and Individual Students, Building Rapport Between Instructor and Class as a Whole

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

Nothing other than copies of the article distributed by the instructor at the beginning of class.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

The instructor distributes copies of an article taken from the web site of what is generally regarded as a reputable source for news. The class has no access to the article beforehand. The instructor asks the class if any of them are familiar with “Sugar Dating;” calling on student(s) with raised hands to explain what sugar dating generally refers to. The instructor then elaborates on the definition provided, paraphrasing points that might have been lost in the student’s explanation, adding any aspects of the concept that were not mentioned in the process. (5 minutes)

Students read the article individually. (5-10 minutes) phenomenon

The class then divides into two equally-sized groups, and discuss positive and negative aspects of the concept of sugar dating in general, along with the article’s presentation of the concept. One group is identified as the “pro” group, with the other identified as the “con.” However, the instructor does not articulate a specific question upon which they are taking sides. The two groups each work to flush out and organize what they believe to be their most salient points. (10-15 minutes)

An open discussion in a point/counterpoint format is the conducted, with the instructor keeping the discussion from straying to far afield, while casually interjecting to emphasize and elaborate upon the concepts that are relevant to rhetoric and/or law as they arise during the discussion. It is important that the instructor is as unobtrusive as possible throughout the ensuing discussing, to the extent that the collective “personality” of a particular class will allow. (30 minutes for a class meeting twice a week)

The instructor wraps up the debate and the class by highlighting some of the most important substantive points and the most effective argumentation techniques from each side of the discussion. Students are informed that there is a discussion prompt related to the day’s discussion; each student must submit one original posting, along with at least one response to another student’s original posting before the next class meeting. (5-10 minutes)

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

To prepare for the class, the instructor should spend time analyzing the specific article to be distributed to the class, composing a rough outline of considerations such as (1) the arguments (and counterarguments) most likely to be made by students, (2) the rhetorical concepts the instructor is most interested in covering, (3) questions that the class discussion might not touch upon.

The instructor should also do their due diligence in researching the subject in general. Visiting the actual sugar dating web sites is especially important. Students will have varying degrees of knowledge on the subject. Given the fact that these sites specifically target female college students, there is a strong likelihood that at least a couple of students will be well-versed on the subject; the instructor does not want to be learning about nuances of the sugar dating process, etc. from one of their students.

Instructions For Students:

As indicated above, instructions to be given to students are minimal (intentionally so). They're instructed to take about 10 minutes reading the article being contemporaneously distributed, with particular attention to tone, word choice, authorial bias, context, and visual rhetoric. They are then divided into two groups with opposing viewpoints, and are instructed to construct the most persuasive argument that they can, taking rough notes (to be submitted at the end of class) outlining the same.

They're reminded to consider likely arguments from the other side, and the best way to address/respond to them. Students then partake in a debate wherein the instructor guides them back on track if they are getting off-topic, overly emotional, or missing each other entirely (from a stasis theory standpoint).

At the end of the class, the students are given instructions to make a substanive blog posting responding to an instructor-provided prompt; the will seek to continue aspect(s) of the in-class discussion. Along with one original blog posting, students are instructed to post at least one response to the original posting of a classmate.

There is not any reading students are instructed to do in preparation for the class.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The article’s author has a clear bias from the title onward, so I ask for a show of hands as to who agrees with the author’s…unflattering…representation of sugar dating and their advertisement and recruitment techniques. To my surprise, about 18 of my 22 students said that they agreed with the author. To keep the group numbers equal, I (somewhat lightheartedly) pointed out that the pinnacle of achievement for any rhetorician is to be able to effectively argue a point with which they wholly disagree. As my class is entitled “Rhetoric of Law,” I pointed out that this skill is of particular importance to attorneys, given that they take an oath to be “zealous advocates” for their clients in court, even if those clients are individuals whom they might find repugnant on a personal level. I then split the class roughly in half, based only upon where they happened to be sitting (or standing) at that moment, and then moving individual students towards one of two camps in order to arrive at numerical parity. I did not give consideration as to what side any particular student chose during our initial show of hands.

This lesson plan is well-suited for developing familiarity between students, increasing student participation, and establishing rapport between the instructor and his students- both individually and as a class. For these reasons, the lesson plan might be particularly useful at the beginning of the semester, or later on if class participation begins lagging.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Tags:

Rebuttal Sparring

Bohmann — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:05:20 +0000

Author:

Axel Bohmann

Image Credit:

GodWiki

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students pair up to practice rebuttal. Partners present their position on their chosen controversy and have to fend off arguments for other positions that their partner comes up with. Partners change frequently and in quick succession.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Peer Review

Pre-Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Presentations

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

refine students' position in their chosen controversy
become aware of and address potential arguments opposed students' own positions
increase awareness of different audiences
develop effective rebuttal strategies

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Required Materials:

Space (good for a session outdoors)

Writing equipment (digital or oldschool) for reflection.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Use this lesson plan fairly early in Unit 3 of your RHE 306. Ideally students will have read about and discussed the basics of rebuttal (refutation, counterargument, possibly concession) in a previous session and have started to think about their own position in their chosen controversy. This exercise should both get them to think more carefully about their position and potentially qualify it, as well as raise their awareness for opposing positions, their arguments, and how to rebut them. I have my student continuously do little free writing exercises in which they reflect on their position and this exercise culminates in one of those, too.

This is an exercise that needs a bit of space, so if you are in a computer classroom it might be a good chance for you and your students to see some sunlight for a change. Mine definitely appreciate that. Divide the class up into two groups of equal size. The first forms a circle, facing outwards, and the second an additional circle around that one, so two students always face each other. If there is an uneven number of students I get into one of the circles as well to even it out. Tell them that this is their chance to do 'intellectual sparring,' to practice their punches, jabs, and defense with actual partners to strengthen their essay 3 and presentation performance. There, other positions are implicit and it can be a difficult task to consider all of them and their potential arguments. But the more fully they can be addressed, the better essay 3 is going to be.

Tell students they will have three minutes to do the following:

partners in the outer circle present their controversy and their position with regards to it
partners in the inner circle give an argument for a different position
partners in the outer circle must find a way to rebut/refute/discredit said argument, thus strenghtening their own position

After three minutes, the outer circle moves on clockwise (or counter-clockwise if you wanna be a gangster :) ) and the same routine starts again. Half-way through you should switch roles, having the students in the inner circle present and defend their positions. Alternatively, you can leave a little more time between moving circles and have partners switch roles in that interval. Emphasize to your students that this is an exercise where they should really push each other. Of course, you want them to treat each other with respect but it will not do any good if they give in to each other's points too easily. In general, etiquette has not been a problem in my class so far, so I try to get them to really get at each other's arguments.

How long you keep this exercise going depends a bit on your time constraints and the way the students react to it. My experience has been that they enjoy the dynamic dimension of rapidly moving from partner to partner and also feel more comfortable talking when everybody else is too and they know the instructor is not listening. So I don't seem to have any trouble letting it go on for about 30 minutes. You want to give them a chance to listen and respond to a range of opposing viewpoints, so I would not go much shorter than that. Longer potentially, but there is a danger of repetition and information overload as this is quite an intense exercise for the students.

When you feel everybody has had enough chances to listen and respond to different arguments, bring your students back together and let them take 10-15 minutes to compose a written reflection on the exercise, including the following questions: What were the different positions opposed to your own? Were they associated with any particular stakeholders? Give at least two arguments you heard that run counter to your position. Can you find ways to construct refutations or counterarguments to those arguments? You can assign a written homework to your students where they come up with a mire elaborated version of this reflection, including fully developed rebuttals.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before Class:

Very little preparation needed
Make sure students have a good idea of rebuttal in general and a sense of their own position in their chosen controversy prior to doing this exercise
Make sure there is enough space for students to move around comfortably

In Class:

Keep an eye on the time, while also getting a sense for how long it takes students to go through the cycle
Be prepared to 'stand in' as a sparring partner if there is an uneven number of students
total class time taken: 45 - 50 minutes (30-35 circle exercise; 10-15 written reflection)

Instructions For Students:

Circle Exercise:

Students divvy up into 2 groups of equal size
Stand in two circles, facing each other
Students in the outer circle present their controversy and their position with regards to it
Students in the inner circle give an argument for a different position
Students in the outer circle must find a way to rebut/refute/discredit said argument, thus strenghtening their own position
You have three minutes for this; when I give the signal, the outer circle moves on clockwise

Reflection:

Write a brief reflection answering the following questions:

What were the different positions opposed to your own? Were they associated with any particular stakeholders? Give at least two arguments you heard that run counter to your position. Can you find ways to construct refutations or counterarguments to those arguments?

Evaluation Suggestions:

I would not evaluate students on the exercise itself. The written reflection (especially if you assign an elaboration for homework) can certainly be used for feedback, but I would not attach a grade to it. The exercise is designed to allow students to play around and get comfortable with their own position.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

I am teaching RHE 306 with Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble. The content does not matter for this exercise, though.

Tags:

Refutation and Rebuttal

Collaborative Web Page Annotations With Diigo

Battistelli — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:29:21 +0000

Author:

Todd Battistelli

Image Credit:

Todd Battistelli

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson introduces students to a collaborative annotation tool to facilitate class discussions and to encourage active reading and research practices.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Introduce students to a tool that enables organization and annotation of web pages. Encourage active reading and research practices. Support in-class group discussions with references to common reading.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Diigo accounts for each student & Diigo toolbar add-on installed in Firefox.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

After introducing students to the concept of annotating their sources, the instructor describes Diigo. Diigo is an add-on for Firefox (a more limited add-on is available for Chrome, but the Firefox add-on is used for this activity). It allows for real-time collaborative annotation of text on web pages. Users may highlight text, add sticky-note annotations to specific highlights, or add floating notes to any web page. Diigo also provides a bookmarking & caching function to store pages on diigo.com servers to mitigate against digital impermanence. Teachers may sign up for an educator account which provides access to group administration features useful for working with a group. Users within a group, for instance, can share annotations with each other without making them publicly available to all Diigo users.

As students are introduced to Diigo's functions, they should sign up for an account on the website. Teachers choosing to work with a Diigo group can add students to the group, or users can make their annotations public to share with the group.

Once set up, students work in pairs to annotate a page selected by the instructor responding to questions relevant to the goals of the course (in this case evaluating how accurately discussants in a discussion thread summarized each other). Students highlight text & add sticky notes with their responses. After students are done, the class reviews the annotations as a group.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instructor should become familiar with Diigo & apply for educator-level account. Set up student accounts (have students sign up for accounts in class). Locate & bookmark a webpage to use for the activity.

Instructions For Students:

Annotate the website according to the prompts assigned to your group. Highlight the relevant text. Hover your cursor over the text to attach a note to the highlighted text. Review the annotations made by other groups by refreshing the page & checking the Diigo side-bar (displayed by clicking on the icon left of the "Diigo" button in the toolbar.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Instructors can assess this activity according to the annotations students produce and how well those annotations can be tied into the class discussion as well as used in later work during the semester. The annotations should provide a means to record and index ideas and arguments often lost in day-to-day discussions.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students should be required to use the Firefox add-on, as the Chrome version only provides basic annotation features. Firefox provides access to a sidebar that provides an overview of a page's annotations. Before students begin group work, the instructor should run everyone through a brief training exercise to familiarize students with the basic operations of the toolbar.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE 330E - Advanced Rhetorical Theory and Analysis - Topic: Audience & Argumentation. Students study variety of rhetorical theory & investigate questions of how rhetor and audience infuence each other and the arguments produced in any persuasive situation. Students apply theoretical models to analysis and evaluation of how sources interact in argumentation.

Tags:

Using Mind-Maps to Make Modular Arguments, MASS EFFECT Style

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:28:36 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson is best used in conjunction with “Using Mass Effect 1 to teach critical situations," which can be found under that title on this site. One of the primary purposes of the Mass Effect lesson is to get students to think about how persuasive essays are “modular:” decisions a rhetor makes early on in an argument afford other rhetorical options later but at the same time take some options out of play. This lesson plan uses NovaMind Pro to help students create modular arguments of their own.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

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:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

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:

Introductory Writing Course

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 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

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Invention, delivery, procedural authorship

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

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

Introductory 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