DWRL Lesson Plans - Analysis

Annotation and Analysis with Genius.com (Formerly Rapgenius)

Emily Lederman — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:02:18 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan builds on Andrew Uzendoski's lesson on teaching close reading using Rap Genius (now called Genius), focusing on teaching students the process of annotation, as well as how to articulate the building blocks of their close reading practice. Students receive feedback from the instructor on a close reading assignment in the form of annotations. They work both individually and in groups to close read and then annotate excerpts from a text using the interactive online knowledge project, Genius.com.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Historical Context

Literary Criticism

Oxford English Dictionary (OED)

Poetry

Structure and Form

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotation

Writing Process

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Software

Visualization

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

-Computer for each students

-Projector to present

-Texts

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Prior to the Genius lesson, I assigned students a close reading activity for homework. They had produced one-paragraph close readings from selected short lines of poetry--their first fully independent close reading work. They were asked to make an argument about the meaning and importance of the lines that included both the how and why of literary analysis. In other words, students needed to identify something they found important about word choice, structure, etc. (this was the what) and then explain how they knew this was true (finding evidence), and finally articulate why the author made this choice. (These pieces of writing were used as building blocks for full close reading--skills we had been working on in class; I had previously given them several examples of complete analytical thoughts). I then annotated their written paragraphs to identify the "hows" and "whys" or to point out the missing evidence and explanation. We went over several examples using the projector. As we discussed my comments and ways to improve their close readings, I introduced the term "annotation" and we talked about how annotating can be used to improve their reading comprehension. This mini-lesson was useful in making sure that students both understood my feedback and began to learn the skills of active reading.

At the end of this class I had students make accounts with Genius, read their introductory page, and explore the website. Genius allows students to see a public community of annotators at work and in conversation, as well as understand how the annotations can enhance meaning. I was glad that the text we were reading, Junot Diaz's Drown, was not up on the site and annotated, as I wanted my students to engage their own critical thinking skills before they read other people's criticism.

During the next class I assigned students to five small groups (4-5 students) and asked each student to login to Genius. Each group had a different short excerpt (1-2 paragraphs) from the previous night's reading to annotate. Students were asked to look up words in the OED or by using other resources (as they were often looking up Spanish and Dominican slang) and explain these, as well as provide succinct close reading paragraphs that made an argument about the meaning and importance of certain words, phrases, sentences (building on the previous assignment). They began by doing the work individually, but enjoyed seeing one another's comments appear on the page, and I encouraged them to engage in conversation as they annotated, as well as afterward.

The groups presented their annotations to the class. Each group member was required to present at least one annotation. As a class, we discussed methods for strengthening each of the close readings and I explained how these paragraphs might be incorporated into their upcoming papers on the text. Because of the genius of Genius, students were able to comment on or revise one another's annotations. They are also aware that their work exists in the public sphere and may be edited by any member.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

-Introduce the building blocks or steps of close reading over the course of several classes

-Grade a close reading assignment using annotations that identify different aspects of the student's close reading (evidence and explanation, or "hows and whys")

-Prepare several examples of this completed assignment to show to the class (ask students for permission if projecting their work)

-Prepare students for the activity in a previous class by having them join Genius, read the introductory material, and explore the website

-Upload 5-6 excerpts from the next reading assignment to Genius (feel free to contact Jeremy Dean, Education Czar and alum, for help or advice: jeremy@genius.com)

-Split the class into groups

Instructions For Students:

HW Assignment (close reading building blocks--I provide an example of each of the following steps. I also provide them with a packet on close reading that we review as a class prior to this assignment):

1. Choose 2 lines from "Howl." Follow the steps below to produce a well-supported argument about the meaning of these lines.

2. Paraphrase. First you will need to make sure that you understand all the words in these lines (use the OED). Next, state what is said and/or what happens in your own words.

3. Make a list of observations about these lines. What's important? Refer only to details from these two lines. This will be your evidence.

4. Analyze. Now you need to consider the meaning of these observations. In at least two seperate complete sentences, describe how and why two of the above observations/details contribute to the meaning of this selection.

5. Argue. Produce a one-paragraph argument about the meaning of this selection. Each of your explanatory claims must be supported by evidence from these two lines.

Genius Group Activity

-Read over my feedback on your close reading hw assignment

-Find your assigned excerpt in Drown and reread this section to familiarize yourself

-Sign-in to Genius.com and search for the excerpt

-Begin by looking up any words you do not immediately understand, using the OED or other databases

-Next, annonate these words, explaining their meaning and situating them within the passage

-To Annotate: highlight the selection and click the "annotate" button that pops up, then enter your text into the textbox. Note: if someone has already annoated this selection, you may add your own text by highlighting the selection from right to left.

-Now, begin to close read the passage, adding annotations that provide context or further explanation

-Finally, choose a phrase or sentence that you find integral to the excerpt's meaning. Using the close reading steps, produce a one paragraph annotation of this material

-Discuss your annotations as a group and prepare to report back to the rest of the class

Evaluation Suggestions:

I did not grade this assignment (except as a contributing factor to students' participation grades) but students will soon submit a short paper on the text that will showcase their active reading and close reading skills--skills that hopefully further developed through their use of Genius. We did evaluate almost every annotation as a class, considering ways to improve students' articulations.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students seemed excited about this assignment and were generally very positive about the results of their work. Several of them told me they loved using Genius (and most were learning about it for the first time). Next time, I think I would annotate an excerpt as an entire class (to go over process and discuss best practices) and maybe spend more time introducing the website rather than letting students explore individually, as it took a while for some students to start their annotations. I would also prefer smaller groups and more excerpts, so that each student had the opportunity to provide a substantial close reading, rather than one or two students from each group dominating the annotating!

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

The banning of books continues today in the United States, speaking both to the fear of certain ideas and the power of the written word. In this course, students will read banned novels, short stories, and poems across cultural and temporal contexts, pursuing the following questions: What causes a text to be labeled “indecent” or “dangerous”? How is literature connected to political and social movements? How do these texts contribute to our understanding of what constitutes American literature?

The primary aim of this course is to help you develop and improve the critical reading, writing, and thinking skills needed for success in upper-division courses in English and other disciplines. You will also gain practice in using the Oxford English Dictionary and other online research tools and print resources that support studies in the humanities. You will learn basic information literacy skills and models for approaching literature with various historical, generic, and cultural contexts in mind.

Tags:

Student Digital Activism as Rhetorical Advocacy/Analysis

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

Author:

Trevor L. Hoag

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:

Google Mapping Travel Narratives: Lolita

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:27:55 +0000

Author:

Lauren Nahas

Image Credit:

Screen shot of narrative Google map

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment asks students to engage in an uncommon form of literary analysis, where the goal is to determine the significance of location and travel in the novel. The entire class collaborates in creating a Google map of all of the places that Humbert Humbert travels to in Lolita.

Type of Assignment:

Course Unit

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goal is to offer students a new way to consider the process and products of literary analysis. This assignment also encourages students to consider a novel both visually and spatially, and to determine the usefulness of gaining such a perspective on the novel. In addition, it introduces them to a new technology (surprisingly, most are unaware that you can create your own maps using Google). In addition, it’s meant to be a collaborative experience that illustrated the importance of organization, as what can be accomplished by a group.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

A Google account (this allows students to create, edit, and share their own personal maps. Without this account students will not be able to edit the map). A course wiki, or some other online location for organizing who maps which parts of the novel, questions or problems that come up during the mapping process, and so on.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In one sense, I see this assignment as an alternative form of formal analysis. It is basically asking students to take a very close look at the movements and locations of the novel and visually represent them in a map. In this sense, it broadens the concept of literary analysis for students and will give them at least one example of how digital media can be used for literary analysis. They gain technological skills simply through having to use Google Maps, and they gain collaborative skills as we determine as a class how to organize the creation of the map and make decisions about the map’s content.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Prep: In Google maps, create a map entitled “Nabokov’s Lolita.” Put in place markers and descriptions of the first few places mentioned in the novel to give the students an idea of what the map will look like in the end.

On your course wiki or website, create a table to organize the map. Add columns to the table with the following titles: Place, Page Number, Found by, Added to Map by, Problems. This allows you to keep track to who found what, who added what to the map, and gives the students a place to note any problems that they run into. The students need to be able to edit this table themselves. Here’s a link to the table I created on my course wiki.

In-class: Have the students create Google accounts. Have them send you an email from that account. Using that email, invite them as collaborators to the map.

Explain the basics of mapping a novel (I showed students maps of The Devil’s Highway and Ulysses, and there are many more on the Google Lit Trips website.

Show them the Lolita map that you have created and explain that they will receive and invitation to the map that will allow them to edit it.

Show the students the basics of how to create and edit a map. Have them create a map of their own, add a few places, edit them, etc. You want them to get a feel for the Google maps interface.

Show them the table you’ve created to organize the map creation. Tell them to add locations to the table as they read the novel.

I didn’t have students begin adding locations to the map until we had finished the novel. At that point we had a long list of places. In class we had a discussion of how we wanted to deal with places that didn’t exist, places where the chronology of HH and Lolita’s travels becomes unclear in the novel, etc. We created a key for the map and there were some issues of representation that we decided to deal with after the map had begun to take form. At this point I also reminded them of the “Problems” column in our organizational table on the wiki and that if they ran into any problems with the map, they should note them there.

I visited the map in class every day to encourage them to keep adding and set a soft deadline for adding locations. I also monitored the “Problems” column on the organizational table and dealt with problems in class as they arose. When the map seemed to be completed, I checked through it and brought up any concerns that I had in class.

Once the map has been completed, it deserves a day’s discussion in terms of how it relates to reading the novel. The students will not automatically see the usefulness of the map.

Instructions For Students:

Lolita Mapping Project

In some respects Lolita is a travel novel. Many of the locations mentioned in the novel are real. Because of this, the text lends itself to mapping.

Mapping a piece of Literature is a new method of literary analysis. It has gained popularity with the advent of tools like google maps that allow anyone to create map.

Although not every place mentioned in Lolita is mappable, we will do our best to create what a geographic model of Nabokov's masterpiece. The purpose here is to consider the novel from a completely different perspecive and to see if the map reveals anything of interest to us about the novel. The may also serve as a reading aid or guide to those of you who later choose to write your essay on Lolita.

Map Key

Exists - Icon with Dot
Doesn't Exist - Icon without Dot

With Lolita - Pink Lines & Icons
Without Lolita - Blue Lines & Icons

Content of the placemarkers:

Page number and chapter
Basic description of the significance of the location

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use the learning record, so the map was not graded. They will be graded on what they took from the experience of mapping the novel. That learning could be related to using this mapping tool, collaboration, literary analysis, completing a complex project, and so on. I do not expect all of them to come to significant realizations about the novel from this project.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I think the students were initially surprisingly enthusiastic about it. I didn’t make this a mandatory assignment, but they created the list of places and the map itself with little encouragement from me. At this point they seem to be a bit confused about the purpose of what they’ve created. I anticipated that reaction, so in the next week we’ll be taking some time in class to look carefully at the map to consider what implications it has for our reading of Lolita.

Additional Resources:

Here is a list of sources that discuss mapping as a literary analysis technique. They helped me to consider what the purpose of such an assignment was and how it related to my larger course objectives.

Gordon, Eric. “MAPPING DIGITAL NETWORKS From cyberspace to Google.” Information, Communication & Society 10.6 (2007): 885-901. Web.

Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History. London: Verso, 2005. Print.

Ramsay, Stephen. “Special Section: Reconceiving Text Analysis: Toward an Algorithmic Criticism.” Lit Linguist Computing 18.2 (2003): 167-174. Web.

Samuels, Lisa., and Jerome J. McGann. “Deformance and Interpretation.” New Literary History 30.1 (1999): 25-56. Print.

Tullock, David L. “Many, many maps: Empowerment and online participatory mapping.” First Monday 12.2 (2007): n. pag. Print.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This assignment was used in an introductory literature course, E314K Banned Books

Tags:

Visualization Software

Procedural Rhetoric: Analyzing Video Games

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

Author:

Matt King

Image Credit:

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

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Open Access Software

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rhetorical analysis, introduction to procedural rhetoric

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

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

- What are the rules of the system?

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

- What claims about the world do these rules make?

- How do I respond to those claims?

[note to instructors: these questions come from Bogost]

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

- What are the rules of the system?

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

- What claims about the world do these rules make?

- How do I respond to those claims?

[note to instructors: these questions come from Bogost]

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

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

Additional Resources:

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

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

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

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

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

Tags: