DWRL Lesson Plans - Gaming

Defamiliarized Keyboards and Embodied Writing

LeMieux — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:50:37 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Screenshot from QWOP

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment is geared toward getting students to begin thinking, talking, and writing about how writing is a deeply embodied practice. I ask students to play two games (QWOP and GIRP) that reconfigure how we engage the keyboard as a material object.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Accessibility

Open Access Software

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Reflection, Digital Literacy, Technology, Materiality

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Computer-consoles for each student

QWOP

GIRP

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In this assignment I ask students to play two games, QWOP and GIRP, both can be found at foddy.net. Both games demand that the player engage the standard computer keyboard in strange ways. In QWOP the player controls the calves and thighs of a runner with four keys (Q,W, O,P), and in GIRP the player scales a cliff by pressing and holding keys in a Twister-like fashion.

Before we begin playing games I like to engage the class in a brief discussion about the various experiences that they have had with different writing tools. You can ask them about the mechanical aspects of learning how to write—big red pencils and pencil grips, left and right handedness, print and cursive, timed writings, touch typing, etc. The goal here is to begin students thinking about writing as a physical, embodied practice.

Next, introduce students to QWOP. I like having them jump right in without any exterior explanation or videos of successful runs. The key with QWOP is making sure that student’s engage it as a serious experience. It is worth spending a decent amount of time actually paying the game (roughly 10 minutes)—the general impulse is to try it several times (less than a minute with the game) and give up. For this assignment to work you really want your students to struggle.

After the first few minutes you can encourage your students to think about how their legs work. Have them move around in class, get them thinking about their bodies (legs and fingers both). At this point I like to show videos of successful playthroughs (easily found on youtube). Have them play until you are satisfied with their effort.

Next, start up GIRP. It is less confusing that QWOP, and I have found that students take to it somewhat more readily, so an instructional video isn’t necessarily necessary. Have them play through GIRP in roughly the same manner that they went through QWOP (a serious engagement).

Once they have spent a fair amount of time thinking and playing and working with the games have your students immediately (prior to any organized discussion) write short reflections on their experiences with the games and writing as an embodied practice. Having them jump through these different keyboard uses and configurations quickly works well.

Once they have finished writing I like to give students the opportunity to discuss both games (and at this point it can be fun to have willing students show off their QWOP and GIRP skills for the class) and the relationship between the games and their fingers and the keyboard. Once both games have been discussed you can shift discussion back toward the more general topic of embodied writing that class began with. Ask your students to think specifically about how they have situated their writing practice in the past (where do they write? on what? when?). Guide them toward the notion that there is nothing natural about any of our writing practices and that any rhetorical situation also includes the various writing technologies we engage.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Be sure to play QWOP and GIRP with as much seriousness as you expect from your students before you begin the lesson.

Instructions For Students:

Since this is an in-class assignment you can follow the above description. Here are the key activities.

Discuss writing as a material, embodied practice
Play QWOP - Move, think about how your legs work
Play GIRP -Move, think both about the odd finger configurations the game demands and standard touch typing.
Write a short reflection about your experiences with both games and writing more broadly.
Discuss the games and the relationships we have with writing, our bodies, and writing tools.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I generally have students upload their short reflections to their course blogs.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The key to this assignment is having students take the games seriously. It is incredibly easy to play for a minute than give up. You really need to work at getting your students engaged with the game (having them move and think about their bodies and the game and the keyboard works well). In general I have found that students readily engage in discussion about this topic—especially when it comes to relating how they learned to write. In the end it is worth remembering that the goal of the lesson is to begin thinking about writing differently rather than to beat QWOP and GIRP.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

This assignment works in both early, general rhetoric/composition courses and in rhetoric courses geared toward more specific topic (video games, digital media, technology).

Tags:

Procedural Rhetoric: Analyzing Video Games

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

Author:

Matt King

Image Credit:

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

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

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: