DWRL Lesson Plans - Writing

Exercises in Style

Boruszak — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:10:54 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Claude Strassart-Springer, from the book "Alphabet" by Raymond Queneau (image from Wikimedia Commons)

Brief Assignment Overview:

Teach revisions and the infinite possibilities of rewriting the same paragraph with this exercise, adopted from Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Remix

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment is meant to be a fun activity that allows students to exercise their creative muscles, while simultaneously demonstrating the possibilities of revising style for different audiences. The lesson plan in adopted from Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style (first published in English 1958). In this book, Queneau writes a single (2 page) short story, in which a narrator sees an argument on a bus, and then later recognizes one of the men on the street due to his strange hat. Queaneu then rewrites the story 99 different ways--for example, he rewrites the book as a sonnet, in slang, using exclamation points in every sentence, and even grouping words by the number of letters they contain.

I use this assignment immediately after students submit the first draft of their second essay, giving students the opportunity to either complete it in class, or work on it for credit over the next week. Students select what they believe to be their weakest paragraph from the essay they just submitted. How they evaluate the term "weakest" is up to them--all I ask is that it is a paragraph that they would genuinely like to rework and to which they would like to pay closer attention. After having students answer questions about why they would like to revise that paragraph, I turn them loose on revisions. Typically I provide a copy of Exercises in Style for reference, but some sample exercises I suggest are:

Translate the paragraph to another language, and then back to English (either on your own or through Google Translate)
Rewrite the paragraph as a tweet with 140 character limit (include mentions and hashtags if possible)
Create lists of parts of speech, and place each word under the correct category
Record yourself reading the paragraph outloud, and set it to music or remix it
Rewrite the paragraph as an internet meme

After rewriting the paragraph five times, students are asked to respond to a few questions reflecting on the process, before revising the paragraph for the next draft. The reflective questions ask them to consider their own writing voices and styles. The assignment is graded as complete/incomplete--students that actively participate in the assignment and satisfactorily meet the requirements get credit for attending class, those that do not meet the requirements are marked absent for the day.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I suggest skimming Exercises in Style in order to familiarize yourself with some potential options with students. PDFs of the first few story permutations are easily found through Google, and most University libraries should have a copy (the most recent edition is published by New Directions, and translated by Barbara Wright). Creating your own list of suggested processes is useful as well--students might be paralyzed by the "anything goes" aspect of the assignment, and creating a list of suggestions helps them get started.

Instructions For Students:

Reflect carefully on the essay that you just submitted, and choose the paragraph that you believe was the weakest in the essay. In a few sentences, describe the specific reasons you felt this paragraph needed improvement. Did it not have enough quotes? Too many quotes? Was it too long or short? Did it feel repetitive? Out of place in the essay? Did you just plain run out of time to revise it?

Experiment with your paragraph by rewriting it five times in entirely different styles. You might choose a model for your style (a favorite book, movie, song, etc.). Rewrite it as a poem. As a speech. Or you might choose a constraint a la Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style. This is your chance to be creative and stretch your wings. The sky is the limit on this assignment.

Once you have rewritten the paragraph in five different ways, reread them all. Which was your favorite, and why? Was it just the style that made the paragraph your favorite? Or did you substantively change your paragraph's content as well? Now, answer the hardest question of all: Why don't you always write in this style? Is it the demands of the formal academic context? Or had you just not considered it at all? Do you think this style can be assimilated to your own voice when writing papers?

Now that you've had a little fun, and really atomized how the paragraph is put together, revise it in a way that you would like it to appear in your revised. And remember: sometimes the only way to improve a draft is by playing around and experimenting with it.

In order to be considered complete, the following must be submitted in a single document:

The original paragraph from your essay
A reflection on why or how it needs improvement (minimum 1 paragraph)
FIVE rewrites, with an indication of the rewrite's style
A reflection on the experiment process, answering the questions in the third paragraph of the assignment instructions
A fully revised paragraph for the next essay

If you rewrite a paragraph in a non-text format, include links to the material, or email it to me separately.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The key to this assignment is effort, so I suggest a simple complete/incomplete grading rubric. Numerical or letter grades might discourage students' creativity or invention--the use of which are not always highlighted in introductory composition classrooms, but which are critical for high levels of writing.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This was an especially successful assignment in my class. Students responded positively, and they especially enjoyed the ability to follow their own interests. Some asked me about whether or not they could use curse words--I encouraged it as long as it was relevant to the style of their rewrite. The assignment was completed by all students within a 75 minute class period (with computers available in the room).

Additional Resources:

The Wikipedia article on Exercises in Style, which includes a list of all styles used in the book.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Tags:

Remediating and Reviewing Peer Arguments

coulson — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:14:17 +0000

Author:

Doug Coulson

Image Credit:

Jbrazito's Photostream

Brief Assignment Overview:

Designed to facilitate a deeper level of peer review and collaborative learning, this assignment asks students to deliver oral presentations of each others' work and offer constructive commentary on their peer's paper.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Peer Review

Revision

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Presentations

Remediation

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is intended to facilitate a deeper level of peer review and collaborative learning as well as facilitate classroom discussion regarding the writing process.

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Required Materials:

No classroom technology is required for this assignment, although a media consolae/projector facilitates students who want to use technology in their presentations.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In this assignment, you will deliver an 8-12 minute oral presentation to the class (1) restating your peer’s paper, (2) identifying the conversation in which your peer’s paper is situated, and (2) offering constructive feedback or questions regarding your peer’s paper that might be helpful for the class to discuss to assist the author. Your peer will in turn deliver a presentation regarding your paper. After each presentation, a brief Q&A period will be permitted for the class to discuss the paper and ask the author questions if desired. The author may respond to questions during this period, but otherwise the author should not intervene to explain their work during the presentation but should instead simply listen to the restatement and commentary offered by the presenter and the class.

You should approach your presentation as a writer sharing a peer’s work with fellow writers and not be overly formal. Your presentation must follow a formal outline, contain the content called for by the protocol below and in the order set forth in the protocol, and be delivered within the stated time limits. When the time limit is up, the presentation will be stopped. You should practice the presentation before you deliver it live to ensure that you can deliver it within the stated time limits. Please note that a paper outline is required and must be handed to me before to your presentation on the day it is scheduled. You’re allowed but not required to use audio-visual materials during your oral presentation as long as they’re not used to substitute for your own extemporaneous commentary during the presentation. You can present sitting down or standing from any location in the classroom that you wish.

*Authors are obligated to deliver a copy of their paper to their presenter no less than 72 hours before the scheduled presentation so that the presenter has adequate time to prepare.

Protocol

Your presentation should closely approximate the following format:

(1) Describe the paper and identify its central argument(s)/contribution(s) (4-6 minutes). What appears to be the central issue/puzzle that the paper seeks to address? How would you state the paper’s central argument or thesis? How does the author develop the paper? (Provide a very brief summary of the paper and its arrangement.) In what debates/discussions does the paper situate itself? What does the author contribute to the conversation the paper engages.

(2) Identify the evidence/methods the author uses to support the claims made (2 minutes).

(3) Offer constructive feedback (2-6 minutes). Identify one or two broad areas in which the paper might be improved. What might be helpful for the group to discuss to assist the author?

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

No instructor preparation is required.

Instructions For Students:

Students are provided the full assignment description set forth above.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The assignment is graded based primarily on the basis of completion, contingent only on the students meeting the minimum requirements that the presentation follow a formal outline, contain the content called for by the protocol and in the order set forth in the protocol, and be delivered within the stated time limits.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students have reported some anxiety both as author and as presenter of a peer's paper, particularly regarding losing control of the presentation and not being in a position to defend their work as author or mis-characterizing their peer's work as presenter. My experience is that students take the presentations more seriously when presenting a peer's work than when presenting their own, however, and in some ways experience less anxiety because they don't have to defend their work. They also appear to value the experience of hearing a peer restate their paper's content. Requiring them to read a peer's paper in sufficient depth to deliver a presentation regarding it has also proved educational about the writing process.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

In his book On the Contrary, rhetoric scholar Thomas Sloane writes, ”Rhetorical thought is—let us admit it—highly perverse and lawyerly in nature.” In this statement, Sloane not only alludes to the closely intertwined history of rhetoric and law from the earliest days of Western thought to the modern era, but highlights the shared promotion by both of these fields of an agonistic “art of controversy” which seeks to facilitate controversy through the practice of arguing both sides of a case, a practice classical rhetoricians called in utramque partem (“on either side”). The principal theorists of classical Greek and Roman rhetoric promoted agonistic contests in which speakers argued opposite sides of disputed issues, often with specifically judicial contexts in mind, and the American legal system’s adversarial system of justice is founded on a contest of accusation and defense between parties in which each seeks to persuade a judge or jury of disputed issues on opposite sides of a case.

Despite the close relationship between rhetoric and law, however, and the fact that the lawyer remains, in the words of legal scholar James Boyd White, “the modern rhetorician in its purest form,” the modern professionalization of law has frequently attempted to deny or repress the rhetorical aspects of legal discourse and the agonistic conflict on which the adversarial system of justice is founded. Instead, modern law has promoted a view of legal discourse as a value-neutral “science” based on logical deduction and immune to social and political influence. This paradoxical relationship between law and rhetoric in modern legal discourse has produced a recent revival of questions about modern law’s denial of rhetoric, including important questions about the role of character and emotion in legal argument, the role of narrative in the analysis of legal evidence, the effect of the adversarial system of justice on social cohesion and division, and the relationship of legal rhetoric to democracy, coercion, and violence.

We’ll study these questions by first examining the forms of argument used in the legal profession today, focusing on arguments regarding the interpretation of circumstantial evidence in legal cases and the analogical, or case-based, form of legal argument known as “legal reasoning” which is used to argue for or against the application of judicial precedent to new cases. Specifically, we’ll study arguments regarding the evidence in controversial trials such as the 1976 Patty Hearst trial, the 1982 Lindy Chamberlain (“Dingo”) trial, the 1992 Randy Weaver (“Ruby Ridge”) trial, and the 1994 trials of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., and Jason Baldwin (the “West Memphis Three”), as well as arguments and judicial opinions in U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause and the minimum standards of effective legal advocacy found in the Sixth Amendment’s right to assistance of counsel. After examining the forms and purposes of legal rhetoric as it is actually employed in the legal profession, we’ll then consider contemporary critiques of the adversary system and the agonistic rhetoric on which it depends, including critiques implicit in public perceptions of the legal system and cultural representations of lawyers.

Tags:

Remixing Materials from the Public Domain

Will Burdette — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:23:11 +0000

Author:

Will Burdette

Image Credit:

"Cue" via danmachold's Flikr stream

Brief Assignment Overview:

During the workshop-style lesson, students will learn about the literary and rhetorical aspects of selection and juxtaposition. This assignment introduces students to ways of finding public domain music and audio clips of literary and rhetorical value. It also briefs them on the ins and outs of fair use of copyrighted content. It gives them a chance to play with two audio interfaces (DJay and GarageBand). The work results in a short ringtone that can serve a work sample for their portfolio and fun novelty to take out of the classroom.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Organization

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Invention
Organization/Arrangement
to help students broaden their definition of writing beyond words on a page and reimagine the formats their writing might take;
to emphasize the importance of selection and juxtaposition in literature and writing;
to demonstrate how appropriately and legally to re-use source material created by others;
to give students an introduction to tools that they can use to produce and perform audible writing.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Web browsers
Headphones
DJay software
GarageBand software (other audio editing software like Audacity will work)
iTunes

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

This lesson plan was designed in conjunction with the Paul Miller aka DJ Spooky that Subliminal kid lecture and performance. During the workshop-style lesson, students will learn about the literary and rhetorical aspects of selection and juxtaposition. This assignment introduces students to ways of finding public domain music and audio clips of literary and rhetorical value. It also briefs them on the ins and outs of fair use of copyrighted content. It gives them a chance to play with two audio interfaces (DJay and GarageBand). The work results in a short ringtone that can serve a work sample for their portfolio and fun novelty to take out of the classroom.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Make sure students have headphones or provide them. (Use the DWRL classroom set of headphones w/ 1/8" plugs instead of the USB headphones. Plug in only the headphones, not the mics.) Compile a list of places to search for public domain or Creative Commons music and audio. It's best to do the search in real time so you can show them how to download the files. For that reason, it's important to rehearse your search a few times so you know the results ahead of time.

Student Instructions:

Instructions are available in a variety of formats:

Instructions in HTML
Instructions in Keynote
Instructions in PDF

Instructions For Students:

In this workshop, we:

find audio content
mess around with tools for editing, remixing, saving, and uploading audio content
make a ringtone that you can put on your phone and take with you

More specifically we’re going to:

find two tracks (one literary/rhetorical/spoken word track and one musical track)
mix them together and record them in DJay
open the file in GarageBand and cut it down to < 40 seconds (5-6 recommended)
export as a ringtone

Search one of the collections listed under resources for one spoken word piece and one piece of music.

Open iTunes and make a playlist called “Writing With Sound.” Drag both of your files into that
playlist.

Open DJay and find your “Writing With Sound” playlist and drag one file onto one turntable and
one file onto the other turntable.

Mess around a bit. Add some effects, play with cue points, looping, and skipping. Adjust the speed. Sync the tracks, etc. Rehearse until you find something suitable to record.

Hit the record button and play around for a while. Save to your desktop.

Open GarageBand.

(A this point it is good to highlight the difference between GarageBand and Djay. Djay is more of

a performative tool that you can use to make a recording. GarageBand is an editing tool. You could do the same thing in GarageBand without Djay. But DJing is a slightly different skill set than audio editing or making mash-ups. I want students to understand that.)

Find the file you made in Djay and drag it into GarageBand.

Time permitting, add effects, drums, whatever. The “i” button on the bottom right will give you instruments. The eye-shaped button on the left will pull up a loop browser.

Select a sample. Click on the cycle region button and a strip will show up above the tracks. Click
and drag it and you will be able to select and loop a passage.

Share it. Select Share > Send Ringtone to iTunes. Find the Ringtone in iTunes under “Ringtones.” (It should be filename.m4r). Drag it to your desktop and e-mail it to yourself. You now have a ringtone for your phone.

Upload a version for your portfolio. Share > Export Song to Disk > Choose mp3 encoder, and export. You now have an .mp3 to upload.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The ringtone is assessed as part of the portfolio or learning record.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

It is important to pace your instructions so that you are not trying to give students new information while they have headphones on. For that reason, it's important to demo the whole workshop, then direct students to the instructions in case they need a guide to reference, then turn them loose.

Additional Resources:

Places to find spoken word samples for use in academic projects:

There are lots of places to find music online that you can use in academic projects. A couple are:

But don't forget that fair use was designed specifically to allow for the use of copyrighted work. This lessson plan takes into account all four of the pilars of fair use. For more information on fair use, see "Fair Use" at Stanford University Libraries.

Of course, time and talent permitting, you can produce your own music, ask a friend, or use remix-friendly artists like:

Other Tools:

SoundCloud (Good for uploading, sharing, and peer review because it allows commenting at specific places in the tracks.)
FreeSound.org (Good for finding sound effects.)
Aviary (Good for editing in a browser.)

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

This class focuses on the ways urban music has influenced literature in the past 65 years. It emphasizes the various ways the medium of audio recording and the medium of print have intersected. Students will prepare for upper-division English classes by familiarizing themselves with resources and approaches essential to literary study. They will also develop listening techniques and audio editing techniques. Assessment will be done via a digital portfolio evaluation system.

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: