DWRL Lesson Plans - Literary Criticism

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Cultural Context

Historical Context

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Scavenger hunt worksheets, enough for each student (should be created by the instructor prior to the class; see "Suggestions for Instructor Preparation")
Computers for student research (since the exercise takes place in the library, using the library computers works just fine or even better)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Introductory Writing Course

Full Assignment Description:

There are a variety of ways an instructor could set up for this activity, but here's what I did (and found successful):

We met in our regular classroom, where I distributed my twenty-question worksheet and broke them into teams (see "Suggestions for Instructor Preparation"). After everyone had a chance to read over the sheet, we walked over to the PCL together, whereupon I showed them where I’d be waiting on the ground floor in case they had any questions or when they were ready to submit their worksheets. I emphasized that they needed to submit their worksheets by the end of the class period, whether or not they were finished. Thanks to our 75-minute class period, they all had plenty of time to complete their work.

I did not require my students to stay with their team members at all times. I said they could remain together, or they could split up if they found it more efficient to do so, as long as they each turned into me a worksheet with answers that matched those of their teammates, to prove that they'd discussed their findings with one another.

For the first portion of the following class period, we reviewed their findings and discussed the commonly missed answers.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

First, I would strongly recommend having discussed digital research strategies and research goals for the class prior to this activity. We had already done these things, which was helpful because the digital research components of the exercise were much-needed practice but not first-time efforts (which undoubtedly saved time), and because they had a better understanding of why exactly I'd be encouraging them to find resources about Nigerian history, for example, when we were discussing a coming-of-age novel set primarily in Lagos (Chris Abani's GraceLand).

More immediately prior to the library scavenger hunt day, the instructor should create the scavenger hunt sheet. Because my own questions were so tailored to our specific class, I don't want to lay out our exact set of questions here, but here are some of the types of questions I found most productive:

Questions about relevant library resources. For example, I asked them how they'd obtain a copy of a certain book of which I knew UT didn't have a copy. Some of them already knew about Interlibrary Services, others decided to ask someone at the Help desk, etc.
Questions for which the answers could be found either digitally or physically. For example, I asked them to decide which chapter of a particular history book seemed like it would offer the most relevant context for a story we'd been analyzing in class. I chose this book purposely both because it was pertinent and because I knew it was available both via Google Books and in hard copy at the library. In our subsequent class discussion, we compared/contrasted strategies for tracking down digital vs. physical resources.
Questions that require students to consider the library's physical layout. That is, I asked them to find a particular book (the collection of short stories from which we had read) and then identify two others on nearby shelves that seemed relevant and interesting. A lot of them later indicated that even if they'd tracked down a book at the library before, they'd never thought to look around for pertinent titles in the area.
Questions that require just one extra step of Googling and/or that are solveable by using a series of different research strategies. For example, I asked them to find an article in Research in African Literatures about the novel we were reading. (I knew the journal had published several articles on the novel over the last ten years or so.) Most of them didn't know what Research in African Literatures was, but they all came up with an appropriate article, some because they'd Googled the journal title, others because they used library databases, and so forth. The various strategies they deployed to answer this question led us to an especially fruitful conversation later.

Ideally, the instructor should also assign teams in advance of the scavenger hunt. What worked well for me was to create an even distribution of English/Rhetoric majors, students with different class standings, etc., among the teams.

The instructor should also take into account questions of student mobility, disability, etc. I conferred with my students beforehand to make sure that the walk from the classroom to the library and the movement around the library was not at all burdensome for them.

Instructions For Students:

You have until the end of the class meeting to complete the library scavenger hunt worksheet. If you have any questions over the course of the scavenger hunt, you are welcome to come find me, but of course I can't give much away. You do not have to remain physically with your team members, but if you choose to split up research tasks, you must reconvene at the end to discuss your answers with one another. When you submit your worksheets, I will check to make sure that your sheets all have matching answers, to confirm that you've gone over everything with each other.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I scored their worksheets after class. The teams earned between 16.5 and 19 points out of a possible 20 points, so I was pretty happy with that result.

We also had a follow-up class discussion during our next meeting, which was a good opportunity to compare/contrast their various research strategies and to review the answers to commonly missed questions.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students seemed to enjoy and learn from the activity. Among the gains they later mentioned were that they had mostly never thought about looking around the shelves for similar titles, that they got a better sense of the library's layout, that they were less anxious to ask for help from a librarian, and that they learned from each other's research strategies (ex. brainstorming different search terms). It also didn't hurt that getting out of the classroom for a day seemed like a novel experience for many of them.

Course Type:

Course Description:

Violence, social inequality, anarchy, authoritarianism, poverty, disease, natural disaster, manmade disaster: what makes a place truly dangerous, and for which people? And how can books that merely depict dangerous places seem so threatening that they themselves are deemed too risky for certain audiences? With a broad understanding of what might constitute “danger,” we will investigate these and other questions through reading banned fiction set in dangerous places around the world.

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

This course contains a writing flag. The writing assignments in this course are arranged procedurally with a focus on invention, development through instructor and peer feedback, and revision; they will comprise a major part of the final grade.

Tags:

Annotation and Analysis with Genius.com (Formerly Rapgenius)

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

Author:

Emily Lederman

Image Credit:

Genius.com

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:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Historical Context

Poetry

Structure and Form

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotation

Writing Process

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Software

Visualization

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

-Computer for each students

-Projector to present

-Texts

Timeline for Optimal Use:

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:

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:

Shifting Focus from Content to Medium

Laura Thain — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 02:05:07 +0000

Author:

Laura Thain

Image Credit:

Blancomoleon

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using various records of the Hindenburg disaster, this assignment encourages students to engage with medium over content, especially in terms of literary studies.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Arrangement

Rhetorical Analysis

Visual Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment encourages students to think beyond their preconceptions of what "medium" is and view all things as mediated--especially text.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

Instructors will need to assign an orienting theoretical piece on medium and assemble an applicable archive of media for students to analyze. I used the first chapter of McLuhan's Understanding Media ("The Medium is the Message").

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Assign the students a piece of media theory that you think well supplements their primary text reading in a literature class or your chosen archive of materials in a rhetoric class. Some potential candidates include Raymond Williams, Marshall McLuhan, or Bolter and Grusin. You may also ask your students to watch a lecture such as this one in order to gain some grounding for talking about media. We spent a full class period discussing McLuhan's argument before engaging in this activity.

I then assembled an archive of media artifacts around our primary text, War of the Worlds. I asked the students to approach this archive mostly through affect, which I defined as "the way media objects make us feel."

I began by handing out a transcript of Herbert Morrison's famous radio broadcast account of the Hindenburg disaster. I asked the students to read this transcript to themselves and circle words or phrases that made them feel a certain way. Then, I asked them to account for their experience in terms of the medium in which they experienced it. Next, I played an audio file of Morrison's radio broadcast and asked them again to recount their reaction, again accounting for medium. Finally, I asked them to watch a YouTube video that superimposed a Universal news reel of the explosion over the audio of the broadcast. Students were generally most moved by either the radio broadcast or the YouTube video and discussed why.

I then explained that Orson Wells wanted to capture the "spirit" of the Hindenburg broadcast (1937) in his own adaptation of War of the Worlds (1938). I played a ten-minute portion of the radio broadcast and asked them to relate the two radio pieces to each other, again, paying attention to how the medium of radio attempted to make its audience feel a certain way.

By this point, the students generally agreed that radio, rather than "lacking" the visual, capitalized on conveying information chiefly through an aural medium. We talked a little bit about McLuhan's view of "hot" vs. "cold" media, and I then asked them to think about how text itself also function as a medium.

We then read a selection from Book II, Chapter 4 ("The Death of the Curate") in War of the Worlds as a class. I asked them to each read a paragraph of the text as dramatically as they felt comfortable doing. Again, I asked them how the text as a medium tries to inspire suspense in the audience.

Finally, we watched an analagous clip from Steven Spielberg's 2005 War of the Worlds, in which the Martian alien, like the passage from the book, is probing the basement while the protagonist hides in fear. I asked them how the visual medium attempts to create suspense in the same plot arch. After students practiced analyzing the two very different methods, I reiterated that that content of the two pieces was somewhat irrelevent to their analysis--the medium was what mattered.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Make detailed notes on the orienting piece of media theory you assign your students and spend time working through that piece with them. Our class spent an entire day on "The Medium is the Message" and read it in terms of our current text (War of the Worlds) before engaging in detailed analysis of other media.

Instructions For Students:

Students need to read and discuss a secondary media text in addition to primary course materials for this lesson.

Course Type:

Course Description:

I teach a ninety-minute class period of Literature and Popular culture, which is a varient of Literature Across the Disciplines (E314J). The course seeks to explore the intersections of literature and popular culture from the point of view of mass readership and other forms of mass media. The course requires students to consider mediation through the lens of culture, history, and media theory as they engage in close reading and analysis.

Composing Short Writing Assignments for the Internet: Confronting the Digital Native Myth

Steel — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:13:32 +0000

Author:

Connie M. Steel

Image Credit:

Digital native image found at http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/144-digital_native2...

Brief Assignment Overview:

This peer learning assignment and lesson plan series gives students the opportunity to explore digital composition. It allows students to research container designs for themselves; set up a website or blog; peer-train each other to use the site; develop writing standards for content; and write peer-editing and publishing content. This plan can be adapted equally well to short rhetoric or short literary criticism assignments.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

1) To develop ideas of critical reception in digital formats by asking students to analyze and benchmark websites and blogs

2) To develop standards for on-line writing by having the students generate the writing prompt

3) To access on-line composition technologies by choosing a product capable of meeting their aesthetic goals within their resource limits (i.e. free and within time constraints)

4) To develop research skills by selecting books for review appropriate to the blog theme

5) To develop collaboration and oral argumentation skills through an in-class debate and final selection of aesthetics, technology and writing standards

6) To formulate ideas for logos and arrangement of multiple textual pieces

7) To write a short review essay. (The short reviews become the final product and content for the website).

8) Peer review and copyediting of short essays

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

A computer classroom; or enough laptops that every two students could share

Internet access

Students

An idea for a short writing assignment relevant to course content that would be interesting to potential audiences outside of the class room, such as book reviews on a particular theme, or research summaries on a coherent topic of current interest

Timeline for Optimal Use:

http://womenofsteel.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/34/

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

I designed this series in response to the 'Digital Native' myth. The 'Digital Native' myth goes something like this: today's students grow up surrounded by technology, and therefore, magically know how to use it. But when I surveyed actual students at the beginning of a course "Literature and Artificial Intelligence," I found that the number of students who knew how to compose on the internet was very small. When I showed the aggregated results to the students they noticed immediately a large gender bias in our class--only one of the young women had ever started their own blog. This raised a sort of accessibility issue that we decided to address as a class. Further discussion revealed that instructors tend to set up courseblogs or course websites for students, and then just ask the students to create a login and add the content. Many did not understand the data input side of things well enough to explain it to a peer. The majority of students did not know how or why those containers had been chosen or how to set up a blog of their own, thus indicating a significant barrier to entry for digital composition in spite of access to the relevant hardware. In response to the students' survey results and comments, I expanded the original blog post assignment to include the full range of steps required to get from Step A to Step B in digital composition for the internet. This series was designed for a computer lab classroom (I have done similar things with a series of reservations for a computer lab).

This is a series of in class workshops and take home assignments. The entire class functions together as a collective to produce a single website with a common theme composed of multiple short essays. These are the skeletons of the prompts I used to guide the students through the process of selecting a container, developing standards, writing, editing and publishing content.

TAKE HOME ASSIGNMENT #1—Selecting Texts Prompt

As a take home assignment, I asked students to post three suggestions (each) for texts to review on the website we would build. The idea here was that the texts selected might influence the overall aesthetic choices. The stories needed to fit the course theme of science fiction involving artificial intelligence with the added dimension of a female author as we found a shortage of information about female science fiction writers on the internet. Here’s the discussion board prompt:

“List three stories by giving MLA citations for the copies you find (on Amazon, at the PCL, your local bookstore, etc). If someone else checked them out of the library, recall them now! If we don’t own the book/story, use Inter-Library Loan to request a copy from another university.”

Then we whittled down

WORKSHOP #1—Brainstorming and Benchmarking Writing Standards and Technologies

In order to accomplish the next goal the class was divided into four teams representing different types of decision making steps. Each team is giving a specific task building towards decisions that will effect the writing of the whole class. The instructor should leave some time at the beginning and end of class for discussion and should check in with each team to make sure they understand their job and how their job fits in with the other jobs.

Technology Selection Team: This team consists of students with prior web/blog/wiki experience. It is this teams job to compare notes on the usability of programs they have used and come up with their top recommendations for the class. (Tumbler and Word Press are favorites).

Aesthetics Team: This team's job is to identify sites that do similar types of work and look appealing. What might be the technical challenges of making something similar? They come up with a list of sites and narrow it down to their favorite four to show the class.

Writing Standards Team: This team is given the task of developing standards for content. In this case the students benchmarked the genre elements in a graduate level E3W Review of Books and adapted them to a shorter on-line format. Students should think about word limits (discourage anything longer than 500 words) and types of questions they want answered in the review, and think about things like pictures.

Managing Editor Team: This small team (two students is fine) compiles, polishes, organizes and removes the duplicates from the lists of books in the discussion forum. At the end of class, final decisions are made as to who will read and review which texts. Everybody commits.

HOMEWORK #2—Find and begin reading your story

Prompt: “This past week you were supposed to find and start reading the text you will review for our blog/wiki on Women and Science Fiction. BRING YOUR STORY TO CLASS on X Date! If it is something you are accessing through EEBO or other on-line source PRINT the cover/title page and the way to access it (website/database) onto a sheet or two of paper and bring that to use. Come to class ON-TIME and ready to do some creative workshopping.”

GAP CLASS—Schedule a day for something else while you give students the time to find/buy/read their books.

WORKSHOP #2—Caucusing and Decision Making

First half of class:

1) At the beginning of class students turn their books and book covers over to the General Editing Team. The Gen-Ed Team gets a delegate each from the Tech and Aesthetics teams to come up with two creative ways to organize texts in the on-line exhibit. (Total of four people). They will present these to the rest of the class.

2) The Tech and Aesthetics Teams caucus to figure out which of their favorite aesthetics are ones that are technologically feasible. They will come up with their best two options to show the class.

3) The Writing Standards Team meets with the professor to publish a handout with their content requirements. This will be distributed at the end of class.

Second half of class:

1) Managing Editor Team presents the final list of books.

2) Tech and Aesthetics teams present their recommendations.

3) Voting on container choices.

4) The Writing Standards team explains the content requirements prompt.

5) Final Decisions are posted as a plan on the discussion board (by the professor) for students to refer to at home and in the next workshop.

HOMEWORK #3—Short Content Writing Assignment

Students write their content using the standards developed as their prompt. They are asked to bring their work to class in electronic format (we used Word).

WORKSHOP #3—Peer Review and Content Building

1) Students read and peer review each other’s content. (This could also be a homework assignment).

2) Students copyedit and correct their work.

3) The tech team peer trains everybody to upload their content. People who "get it" first become peer trainers for the person next to them.

4) Uploading and final proof reading.

5) Troubleshooting. More troubleshooting.

FINAL SHOWCASE

Some students may need to take their time with the content upload. Give them the chance to finish their upload and editing during office hours or for homework. The instructor can review the site for typos or you can leave the remaining mistakes. Extra credit opportunities can be offered for students to add bells and whistles to the site, or for submitting an extra writing assignment.

At the beginning of the next class show off the final product and give the students a chance to discuss what they learned. A fun follow-up is to ask everyone to publicize the site by posting it on their social networking accounts (like Facebook, Twitter or their own blogs). Follow up in a later class by reporting the number of hits.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment/lesson plan requires clear communication with the students, and a certain amount of patience with utter chaos. By that I mean, the students did all the things I would normally do for them, like picking the website technology and designing the prompt, and I had to stand back and let them take control. Basically, my main job was to keep the teams communicating, to keep them aware of how their jobs fit into the bigger picture, and to help them figure out how to do things without micromanaging. This meant letting them make and learn from minor productive mistakes. There were a couple of challenges, which are described below.

Instructions For Students:

The series of steps are listed above in the Assignments section. Assignments and content can be flexibly adapted to course themes. The in-class workshops were designed for a 1 hour 15 minute class format. When lesson planning, it is important to include time for explaining tasks clearly to students and for getting their feedback at the end of class sessions. This time could vary quite a bit depending on the size of the class, the experience level of the students, and how well they have bonded as a group. I save this type of series for the end of the semester when students already have experience with writing, editing and conducting peer review. This assignment builds off those skills and teaches them new ones.

Evaluation Suggestions:

GRADING

This is a multi-piece project, so I split the grading into smaller chunks, which could be adapted to a variety of syllabi. This also encouraged class attendance.

1) Homework grade for the discussion post listing book choices (credit/no credit--went into the homework grade built into my syllabus)

2) Quiz grade for bringing books to class so that the general editors for workshop number 2. (Pass/Fail--went into the reading quizzes part of my syllabus)

3) Writing assignment for content, and upload completion—Students were given a letter grade. The writing assignment was worth 10% of the syllabus total.

4) Peer review quiz credit for editing during the third workshop. (Pass/fail quiz grade).

5) A small extra credit bonus was given for the “best peer editing team.” This was awarded to the peer editing pair that had the fewest number of copyediting mistakes in their final blog entries.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The students chose to make a wordpress site. The following is a representative entry of the work they produced.

Their target audience was potential high school and lower division college instructors looking for science fiction texts for their courses. They decided each entry should include an image; a quote reflecting the author's writing style; a brief gloss of plot, genre, and themes; and an indication of the relative reading difficulty, along with pricing information. Two of the students were radio/television/film majors and the class decided it was OK if they reviewed science fiction films by women directors. Tagging and navigationals levels were added to reflect time periods, genres, theme and popular media. One challenge occurred when it was discoverd that the blog's default is to list entries by the date of upload. This wasn't a useful navigational feature but the students discovered it after they had already committed to their container theme. Another challenge appeared with the image uploads. Some of the book cover images load exactly as they are supposed to and others don't (in spite of a uniform training session). Overall, they did a nice job with the content and peer editing. The feedback from the students was that their overall confidence in trying to build a website or blog on their own had increased with knowing the types of decisionmaking steps to make, and their overall ability to explain what they were doing to a peer increased.

The site has since become the target for trolls. As a consequence there are some random unauthorized entries dating after May in the blog. A blog's flexibility for multiple users is an advantage, but sometimes older static website designs have better security. So, that's something to think about.

Additional Resources:

They needed to read books to complete this assignment.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

This lesson plan was developed for a writing intensive sophomore level course designated as "introduction to the major/introduction to literary methods." The course variant was titled "Literature and Artificial Intelligence." Course content bridged the canons of English and Artificial Intelligence with a selection of science fiction, philosophy, literary criticism and scienctific essays. In the second half of the semester, students were asked to build a website featuring book reviews for relevent science fiction stories by women authors. Their potential audience was instructors in high school and lower division college courses.

Tags:

Using Juxta to Compare Editions

nhgray — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:47:08 +0000

Author:

Nicole Gray

Image Credit:

Image by Seth Sawyers on sidewalk flying (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sidewalk_flying/5124506505/).

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan prompts students to use Juxta (collation software) to compare different witnesses or instances of a text. Students compare multiple versions of a literary work, locating revisions in order to discuss word choice and textual instabilities. Most useful for literary works with full-text editions available online.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Creative Commons

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is intended to get students thinking about revision, or how changes to literary texts get incorporated into different editions over time.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Technology based classroom

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Juxta is open source collation software developed by NINES (based at UVA) that allows the user to compare multiple versions of a text. There are several visualization options that can assist in the process, including a parallel display, which sets two or more witnesses next to each other and tracks the changes between them, and a histogram of edits over the course of the entire document.

Edits made to literary texts by authors can be interesting in a number of different contexts, demonstrating evolution of the text and the author’s (and publisher’s) ideas and constructions over time. It’s particularly interesting for the Banned Books course to think about whether some such edits might be responses to conditions of censorship and protest that affect particular works. But this is also an exercise that encourages close reading, particularly when applied to a piece of poetry that goes through multiple revisions, because changes at single-word and punctuation level can prompt discussions of the meaning of, for instance, dashes versus ellipses, the role of publishers and printers in the revision process, and so forth.

In preparation for a close reading assignment on Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” I considered having students use Juxta to compare two sections of the poem from different editions. Whitman published several editions of Leaves of Grass over the course of the nineteenth century, and the poem changed drastically from the first (1855) to the final (1891-2) edition.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

It might be useful, if doing this in class, to select a passage in advance that has substantive or interesting revisions likely to prompt good discussion.

A bit of experimentation with Juxta also is in order. Juxta Commons I think is in testing phase, and should be rolled out soon – this version would be easier, because it doesn’t require download. Students will need to create accounts and copy and paste the text of the documents they are comparing into the "Sources" box. These documents can then be made into "Witnesses," and then compared as a "Comparison Set." The Comparison Set can be shared or not, as the user desires.

Until Juxta Commons is available, students can download Juxta as a standalone desktop application at www.juxtasoftware.org, so if this is the route you take, it might be worth making sure the software can be downloaded on local machines.

Instructions For Students:

Go to www.juxtasoftware.org.
Select “Download” on the left, and select the appropriate operating system.
Find two versions of your assigned text online to compare, and copy and paste or type them into two separate plain text documents (NOTE: don’t use Word for this – any plain text editor like NoteTab will do.)
Save each version in a separate document with a unique name (for instance, Song_of_Myself_1855_Section_7).
In Juxta, select “Add Document” (the +) from the shortcut menu, and add both documents to the list.
Select one of the documents, and then in the screen at the right, select “Comparison View.” This should show you both documents side by side, with the differences highlighted. You can see the highlights in each document individually in “Collation View.”
You can see a visualization of the changes in the document over time in the “Histogram.”
Write down a few sentences describing what you have found. What kinds of changes can you identify between these two editions? Select one or two changes that seem most significant to you. What is the effect of these changes on the poem?
Be prepared to discuss your answers.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Instructors can assess this activity in a few ways: by calling on individual students to provide and explain their responses, by having students incorporate comparisons into their papers, or by making this a more formal written assignment that can be collected.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I didn’t try this with Juxta yet, but I did have my students do a collation by hand across three versions – manuscript, periodical, and Leaves of Grass – of Whitman’s “The Dalliance of the Eagles,” one of the poems challenged by officials in the late nineteenth century. It worked surprisingly well. They were excited to find differences, and interested to talk about what they might mean. In the case of “Dalliance,” the manuscript version is very different from the Leaves of Grass version, while the periodical version only has a few small changes, so it was useful to consider the importance of word and punctuation choice and the different scales of revision. It seems like Juxta-based comparisons of different versions of “Song of Myself” or any other text with multiple variants could open up a way to talk about revision, textual instability, punctuation-level edits, and outside influences (printer, publisher, censor, &c), and Juxta’s clear indication of differences and multiple-panel displays would have been handy to put up on the screen.

Course Type:

Course Description:

This section of Banned Books introduces students to literary analysis and takes a look at books that have been challenged, edited, or banned over the past two centuries in the U.S.

Tags:

Creating OED Word Constellations

Roberts — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:53:24 +0000

Author:

Michael Roberts

Image Credit:

Magnifying Glass by chrisjohnbeckett on flickr

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this assignment students use the Oxford English Dictionary to make individual mindmaps of the multiple definitions of related words, then the class together creates a constellation of meanings surrounding a seemingly simple topic that becomes more and more complex.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Commonplaces

Invention

Kairos

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The main goal of this exercise is to get students familiar with using the OED, and to increase their awareness of the multiple overlapping meanings of words. The secondary goal is to get the students thinking complexly about a seemingly simple concept through an elaboration of the many words associated with that concept. The more they describe and map the intersections relating to a concept, the more complex the concept becomes.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Computer classroom, access to the OED.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

http://www.mindmeister.com/

Full Assignment Description:

I ran this assignment in my class on the literature of disgust, so we began the assignment right after a reading from a book about the sociology and anthropology of disgust, early in the semester. In general, though, I think this would be best assigned after any reading about one particular concept or word.

At the beginning of class, we began with a discussion of the definition of the word in question (in this case disgust). As a part of this discussion we developed, as a class, a list of synonyms and related words and concepts. I had already prepared a list at home and made sure we got most of the words I thought would be most useful; many of these words also came from the reading. For example, for disgust we also came up with: gross, horror, sloth, terror, fear, loathe/loathing, hate/hatred, nausea, etc. Using the overhead, I then led the class through the basic uses of the OED, using disgust as the example. We talked about the various historical meanings of the word, how you can find examples, and how the different meanings might be in conflict or otherwise related to each other. The opening discussion took about 10 minutes, and the following demo/discussion took about 10 more.

I then split the class into pairs and assigned each a different word from our synonyms list. I showed them the mindmeister mindmapping website, and told the class that they should research their words and each create a mindmap explaining its multiple meanings, being sure to historicize each definition and include the relationship to disgust. The class did this for about 15-20 minutes. We then reconvened and went around the room, with each pair showing and explaining their map to the class. Finally I imported the different maps and created one larger constellation, all related to the one central word. This took the rest of the class.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

It is best to have a relatively full list of words prepared that would be fruitful for the students to research. This means looking up the suggested related words beforehand on the OED. Also come to class with a general idea on how the words might be related or overlap.

Instructions For Students:

Using the OED and mindmeister.com, create a mindmap for your selected word, linking its multiple meanings and explaining their relationships to each other. Be sure to historicize each definition and give examples of its use. Also be sure to relate the meanings to our central word; please use your own words and do not copy/paste. We will later combine these mindmaps to create a larger meaning constellation relating to our central concept; keep that in mind. You have 20 minutes to complete your map with your partner.

Evaluation Suggestions:

This is a research exercise, and doesn't require any explicit participation. The goal is to get the students familiar with the dictionary as well as the multiple meanings of words, so it is best to keep things informal and fun.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

In general this went pretty well, and the students had fun. I think a large portion of the fun came from us "investigating" such fun/gruesome topics, and words that had interesting backgrounds, so I would suggest doing the research before to make sure the assignment goes well. In general, though, I would definitely use this assignment again.

Additional Resources:

Course Type:

Oxford English Dictionary

Course Description:

This course was for E314: Banned Books, but could be used in any literature course that emphasizes a historical/complex understanding of key words and teaches the OED

Tags:

OED

Mindmap

Research

Literature

Generating Consensus on Textual Interpretation Through Circulating Critique

OyP — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:28:09 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This exercise has groups of three students answer questions about an assigned reading; read and revise other groups' answers; consider other groups' revisions of their first answer; and revise their first answer--all in preparation for class discussion.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

No Classroom Technology Required

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rigorous and accurate reading is at the heart of this exercise: it is designed to argue to students that not all readings are correct and some are better than others. The goals are to get students to read closely and to use textual evidence to support their answers. Having each group critique (or agree with) each other's answers raises the stakes enough to make the students try in earnest; putting the students in groups of three reduces the fear of offending that often prevents productive peer review. Discussion is used to bring the students into concurrence and a sense of certainty, two things often lacking in humanistic discussion, which I believe often leaves undergraduate students feeling like texts mean anything at all, which is to say nothing.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

An assigned reading and loose-leaf paper

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The exercise has students break up into groups of three (a magic number for discussion purposes). The groups answer three questions about the reading (see "Instructions for Students"), writing down their answers on paper. Each group passes the paper to the next group. This group considers the other group's answers: any one they agree with in its entirety they place a check mark next to. If they think something needs changing, they revise the original sentence in a space provided on the sheet. If they think the answer is wrong, they place an X next to the answer and, in the provided space, explain why they think the answer is incorrect. Then they hand the sheet to the next group and repeat the process. Each group criticizes the original answers, but they can also see other groups’ work. This generates consensus or disagreement. At the end of the exercise, the groups pass back the sheets until they get back their original answers. They then consider the other groups’ responses: Did they get check marks? Were there revisions? Did they get X’s? They then have a chance to revise their original answers. Now they are prepared for discussion: I ask one student the first question. Heads nod in all directions and hands start to go up; there is consensus and even side-taking, because each person now has a strong idea of their own answers. The discussion after this exercise was the best I have witnessed in my short experience as a teacher.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The success I experienced was likely due to asking the right questions. We were reading John Ruskin’s “Of the Pathetic Fallacy,” which suits itself well to three very straightforward questions: 1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin? 2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?) 3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?) There are better and worse answers to these questions, perhaps even right and wrong answers, and that is key, because it gives the students a stake in their responses. Select a text and write questions that students feel they can answer with some degree of correctness and comprehensiveness.

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for Students:

Part I. In your group, answer the three questions after discussing it with one another. Record your answers in the space below and then hand the sheet to the group on your right.

1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin?

2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?)

3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?)

Part II. Read the answers from the other group. Are they different than yours? If you agree with one of their answers and believe its entirely comprehensive, please place a check mark in the left margin next to the answer. If you think its missing or wrong about something, rewrite their sentence in the space below, indicating which sentence you're rewriting by numbering it accordingly. If you think the sentence is incorrect, please place an X in the left margin next to the sentence and explain below why you think the sentence is incorrect. Once you're finished, pass the sheet to the right and repeat Part II for the original group's answers.

Evaluation Suggestions:

If you evaluate what students are saying as they discuss, you can know whom to ask to get discussion started on the strongest possible foot. Evaluation is written into this assignment, since each group is evaluating the answers of the others to complete each pass. I believe this is why making small groups works well, since individuals are often more shy to criticize than groups. This exercise generates some team spirit. Since I use the exercise to generate classroom discussion, I don’t give it a grade.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise, although very simple, holds several advantages. When it came time for discussion, I asked a student I’d been listening in on to answer the first question, "What is the Pathetic Fallacy?” Her response was concise and strong; I was satisfied. But two other students added nuances in Ruskin's text they found when critiquing other groups' answers. The first question took care of the second. Then I asked the third question (to a different student), and again the student provided a superior answer, which also tied in a previous comment from a different student. I think we all left class feeling like we were sure what Ruskin means by the “Pathetic Fallacy,” why he thinks it is a fallacy, and why he believes we pity a person making it. To emerge from discussion with clarity like this is very rare in my experience.

Additional Resources:

Another advantage of this exercise is that it requires very few resources.

Course Type:

Course Description:

E314J: Psychology and Literature::

This course explores key literary and psychological works in which the two fields become deeply indebted to one another. The course is designed with both English majors and non-English majors in mind. The skills it focuses on help students succeed in upper-division courses in many majors across campus, including English. These skills include close analytic reading and critical writing, as well as methods for understanding texts in their formal, historical, and cultural dimensions.

Tags:

Creating Visual Models of Rhetorical Concepts with Adobe Illustrator

detweiler — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:53:10 +0000

Author:

Eric Detweiler

Image Credit:

adapted from Avital Ronell's Stupidity

Brief Assignment Overview:

I’ve often found that writing about rhetorical concepts and theories only takes students so far. This assignment allows students to create concrete visual representations of concepts and theories in order to approach and think through them in a different manner.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Invention

Visual Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To help students consider how rhetoric and particular rhetorical concepts function in another medium. A way to move conceptualization, at least momentarily, out of the written word and into a more visual medium designed to complement/supplement/interrupt students implicit or unthought assumptions about rhetorical concepts and theories. Also to familiarize students with the interface of one of Adobe’s increasingly ubiquitous design and production softwares.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Student computers with Adobe Illustrator installed. (Alternatives: more basic image creation programs like Microsoft Paint, or drawing utensils and paper.)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

In the course, I assigned a number of theoretical readings about how irony functions (selections from Soren Kierkegaard, Wayne Booth, and Stanley Fish, among others). The second paper of the semester requires students to apply one of those readings’ theories to a piece of ironic discourse. One student’s paper incorporated and drew heavily on a visual model of irony from Booth’s A Rhetoric of Irony. Having the model at his disposal really seemed to help the student grasp and challenge Booth’s concept of irony as it applied to the assignment at hand. For subsequent iterations of the class, then, I decided to have students mock up their own visual models of irony. I give some advance notice, telling students a class period in advance that they’ll be responsible for creating a Booth-esque model of irony, and ask them to bring a hand-drawn or lo-fi digital mock-up to our next class meeting. I spend little time offering any sort of tutorial on Adobe Illustrator (which I chose for its breadth and relative popularity), as there are a great number of good ones online. Having students search for and locate useful web tutorials can itself be a good sub-lesson. On the day of the actual assignment, I show them where to find the program on their computers and let them have at it for roughly an hour. I mostly circulate, troubleshooting particular issues and questions as they arise. Students are required to turn their models in with their final versions of the paper assignment referenced above—roughly a week after the in-class Illustrator workshop. We revisit these models at the end of the semester as a way of thinking how students’ concept of irony has changed or gotten more complicated as the course has progressed.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Familiarize yourself with Illustrator (or whatever program you plan to use). You don’t need to know it thoroughly, as the models need not be more than shapes, arrows, and labels. I prefer to over-prepare when it comes to technology, however. Adobe has some tutorials available on their site. Also, notify your students a day in advance, as mentioned above. Learning the software is a useful and substantial challenge, and it’s easier if they’ve done some of the conceptual work of drafting the model in advance. That way they can practice “illustrating” with something concrete.

Instructions For Students:

The day before the assignment: We’ve discussed and applied Booth’s model of irony in class. To help you approach irony in a different medium than writing, you’re going to be responsible for crafting your own visual model of irony. You can use Booth’s as a starting point, but should not just copy it. Try to think of this in relation to your second paper: Even if you’re using Booth as your theorist, in what ways does the text you’re analyzing complicate or twist his model? If you’re using Stanley Fish as your theorist, how might what he sees as the “foundation” of irony differ from what serves as the foundation for Booth’s model. Bring a rough sketch (hand-drawn or computer-generated is fine) with you to our next class meeting. Next time, you’ll be using Adobe Illustrator, which is installed on the lab computers, to flesh out your models. If you are familiar with Illustrator, you can use it to mock up your rough draft. You will have an hour to work on it next time, however, so leave yourself something to do, and potentially be prepared to help out your classmates.

Day of: [after showing students where to locate Illustrator] You have an hour to work on these today. There are plenty of tutorials online, so feel free to search for them, or ask me or one of your classmates who’s familiar with Illustrator, if you need help. Your models are due with your final draft of paper 2. Save them as jpgs, gifs, or pngs and upload them to the appropriate folder on our course wiki [I prefer digital to hard copies in most cases]. If you need additional time, remember that PAR 102 [another computer lab with Illustrator] is available to you. Have at it.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use The Learning Record, so this assignment isn’t evaluated in and of itself. If you wanted to grade it in isolation, the cogency and aptness of the model is certainly a consideration, as is the facility the student demonstrates with Illustrator. Balancing between those two would depend on your pedagogical purposes. In my case, I let students reflect on their model in conjunction with their papers, thinking about what approaching irony visually added to how they wrote about it and vice versa. I expect students will prefer one over the other to varying degrees for various reasons, and I’d rather put the focus on reflection than on the specific object they create, especially since we return to the models as a point of discussion much later in the course.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I’ve been a bit disingenuous in using the past tense above, as I will actually be piloting this assignment in a couple of weeks. Feel free to contact me for after-the-fact details.

Additional Resources:

The Adobe tutorials also linked to above: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?l=-1&o=desc&cat=212&event=producthome&s=5&exc=17
Google or another search engine

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 309K: A writing course focused on stuying and practicing methods of rhetorical analysis within the contexts of disputed issues of academic, political, or cultural significance. My particular course was entitled "Rhetoric of Irony" and looked specifically at the ways irony and its satellite concepts function in political and popular discourse.

Tags:

Mapping Poetic Word Choice to Discover Literary Themes

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:45:03 +0000

Author:

Dustin D. Stewart

Image Credit:

"Magnetic Poetry" via surrealmuse's Flikr stream

Brief Assignment Overview:

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Poetry

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Presentations

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Research

Organization/Arrangement

Close reading

Assessment of literary themes

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

In-class computers (optimal but not strictly necessary)

NovaMind Pro (or one of several freeware alternatives)

Student access to a web browser and a printer

Document camera and/or computer-linked projector for sharing results (again, optimal but not necessary)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

The assignment allows students to discuss their literary close-reading essays with each other, while also attempting to coordinate those close-readings with larger thematic issues discussed in class. The idea is to use individual words to learn more about global concerns in a literary text. In my case, the text was John Milton's Paradise Lost, and the activity asked students to use mind-mapping and word-cloud tools.

Each student has written a formal close-reading essay that focuses on a particular keyword in a passage from John Milton's Paradise Lost. Using a computer-connected projector or a document camera (a chalkboard will also suffice), the class creates a list of all the words used in their formal essays. (This should require no more than 5-10 minutes.)

Then, students are divided into smaller groups. Each group is assigned to articulate between three and five large thematic questions that preoccupy Milton's poem. The questions should emerge both from their independent reading and from our shared in-class discussion. (This will take some time, perhaps 10-15 minutes.)

Next, students are asked to arrange the listed keywords under the question(s) that best suits each term. They must coordinate the small-scale focus of their close-readings with the major themes prevalent in the poem. How does the local (an individual word) fit within the global (a big thematic question)? (This is the crux of the activity and requires the most time, probably 20-30 minutes.)

My class used NovaMind Pro mind-mapping software for this activity. Working at an in-class computer, groups of 3-4 students mapped the major questions around the title of the epic poem. Then, branching off of each such question, they listed the keywords relevant to it. Then, as time allowed, they used other features of the software to write short notes explaining why they located each keyword where they did.

As homework for the next class, to continue this emphasis on individual words (but to shift it to considering students' own writing practice), I asked students to use Wordle to create a word-cloud of their own close-reading essays. They brought the results to class and showed them to one another. We then discussed what the word-clouds revealed. Which words were larger than expected? Which were smaller or nonexistent? What can these findings tell us about what our writing is emphasizing (as against what we think it's emphasizing)? (This conversation took up around 20 minutes at the front end of my next class session.)

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Given the reliance on a former assignment (the close-reading essay), this particular version of the assignment will require some advance planning/integration into the course schedule. Additionally, you will want to familiarize yourself with the available mapping technologies.

Instructions For Students:

[Class's list of at least 15 keywords, presented on a projector screen, would appear here.]

Write out at least three or four of the major thematic questions that Milton raises in Paradise Lost. Then use these words (as many of them as possible) as ways to illustrate or to answer the different questions. Think of the questions as umbrellas under which you can place the different words.

Once you're ready, log into a workstation (one per group), and I'll come around and show you how to begin in NovaMind Pro.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I evaluated students' work on this task on a credit/no-credit scheme. I awarded credit on the basis of participation and completion, which thus required students' attendance and involvement over two consecutive class meetings.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students seemed very engaged with the assignment, which provided an opportunity for coordinating out-of-class writing with in-class discussion. They also responded positively to the group dynamics required to complete the task.

As so often, I didn't allocate enough time to the mind-mapping activity. Rather than give it half a Tuesday/Thursday session (as I did this time), next time I will apportion the majority of a class session for this exercise.

Additional Resources:

Here is an example of what one of these might look like:

Milton-Mindmap.jpg

Course Type:

Course Description:

E 314L (Honors): Reading Poetry. Topic: Origins after Milton. “A good book,” wrote John Milton, “is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life.” Many poets have come to see Milton himself as a daunting master spirit. Indeed, Milton has inspired an entire tradition of criticism that sees all poetry as caught up in the quest to conquer one’s forebears. This honors section of E 314L: Reading Poetry will explore the kind of mastery poets (and also critics of poetry) try to attain by preceding their predecessors. Designed for potential English majors who are involved in Plan I Honors, the course will begin with Milton’s Paradise Lost. We will consider the work as experimental poetry, meant to contribute to an epic tradition by predating it. Even though he arrives later, Milton wants to come first.

The class will then trace this paradoxical struggle for primacy--pressing farther ahead by reaching further back--through a variety of experimental verse written over several centuries. British poetry will be central, but we will also look at some American and (in translation) European and Asian poems. Readings will move from Milton to antiquarian and spiritualist poetry of the 18th century, then to Romantic and Victorian originalism of the 19th. (This last group will allow us to consider connections between Darwin and poetry.) The course will culminate in 20th-century modernist poems, particularly canonical works by Eliot, Pound, and Stein.

We will read primary poetic texts carefully, cultivating sensitivity to their formal features. We will also enlarge our vision by examining works through such critical lenses as those provided by feminism, psychoanalysis, New Historicism, and theology. Secondary readings will be extensive and ambitious for this honors class, as will be our efforts to place each work in its historical context. Also distinctive about the honors section are its expectations for student research. Enrollees will learn to use electronic tools like the OED, the MLA Bibliography, and the DNB, as well as databases such as ECCO, C-19, and LION. These tools will help students to fulfill the course’s writing requirements and will prepare them for further study in the field of English.

Tags:

Editing Poetry: Manuscript to Printed Page

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:01:38 +0000

Author:

Frederick Heard

Image Credit:

"Metallic Ballpen Tips" via photosteve101's Flikr stream

Brief Assignment Overview:

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Cultural Context

Poetry

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimodal

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Generating an awareness of bibliographic/textual concerns and raising questions about the physical status of books. Thinking about the material conditions of a work’s production and circulation. Questioning received texts in anthologies and elsewhere and complicating the students’ perception of “authorship.”

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

Photocopies of a poem from a facsimile edition of Dickenson (I used “I taste a liquor never brewed” from R. W. Franklin’s facsimile edition).

Several printed editions of the same poem. I chose a poem that was included in the students’ anthology and also brought reading editions by Thomas H. Johnson and R. W. Franklin. I looked up several decidedly non-scholarly versions online to round out the possible manifestations of the poem.

Student access to computers (this could be accomplished with students bringing in their own laptops if not working in a technology-based classroom)

Document camera.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Students work on transcribing an Emily Dickenson poem from manuscript form into print. Their transcriptions are then compared with each other and with several printed editions of the same poem and used as exemplary material for discussing editorial decisions ranging from choice of words, letters and punctuation to use of alternate lines, footnotes, etc.

Because Dickenson presents a somewhat extreme example of editorial intervention (few of her poems were published in her lifetime, so most of her poems have no authorized transcription), her poems offer a prime opportunity for introducing students to the impact of editorial and publication decisions on the poems they read. This activity places those decisions in the hands of the students and forces them to think both explicitly and pragmatically about what decisions have to be made to move a manuscript into printed form and what factors influence those decisions.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I used this assignment on our second day reading Dickinson because I wanted the students to rethink the supposed familiarity with the text of the poem. I did not assign the poem I had them transcribe because I did not want them to have easy recourse to the edition in their book.

After a brief discussion of Dickinson’s composition and publication history, I told the students to close their anthologies and take one copy of the manuscript facsimile. When everyone had a copy, I divided the room into small groups (about three students each) and asked them to log into one computer per group and begin working on their own “print” editions of the poem. I gave the students about 25-30 minutes to work on their editions of the poem. Some groups finished slightly earlier, but one or two groups were rushed and had to leave some words as blanks. Since I was already going to use the document camera, I had each group print out a copy of their edition on the in-class printer (email or the “teacher folder” could also be used).

After collecting the several classroom-editions of the poem, I placed them one at a time on the document camera and had the group read their version of the poem and discuss the decisions they made about capitalization, line breaks, punctuation (including dashes). Each group took 3-5 minutes for a total of 15-20 minutes.

After looking at the students’ editions, I put the different printed editions of the poem on the doc cam and had student’s note the differences between them and their own versions. It is important to have printed versions that differ from each other so students don’t see the differences between their copies and the printed copies as definitively authoritative. We also looked at a couple of websites that host the poem.

After discussing some major differences in copy texts—treatment of alternate lines, use of footnotes, etc.—we discussed how the facsimile, their required textbook anthology, the different “Collected Poems” and the free-floating online editions vary in their broader presentation of the poem (Do they present their version as the final word? Do they acknowledge other versions? Are they aware of and do they acknowledge their editorial contributions? Do they make Dickinson’s poem look like a typical 19th century edition of poetry? If not, how do they translate the strangeness of the manuscript page into print? etc.).

Instructions For Students:

Take a copy of Dickinson’s manuscript and, without referencing your anthology or any online sources, transcribe this poem into ‘printed form’ in a word processor. Make your final edition of the poem look how you would make it appear if you were editing a book of her poetry. If you get stuck in one place, move on to an easier passage and come back to it later. Many difficult words/passages will be clearer when you have established some context. This should take about 30 minutes.

Evaluation Suggestions:

There were no grades assigned for the exercise beyond normal class participation.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The students enjoyed the hands-on process of transcription. I was worried about time constraints and ended up rushing them in that process more than I would like, so I may let them work for longer next time. If I give them more time, I will actively push the groups that finish earlier to go into more depth with their treatment of alternate lines, footnotes, etc. Some of the students didn’t see the editorial differences as very significant or meaningful, so, if I had more time to work on the assignment, I might expand the latter half to build close readings around alternate versions and see more explicitly how the editorial decisions affect the poem’s meaning. Alternately, I will adjust my expectations and remember that this is an introduction, not a conclusion, to textual problems that we will discuss through the length of the semester.

Additional Resources:

A brief critical reading about editorial practice might be useful as a lead-in or a follow-up for the exercise.

Course Type: