DWRL Lesson Plans - Revision

Literary Studies Course

Exercises in Style

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

Author:

Jeffrey Boruszak

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:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Remix

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

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:

Tags:

Peer-to-Peer Review

Cowan — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:10:19 +0000

Author:

Jake Cowan

Image Credit:

Nic McPhee

Brief Assignment Overview:

When revising a paper, a second pair of eyes is always useful. But who says those have to be human eyes? By utilizing a range of peer review technologies, your students get to play teacher for each other — and for themselves.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotation

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

No Classroom Technology Required

Multimedia

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

This plan lasts for multiple class periods and uses a number of different, though readily accessible, technologies. At different points, the students will need to: (1) Bring hardcopy versions of a paper they’ve written into class; (2) Have at-home access to virtual classroom technology like Canvas or Blackboard; (3) Have a set-up a personal account for a class-associated blog. While none of the particular lesson plans require classroom technology, students will need to have regular access to the Internet to fully participate.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

There are a lot of reasons that peer review can be helpful, for students and for their instructor both, not least of which is the way that peer review can shift responsibility for stronger, sharper writing from a vertical and hierarchical model to a more horizontal and democratic one. This set of assignments allows students to not only participate in and benefit from peer review exercises, but begin to think critically about the value and process of social revision while increasing their skill set with digital technology. What follows are instructions for peer review for three different papers, which could be written back-to-back or spread across an entire semester. By no means do the papers need to be of any particular genre (research, advocacy, etc.) or any specific length or even have any particular relationship to one another; rather, what matters for the purposes of this plan is that the writing would benefit from peer review, whether that be in terms of grammar or rhetoric or what have you.

The first peer review exercise is the most traditional: Students should bring in their finished papers the day the essays are due (or perhaps just before). In self-selected pairs or trios, students should pass the papers around, in the margins attempting to answer whatever specific goals the instructor might set, for brief face-to-face discussion at the end of class. These might include:

Correcting any/all mechanical errors
Summarizing the basic argument in 3–4 sentences
Noting the strongest/weakest passage and articulating why it is so strong/weak

In the second exercise, students will utilize the peer review functionality of some virtual classroom software — say, Canvas or Blackboard — to read through and comment on the papers of a couple of their classmates, this time grouped randomly. Such software offer a range of different markup tools, including line-by-line annotations and multicolor highlighters, that suggest a number of inventive possibilities: Perhaps all spelling errors can be highlighted blue and all run-ons red; or, if the students have completed a typical rhetorical analysis, whatever sections deal with pathos might be in green and those with ethos in yellow. The instructor might even encourage students to explore possibilities only afforded by digital technology, such as using reaction gifs at points in the marginalia.
For the final exercise, students will upload an abbreviated version of their paper to a class-associated blog; once every essay is online, students will leave their feedback as comments on (at least two) individual posts. To maintain anonymity while still being able to tell who is who, you might want to allow students to use their initials in place of their actual names — or have a little more fun with it and allow students to create their own username. Leaving specific feedback will no doubt be more difficult at this stage, so the comments will likely be general if left to their own impulses, but for the purposes of experimentation students might be encouraged to devise their own way to note particularly jarring typos or specific points of interest.

Once the whole set of exercises have been explored, the class should discuss the benefits and failures of each type of technology, in effect reviewing their own peer reviewing: Which did they find easiest to use? Which was most helpful?

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Aside from carefully considering and directly stating the peer review goals for each assignment, instructors should themselves be able to help students should they have any questions on how to use the technology — and trust me, they will. Hence it is useful to spend some time in class walking through the functionality of a virtual classroom or how to post a paper directly to a blog. As such, the instructor should have the blog as ready as possible well before the time those papers will be due, so that students have an idea of how their work will look online.

Instructions For Students:

Peer review is most productive when students have explicit goals and questions to strive for and answer. What students should look for and comment on depends, of course, on the type of assignment and the person of the instructor; it might be interesting, however, if the same goals are set for each type of review, so that students have a fuller sense of how the differing technologies affect their ability to read and review, to comment and correct. They might note how the anonymity of a blog sometimes encourages less tactful criticism and fewer line edits — which raises the point that students, when doing peer review, should always be mindful of their classmates’ feelings and respectful of differing opinions or skill levels.

Evaluation Suggestions:

It can be somewhat of a headache to evaluate someone else ability to evaluate, so I would suggest grading on participation or including the peer review as part of a paper’s final grade.

Course Type:

Course Description:

This assignment was originally designed for a class on the rhetoric of the digital divide, and the various peer reviews were spread across an entire semester.

Using Prezi for Outlining Papers

Plourde — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:53:58 +0000

Author:

Aubrey Plourde

Image Credit:

Aubri Plourde

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students will synthesize their own rhetorical analysis with background research on their selected controversies using the visual-spatial format mimicked by Prezi's software.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotated Bibliography

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is a precursor to Essay 2, Rhetorical Analysis. At this point, they have gathered data on the contexts of their controversy, made observations and intepretive claims about their chosen text, and articulated their own opinions. This outlining process is meant to help students who have a particularly hard time with organization or who are strongly visual learners.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Each student needs a computer, but they could also bring in laptops for the same activity in a standard classroom. Each student needs to have an free account with Prezi.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Before class, students were asked to pull out their notes from each source and to write down their thoughts in list-form. I asked students to create Prezi accounts by inviting them with a link.

Students read through their notes, labeling each with a major idea or point of argument as they go. They can have as many labels as they need, but they should be alert to group notes under the same label. For example, a student writing about the US's involvement with Mexico's drug culture might have separate labels for "Military Involvement," "Police Corruption," and "Imports."

Once this task is complete (about fifteen minutes with the size of the paper these students were drafting), ask students were list each of their major categories (these will also signpost topic sentences later).

As a group, log into Prezi and chose basic layouts. The students generally like choosing visually-pleasing platforms. Ask them to spread out the categories they’ve come up with over the space so that each label takes up its own visual area.

Next, ask students to group their notes--which in this case include quotations from sources, their own commentary on their chosen texts, and any synthesis or transition statements--around each of the categories/points of argument. This can take a while if students do not have their notes in digital form, so it may help to ask that they bring in Word documents with their notes typed up. Basically, they will copy/paste their notes around each of the clustered headings.

When students finish, they end up with wide mind-map. Ask them to spend some time resizing. Which categories are most important? Which seem to be floating out there with only one note or so? This is a way for them to visualize the strongest points of their argument, to cut pieces that might seem interesting but aren't pulling their weight, or to recognize where further research could be done at home.

For the rest of class, I asked students then to zoom out of Prezi and to add large numbers next to each category and subcategory. That’s their outline, in visual form. Some of them will probably want to animate the Prezi so that they can see how they will jump from idea to idea, but I will allow mine to keep it two-dimensional, if they choose.

Once they review each of the steps to their analysis (including context and controversy), students should able to see which transition statements topic sentences, and so on would connect each of their points.

The first time I did this exercise, since I wasn't interested in using Prezi for presentation purposes but rather as a freer-form mind-map, I just had students do this labeling visually. But when we finished, I thought I probably should have asked them not to just label the sections with numbers, but actually to then add the presentation steps into the prezi and just gone ahead with presentation. Sort of a writing-workshop in digital form.

Those that prefer to then reverse-outline from the Prezi can do so in Word; those who are okay with only the visual guide can use it while they write their first drafts.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Make sure you are familiar with Prezi's interface, including the zoom in/zoom out functions.

It would also help to have done this exercize personally.

Instructions For Students:

1. Read through every line of your notes. As you do this, label the topic or category of each one. You will probably end up with multiple labels; this is a good thing!

2. Once you've read through all of your notes, including your own analyses, list each of your labels/categories/topics on a separate sheet of paper.

3. Sign in to your Prezi account and choose a new template. You may choose one that thematically matches your analysis or one you just find pretty/elegant/cool-looking.

4. Create new text boxes for each of your labels, spacing them out accross the canvas. Try to make them the same size.

5. Going back to your notes, copy/paste them into the categories you labeled. You should see your notes arranged visually next to their topics. Guess what will become your paragraphs?

6. Spend some time resizing your topics and your notes. Make the more important topics or points larger. Which categories are the most important? Which seem to be floating out there with only one note or so? (This might be an indication that you should do more research).

7. Look through all of your topics, and try to determine an order for them. What kind of logic connects each of these ideas? Do certain clusters of topics/notes have to come before others?

8. Label each cluster of data/analysis with a number. This is your outline. Now that you can see all of your notes at once, you should be able to determine the best order in which to present them.

9. If you want, animate the outline so that Prezi zooms in on each cluster individually, in order. If you'd rather just have the visual, go for it. You may reverse-outline into a more standard form if you prefer, or you may write your first draft using this guide.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I like asking students to screen-shot their Prezi and hand it in with their assignment, but I grade this only on participation.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

It's important to ask students to sign up for Prezi and perhaps even to watch the introductory video before this class; otherwise, you'll end up spending half the class teaching the software.

Course Type:

Course Description:

Rhetoric 306 is a course designed to introduce students to the fundamentals of research and argumentation. They are asked to research a controversy, summarize and analyze the arguments of the major stakeholders in that controversy, and then develop their own arguments.

Tags:

Student Digital Activism as Rhetorical Advocacy/Analysis

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

Author:

Trevor L. Hoag

Image Credit:

Graphic posted on xomariee.wordpress.com

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment challenges students to become digital activists/advocates for a cause of their choosing, and aids them in developing a portfolio of work in the service of that cause.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Textual Analysis

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

This ambitious assignment challenges students to become digital activists/advocates for a cause of their choosing, and aids them in developing a portfolio in the service of that cause. Students begin the class by researching a cause to advocate for such as vegetarianism, marriage equality, or gun rights. Students then produce a series of compelling “media artifacts” for that cause such as social media websites, blog sites or websites, an image or infographic/meme, an “anti-artifact” in the form of information deletion/lockdown, a digital map or timeline, and finally, a collaborative project. Instructors can also ask students to “justify” their artifacts by theoretically analyzing them and by comparing them to other analogous artifacts.

Note: Many other options for artifacts exist such as games, videos, and more.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Not for the faint of heart, instructors who wish to employ this assignment arc must familiarize themselves with a number of different technologies including, for example: Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress, tumblr., Wix, easel.ly, Wordle, quickmeme, Storify, and many other applications. However, instructors should not fear discovering and learning new technologies alongside their students as it encourages a more “horizontal” classroom structure. An instructor who attempts such an assignment will learn much!

Instructions For Students:

In this course on digital writing/humanities, you will become a digital activist in the service of a cause. You will develop a portfolio of work in the service of this cause that you will present at the end of the semester. You are also responsible for theoretically analyzing the “media artifacts” that you create by applying course readings as well as comparing the rhetorical strategies you have employed with other similar (or different) media artifacts.

Step #1: Research a cause to advocate for across the arc of the semester. You have a lot of options, so make sure you care deeply about the cause for which you are advocating. Students in past courses have become digital activists regarding, for instance: body image, disability, cheating in sports, net neutrality, vegetarianism, cyber-bullying, women’s health services, marriage equality, and much more!

Step #2: Once you have an exciting/fulfilling cause to advocate for, you will now begin producing and analyzing “media artifacts” in the service of that cause. In this particular course, you will produce six different types of digital media/humanities writing: a social media website (or sites), a blog site or website, an image or infographic (which can include a series of memes), an “anti-artifact” in which you will delete or lock down information online, a digital map or timeline, and finally, a collaborative project with others in the class. You do not have to have any prior knowledge of the technologies that you employ to develop your artifacts—a big part the assignment is just exploring! So take a look at the following examples, create accounts on whatever sites you think will work best, and go to town!

P.S., It’s a big help to find others in the class who are using similar sites/technologies or advocating for similar causes at any given time. Start collaborating as soon as you can, and you’ll find it eases your classroom tasks immensely!

REMINDER: Every artifact is accompanied by a 1-page theoretical analysis. For example, one might discuss one’s Twitter feed in reference to, say, Denis Campbell’s Egypt Unshackled: Using Social Media to @#:) the System. Likewise, all deletions should engage Viktor Mayer-Schonberger’s Delete: The Virtues of Forgetting in a Digital Age. Analyses are also encouraged to include comparisons/contrastings of rhetorical strategies with other similar artifacts, whether those of student colleagues or “outsiders.”

Artifact A (Social Media—Facebook, Pintrest, Twitter, etc.)

https://www.facebook.com/veggiedc?ref=hl

https://www.facebook.com/NoSpecialTreatmentofReligiousOrganization?ref=hl

http://pinterest.com/pin2891/rhe312/

http://pinterest.com/gendernorms/genders-created-by-society/

https://twitter.com/kidsaresponges

https://twitter.com/ChurchesTax

Artifact B (Blog or Website—tumblr., Wordpress, Blogspot, Jux, Wix, etc.)

http://loverealyou.tumblr.com/

http://lgbtmarriagenow.tumblr.com/

http://fucknoqueerfetishization.wordpress.com/

http://healthstartfoundation.wordpress.com/

https://aforactivism.jux.com/

http://copywritecopy.wix.com/copyrightorwrong

http://getyourkidsoffline.blogspot.com/

Artifact C (Image—easel.ly, quickmeme, Photoshop, Paint, etc.)

http://i.imgur.com/1vX9GVx.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/92675/Drugusage/image.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/94299/Queerfetishization/image.jpg

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t8ws8/

http://www.wordle.net/

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/analytics/manyeyes/

Artifact D (Deletion)

Note: The deletion is in some ways the hardest artifact to produce. Essentially, your goal is to “become-imperceptible” by removing yourself from the Web, or by blocking access to content that’s related to you and/or your cause. You can also find a website or application to analyze that “deletes” something for you. Be creative and try your best! (See also: http://lessonplans.dwrl.utexas.edu/content/becoming-imperceptible-or-how-disappear-completely)

https://duckduckgo.com/

http://suicidemachine.org/

Artifact E (Map or Timeline—Google Maps, Text2MindMap, Storify, Zeega, Tiki-toki, ManyEyes, Wordle, etc.)

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=210792301150685076515.0004d98cf1fb8dcdd07a1&msa=0

http://www.text2mindmap.com/vBL47F

http://storify.com/Dopeandsports/drug-enhancement-in-professional-sports

http://storify.com/ryleegonzalez/queer-fetishization-and-gay-marriage

http://storify.com/dawn1/women-s-sports-uniforms-across-time

http://zeega.com/103969

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/115265/Idiot-Nerd-Girl-Meme/#vars!date=2012-01-04_21:28:09!

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/analytics/manyeyes/

Artifact F (Collaboration)

Note: The collaborative artifact can be approached in a couple different ways. One is to use a familiar technology but in tandem with others. Another is to find a wholly new technology and try it out. It’s up to your group—what matters is that you’re writing and advocating/analyzing with others!

http://i.imgur.com/kCTt3xF.jpg

https://twitter.com/kidsaresponges

Other (Video, Reddit, etc.)

http://vimeo.com/63134670

http://www.reddit.com/r/occupyaustin/

Step #3: Now that you have produced a series of sophisticated media artifacts (that is, various forms of digital media/humanities writing), it’s time to show off your work to your classmates in the form of a presentation. Keep in mind that this presentation isn’t merely show-and-tell, but yet another opportunity to rhetorically advocate for your cause. Aim to persuade!

Note: Your instructor will be extra impressed if you use a presentation platform other than Powerpoint!

Presentation Examples:

http://prezi.com/2w58dqz1nlm0/untitled-prezi/

http://prezi.com/wwjfvklxd8wx/untitled-prezi/

http://prezi.com/uz0fbnnbqb_l/genders-game/

Evaluation Suggestions:

There are many ways to approach evaluating the above assignment(s). The simplest is via “completion” grades, but what “completing” the assignment means may vary widely from instructor to instructor. I would recommend developing a rubric for evaluating each artifact. For instance, one might have a ten-point scale where the following criteria are considered (I use the following rubric myself):

Does the artifact make a clear argument (or series of arguments)?

Does the artifact provide evidence for any claims it makes (e.g., by citing any and all sources)?

Does the artifact respectfully engage an opposition and an audience?

Is any written text on/in the artifact clearly and carefully composed?

Is the artifact accompanied by a theoretical analysis/comparison that is sophisticated (that is, considers/cites either the readings for the course or similar artifacts)?

How well does any analysis grasp the theoretical texts it employs?

Does the artifact employ good design (for instance, color, arrangement, etc.)?

How persuasive is the artifact in terms of rhetorical appeals? Does it contain any fallacies?

Has an “appropriate” amount of effort been exemplified by the student (e.g., number of posts on a social media site, number of pages on a website, and so on)?

Has the artifact been peer-reviewed twice?

Have peer and instructor comments been integrated following peer review?

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This assignment arc has been employed to great success at the University of Texas in a “Writing in Digital Environments” course. The students seemed to really enjoy the work, though were sometimes frustrated by how surprisingly hard it is to get outsiders interested in what they are/were producing. However, whether a particular student project is getting feedback from outsiders is often an opportune moment to discuss kairos. If I would recommend anything, it would be: get students to really think about and research their topics, make sure to show students lots of examples, don’t be afraid to let a student use a technology no one is familiar with, encourage theoretical analysis of artifacts, assign whatever media types you like and don’t be confined by what I’ve listed above, stick closely to a rubric and encourage students to pay close attention to whatever rubric is provided. This will better the life of all involved!

Course Type:

Course Description:

Writing in Digital Environments/Writing for the Digital Humanities

Tags:

Evaluating & Complicating Audience on the Web

Wall — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:05:28 +0000

Author:

Amanda Wall

Image Credit:

"The Calm After the Show" by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan is designed to get students thinking about the real and intended audiences of web texts by analyzing publication venues and comment replies. It also highlights that a text's audiences are not (always) simply people who agree with the author(s) or people who disagree and need persuading.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

I used this lesson in a computer classroom where each group of students had access to a computer, but that's not necessary. In a non-networked classroom, you could print out articles with comments attached for students to analyze. Or you could project one article at a time using an overhead or a digital projector as a full group exercise.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Austin American Statesman - Judge strikes down key provisions of sonogram law

Full Assignment Description:

When presented with texts published on the web, students often have difficulty identifying an audience more specific than "everyone with an internet connection." Not all texts are viewed by everyone everywhere, and access to texts is decided not just on the basis of physical access to the material. This lesson plan is to get them thinking about the real and intended audiences of web texts by analyzing publication venues and comment replies. This lesson is additionally meant to point out that a text's real and even intended audiences are not (always) simply people who agree with the author(s) or people who disagree and need persuading. Web audiences, in other words, are (often) neither hopelessly heterogenous nor simplistically homogenous, and when we construct audiences through rhetorical interpreation, we ought to be as clear as possible about our logic. Students work in groups to analyze webtexts with different audiences and then come together as a group to compare their findings.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before this lesson, we had already covered the basics of rhetorical ethos and had some discussion of audience as it affects and is affected by authors' ethos. I had also quickly shown them a couple of ways to find demographic data for websites, through advertiser information or through in-site analytics such as YouTube's statistics.

First, I distributed the set of analysis prompts/questions to every student. (See below under Student Instructions.)

We first analyzed a sample text together using the questions. I used a projector, but you could also print it out for everyone.

I then broke students into groups of 4-5 and assigned each group a web text to analyze using the analysis questions I had given them. Although the questions ask students to use comments to reflect on their initial discussion of the audience, I do not assume that comment posts provide clear indications of an audience's makeup. Instead, the my intention is to ask students to triangulate their data, to allow the comments and the publication venue and the content of the article to complicate each other when it comes to constructing an audience. (You can find the web articles that I assigned under Resources.)

After 30-40 minutes, we came together to share our findings and compare the audiences of the different texts. We were able to discuss the ways in which audiences are difficult to determine, or rather, construct, and the importance of interpretation when it comes to arguing that a particular audience is indeed what we say it is.

I did this in one 75 minute class period, but I could easily see this exercise spread over two such class periods, perhaps with a take-home writing exercise between them to have them further reflect on their interpretation of the data.

Instructions For Students:

Looking at the Original Post: the article, video, blog post, etc.

First, what kind of website is this? If you don't know much about them, search in Wikipedia for some basic information. Do they put out certain kinds of content? What are they known for? What kinds of things do people say about them?
What is their purpose in publishing this particular article or blog post or text, do you think?
Can you tell who wrote it? What can you find out about them? If no author is listed, why do you think that is? How does that affect our interpretation of the audience?
Skim or view the article/video/post. Based on a very quick read-through, who is their intended audience?
Is there any particular information to tell anything about who reads this article (like YouTube statistics) or this website (like advertiser demographics)?
Now that you've written all this stuff down, ask, "Who is their audience?" (Both real and intended). Who do they expect their audience to be? What kind of people do they expect when they write these articles? What kind of people read these articles? Be clear about how you're coming to these conclusions. Draw arrows or write down which piece of evidence you're using for each of these generalizations.

Looking at the comment posts.

Read the first 5-10 comment made on the article/blog/video. How do these comments confirm or complicate your initial thoughts about the audience? Give three specific examples of how these comments do so.
Pick one comment. What kinds of things can you guess about the person who wrote it? Explain your reasoning next to each thing you guess. How does this person's ethos compare to your initial thoughts about the article's audience? What does the purpose of this comment seem to be?
Sum up your group's thoughts about the article's audience. What can be said about the audience at this point, how sure are you about those things, and what evidence do you have to back them up? What kinds of statements are the most of the audience likely to agree on, if anything? What kinds of things CAN'T you determine at this point, and what pieces of evidence or lack of evidence makes it too complicated to do so?

Evaluation Suggestions:

This lesson was not evaluated, the first time I did it, but I believe I will do so in the future. Students are doing a substantial bit of prompted writing in this exercise, and I will probably count it as a credit/no-credit minor writing assignment next semester.

Additional Resources:

These are the sources I had students analyze:

YouTube - Alamo Drafthouse Takes on Texters

Human Events - Carrying A Gun Responsibly Isn't Simple

Cracked - The 6 Most Frequently Quoted Brain Facts

Course Type:

Course Description:

This lesson was created for my class RHE 309K: The Rhetoric of Flame Wars, in which we take a rhetorical approach to understanding the public discussions, arguments, and yes, flame wars, that happen in online spaces. Here's the course description:

Rhetoric classes are fundamentally about argument—how to make an argument—and this one is no different. The pervasiveness of electronic communication, particularly on the internet, means that we encounter new (and old) challenges in making arguments and having dialogues. Some have suggested that all arguments on the internet are fated to end up flame wars: vicious bouts of namecalling and mudslinging. I don’t think that’s the case, and I’m not even sure that flame wars don’t serve some purpose in our culture. But it is the case that lots of people are worried about how we talk to each other and how we argue with each other online. Issues like privacy settings and moderation and screen names and anonymity and character limits all affect how we debate. This class examines those issues and more. Ultimately, we ask, how might it be possible to have or design or produce a deliberative, democratic debate in a public internet space?

Tags:

Distributed Peer Review

Rosen — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:19:20 +0000

Author:

Stephanie Rosen

Image Credit:

"Tin Foil Hat" by James Provost vis Flickr

Brief Assignment Overview:

When students can review their peers' attempts at an assignment before it's time for their own attempt, they inevitably critique other students' work and incorporate the best writing strategies into their own. For a typical rhetorical analysis assignment, everyone's analysis is public writing—on a class blog, and everyone's analysis is due on different days.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

No Classroom Technology Required

Writing Process

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rhetorical Analysis

Revision

Organization/Arrangement

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Class blog in which each student is a contributor.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment is a typical rhetorical analysis. The innovation is that everyone's analysis is due on different days, and everyone's analysis is public writing—on our class blog. When students can review their peers' attempts at an assignment before it's time for their own attempt, they inevitably critique other students' work and incorporate the best writing strategies into their own.

The rhetorical analyses were posted over the course of 5 class meetings, with 4-5 students posting each day. Posts were due by midnight before our class meeting, and students who did not post that week were required to leave a comment on one post per week in the morning before our 12:30pm class. This ensured that students who were not writing that week were reading—at the very least, one post by another student.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment works best once a blog has been established, that is, once students have become familiar with it by writing required posts and comments for at least one class unit. In preparation for the rhetorical analysis post, students were given a detailed assignment prompt, and the freedom to choose their own rhetorical document (an advertisement) to analyze.

Instructions For Students:

(500-900 words) due by midnight the night before class.

Write a summary and analysis of an advertisement you found in your research that makes an argument about health. Your blog post should include an image of the whole or part of the advertisement and should also explain the context of the ad and its audience. In this post you will analyze how the ad makes its argument (its rhetorical strategies including logos, ethos and pathos) and why it makes the argument in this way. Basically, you must describe how the advertisement makes its argument, and you must explain why the advertisement is persuasive (or not) for its particular audience.

To be successful, your post must include basic elements including:

a clear and brief summary of the ad's argument
enough description of the ad so that your reader can follow your analysis
a discussion of the ad's intended audience
a discussion of the venue or location in which the ad originally appeared
your explanation of how the ad uses specific logical appeals to lead its audience to specific conclusions
your explanation of how the ad uses specific pathetic appeals to evoke specific values or emotions from the audience
your explanation of how the ad uses specific ethical appeals in order to appear credible to its specific audience
your argument about the ad's effectiveness for its specific audience

What to Find

Many advertisements make arguments about health, not just ads for prescription drugs. Of course, an ad for a prescription drug to treat depression, sexual disfunction, or some other disease or disorder would work for this assignment, but you can think more broadly than that. You could choose an ad that

makes an argument about health in order to sell a medical product (drug, supplement, treatment)
makes an argument about health in order to sell a non-medical product (deodorant, a car, food, anything)
uses health or illness as a metaphor to sell anything
makes an argument about health to convince its audience to do, believe, or feel something.

Where to Find it

Look around you: in magazines and on TV, on billboards or on the web. If you find a print ad, scan it; a poster or billboard, take a picture of it; an online ad, take a screenshot. If your ad is a video, you need to find the video online so you can watch it as many times as you need. Search YouTube using keywords including the product name.

Evaluation Suggestions:

My class uses the Learning Record for student evaluation. For the rhetorical analysis blog post, students were given aproximately one page of written instructor feedback within a week after posting. They also received comments from their peers on the blog which responded to their ideas rather than reviewed their analysis.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

From the first batch of blog posts, the writing was at a surprsingly high level. Each student had already posted a summary on our blog of one required text. Now they had the chance to write a post about a text of their choice, on a blog that already had an archive and a following. From there, things only got better. The blog took on a life of its own, outside the classroom, and it not only sparked intellectual conversations, it also became an unexpected writing resource.

Course Type:

Literary Studies 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:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

No Classroom Technology Required

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:

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:

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:

Research and Descriptive Reading - Visual Analysis

Mercier — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:29:06 +0000

Author:

Aaron Mercier

Image Credit:

Piquef: Conde Nast, 2011

Brief Assignment Overview:

This plan puts student into groups of three or four and asks them to collaborate on generating a coherent analytical reading of a New Yorker cover image. The students present their readings to the class and then trade images and present a re-reading. Class ends with the groups reclaiming their original image, incorporating the different reading, and self-assigning research topics. The following class, the groups re-convene and then present a reading that integrates the two primary readings, bridged and nuanced through external research.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Building descriptive and analytical habits of mind

Identifying and avoiding evaluative modes of reading

Accepting uncertainty

Synthesizing divergent ideas

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Networked classroom or student laptops, and/or a pile of old New Yorkers or similar images. You can also compile and distribute these images digitally.

Media console/document projector for presentations

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

**Note: this works best if you have made visual rhetoric exercises part of your course structure in the early weeks when you're introducing the "analysis" concept. If you haven't, you can set aside some classtime one or two days ahead of this to get some practice in with other images.

At the beginning of class, the instructor should review the differences between descriptive, evaluative, and analytical reading strategies. Emphasize the ways in which evaluative reading can disguise itself as analytical, and the obstacles to critical thought it can create.

--Divide the class into groups of 3-4

--Distribute New Yorker Covers. It's best if the instructor vets these for topicality, transparency, and complexity. It's a good idea to have a range of difficulties, but each image should have a clear current-events referent and be susceptible to at least two different interpretations. "Money Issue" covers and the covers published during the Occupy movement and major elections cycles are especially rich, although there are plenty of recent covers that take up higher ed and internecine sociocultural tensions that get really interesting too.

--You can have a written prompt if you like, but don't be too presctiptive. I simply tell my students to formulate a one-sentence description that states what the image is of/about, then to generate a kind of critical summary that points to specific visual elements and makes claims about how they contribute to a greater complexity of meaning. While they're working, circulate between the groups. if no one has questions for you, offer them some of your own. Be especially watchful for students who are skipping steps, or not working closely enough with the image, or being too general. Deal with these missteps by asking provocative questions about the grounds of their claims.

--Avoid being over-directive. This exercise is about keeping them in the space of discovery and description as long as possible, so questions should be formulated so as to throw them back into the text rather than push them towards conclusions. The typical undergrad is deeply uncomfortable with this space and if you give too many directions they will simply spit them back at you as "answers" in the presentation.

-- Give the students about fifteen minutes in their first group session to come up with a two-minute presentation. This seems like a relief to them, since they don't think they can fill longer time slots with "just this image." Inevitably, the groups will run over time. Be really strict. Time them with an alarmed stopwatch and cut them off after the two minutes. The fourth group to present will usually come in just at two minutes. This is a teachable moment about the time and space responsible analysis actually requires.

--Have the groups switch images and repeat the process.

--If you're being disciplined about time, you should have about 20-40 minutes to wrap up after the second round of presentations. (Ten minutes of housekeeping and introduction to the exercise, 30 minutes of group prep time, 16-20 minutes of presentation [assuming a class of 20-24 students], four minutes of transitions/slop time have been filled up so far.)

--Wrapping up:Have the groups reclaim their original image. Their assignments for next time will be for each student to find some relevant secondary source and write a 3-sentence description of it and its relevance to the group's image. At the beginning of the next class, the groups get a ten-minute final planning session, then give a 5 minute presentation.

--Give a prompt for this presentation, since it should do several very specific things.

--Present the group's original reading modified to integrate or challenge the second group's reading of the image in question.

-- Present at elast two secondary sources that give theoretical/critical and/or historical context to the image

--Offer a complex, nuanced, and analytical statement of what they believe the image is about, what it says, and how it fits into the larger context of the moment in which it was published.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

--Browse the issues of the New Yorker in general.

--Be aware of the headlines that were current when the issue was published

--Have a stopwatch of some kind

--Be ready to evade requests for over-directive instruction

--Have some inspirational quotes about uncertainty and negative capability handy

Instructions For Students:

In general, see the Full Assignment Description

I shy away from elaborate written instructions for this sequence because it's really about establishing comfort with a state of intellectual play. Written instructions become training wheels in this context. Because the stakes are very low, but kind of implicitly present in the whole economy of dialogue and idea exchange, I find such training wheels to be disruptive and counterproductive. Keep it all very verbal for this whole process.

Evaluation Suggestions:

This is not a lesson/assignment sequence that requires a lot of evaluation. In fact, evaluating the quality of analytical approaches should be left largely to class discussion. The way I approach this is to thank presenters and then ask the rest of the class where they'd take it next. Presentations that provoke the most energetic conversations become the examples you refer to in later classes, so there's a kind of ongoing reward system that does not punish lower-quality efforts

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise was a hit. Students respond pretty well to being given the thematic reins, and many of them respond really well to the oppportunity to argue. A lot of them remarked that the development of two co-existent readings for the same text, and then being asked to synthesize them, was a real eye-opener.

This exercise is also a great way to establish a collegial and collaborative learning environment. Be present, but keep your role in the realm of moderator/facilitator. Ask questions and insist on time limits for things, but try to avoid "correcting" readings unless they stray into major, fundamental error. Even then, it is usually better rely on the internal economy of the exercise. If one group goes astray, the next might correct them for you. Save these interventions, if necessary, for the endgame.

Additional Resources:

PBWorks/ some kind of blogging platform helps, but is not necessary, in bridging the classwork/homework divide. Make sure the group members make plans to be in touch, especially if you make the at-home portion happen over a weekend.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE-309k: Rhetorics of Truthiness is a broadly-conceived thematic intermediate writing course. It teaches the basics of critical reading, research, rhetorical analysis, and academic writing. Thematically, it focuses on the rhetorical strategies and topical questions surrounding the 24 hour news cycle and the question of bias through Stephen Colbert's provocative definition of truthiness: an argumentative quality that makes a claim "feel true" without any necessary connection to fact or 'Truth.'

Tags:

Maps Worth Reading - Visualizing Controversies

cwehrle — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:35:40 +0000

Author:

Cole Wehrle

Image Credit:

Image credit: Cole Wehrle

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students often struggle with narrative when writing research papers. This lesson plan helps students visualize controversies in order to help them develop structure and argumentation in their own work.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is intended to get students thinking about structure and organization as well the narrative in their earlier papers.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

In addition to a standard computer display, a “doc-cam” or other photographic projector is recommended.

You should also queue up this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Students often struggle with narrative when writing research papers. This assignment invites them to think about their organization in a way that encourages good storytelling and a logical, coherent narrative within the genre of the research paper. Students will first view the RSAnimate video “Changing Education Paradigms” and then discuss the things about the video which made the outline compelling (or that failed to attract their interest) in small groups. The instructor should then allow 5 minutes for students to choose a “sample” controversy, which they will research in their groups. Teachers could supply examples, but I have found that the students find controversial topics pretty easily. Some groups may be inclined towards less substantial controversies, but, for the purposes of this lesson, any controversy will be sufficient. After each group selects their controversy, students should search for opinions and sources related to their chosen controversy. After allotting sufficient time for this research (5-10 minutes) the instructor should reconvene class and discuss methods for visually representing their research. If teaching in a computer classroom with the program OmniGraffle, this portion of the class could include a tutorial on the program and the construction of diagrams. However, students can also just map their research on a sheet of paper. At this point the instructor should discuss different visual techniques and symbols that will help make the presentation clearer and work through an example either with either the instructor station or manually on a classroom board. The instructor can use this time to suggest a variety of tactics. For instance, students may wish to use the left side of their canvas for proponents and the right side for sources who are against whatever they are investigating. Likewise, written sources could be placed in a box, triangles could enclose video sources, while contributing context could be placed in the white space around the paper.

At this point give the students about twenty minutes to create their visual representations. While students are working, the instructor should help them with any computer problems as well as create their own example on the projector, which the students can reference as you work on it. After they are complete (and if they are using computer software) have each group print off a few copies of their image. If done manually you may want to make copies while the students are in groups.

After all of the students have completed their chart, reconvene class. Then, start up the “Doc-Cam” and show the students your visual map of the controversy. Explain any symbols you might have used to outline it. After this explanation, using a highlighter or pen, begin drawing circles for every paragraph so as to enclose your resource. Circles should overlap (you can tell your students that these are points for transition) and be large enough to contain several sources, bits of context, or other relevant material. You may also wish to leave problems in your controversy map such as gaps. You can explain that if students find their paragraph circles stretching long distances across their map they may want to either do more research or else find a way to explain these visual gulfs. Have the groups work through at least a couple of different narratives.

At the end of class, each group should present their controversy. They may use the “doc-cam” to display their map while they guide the class through the narrative that they have constructed. This should take about 20 minutes and run until the end of class.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

If incorporating a tutorial on a program like OmniGraffle, the instructor should become very familiar with the program.

Instructions For Students:

The above, longer descripiton contains student instructions.

In brief:

1. Form groups

2. Choose controversy

3. Find sources

4. Build map

5. Plot narrative

6. Share narrative/"journey"

Evaluation Suggestions:

Students could be asked to apply this method to their own work and produce a visual represenation of their own paper.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

1. I have done this exercise twice now and both times it has worked very well. The students enjoy the break from their standard topics and generally have a good time picking either ultra-serious or silly controversies. This exercise also allows students to better understand how gaps form in their argumentation and research and I have found that their papers, post exercise have significant structural improvements. The lesson can also be adapted to 2.1 and micro (rather than macro) analysis. Instead of the sources constituting the different map elements and students could instead map the rhetorical moves of an individual source.

Course Type: