DWRL Lesson Plans - Peer Review

Literary Studies Course

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.

"Creating" Visual Rhetoric Through Student-Designed Flash Games

lazhu — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:07:39 +0000

Author:

Lily Zhu

Image Credit:

Mars Cafe

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment gives students a chance to make their own (very elementary) argumentative, flash game. By actively engaging in the process of game design, students will have to think through their intentions and the process of piecing together visual, aural, and verbal rhetoric.

Type of Assignment:

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Video Games

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This is meant to be a long-term group project (at least a month), ideally assigned as a final media presentation which sums up elements of effective argumentation in an entertaining, yet carefully thought out, fashion. It follows a previous assignment in which students analyze a flash game by PETA for various forms of rhetorical appeals/fallacies (http://lessonplans.dwrl.utexas.edu/content/flash-games-and-visual-rhetoric).

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Projector
Internet
Computer/media console for the instructor
Optional: computer for every student

Timeline for Optimal Use:

1. http://www.sploder.com/games/members/geoff/play/arcade-tutorial-links/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh22sYhJjKk

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Though there are many sites of varying difficulties from which instructors can choose, www.sploder.com is both easy and flexible to work with. It’s intended to inspire elementary school students (around the ages of twelve) to become interested in coding and game design; as a result, this lesson plan does not require extensive tutorials or a large amount of in-class time set aside for instructional purposes.

www.Sploder.com allows the user to “design” his/her own game through preset conditions. There are five different game types – among which include “retro arcade” and “classic shooter” – with protagonist options, movements, and attacks already installed. The user, then, is left to “make”: the environment for each level, tools, weapons, text boxes, non-playable characters, bonuses, bosses, and music. For my class, I placed particular emphasis on in-game text/dialogue and atmosphere/visual cohesiveness as ways for the groups to make whatever persuasive points they intended. As an additional hurdle, I required that my students include “switch” events within the game (linked events in which the player cannot progress unless another task is accomplished first. For example, the big boss cannot appear until a specific minion is destroyed or, a “barrier” in the path will not disappear until a token is collected).

Completed games will be played through on the last day of class using a projector and the instructor’s computer.

Below, I’ve posted the prompt I handed out and a general rubric. I also offer my students three comprehensive tutorials for specific game types available to Sploder.

Goals: You and your group will be presenting your own persuasive video game designed on http://www.sploder.com/. In addition, you will turn in a 500-word group essay discussing this project.

The purpose of this assignment is for you to take what you have learned from PETA’s Pokemon Black and Blue (or the McDonald’s one http://www.mcvideogame.com/index-eng.html) and apply it to your own platform game. Questions to think about: what rhetorical strategies does the parody engage with? What visual strategies? How does it convey its message, and how explicit or implicit are its arguments? What are potential weaknesses of this media form that you must avoid in your own creation? What are potential strengths that you should focus on?

How to begin:

1. Make an account on www.sploder.com (one for your group) and let your instructor (me) know what your group account name is.

2. Go through video tutorials (if you google or search on youtube, you will find plenty of fine tutorials. Do not ask your instructor for search help; at this point in the semester, you should be proficient on your own)

3. Experiment with as many components as you can.

To earn a C+

Your game must have:

1. At least 2 complete levels to your game.

2. An observable and understandable message

3. Text (whether that be on signs and/or dialogue boxes)

4. At least 2 Switch events (for example: the player can only deactivate a barrier if (s)he kills a particular monster; or, the boss monster will only spawn if the player presses a particular object)

5. An environment (minor characters, decorations, etc.) which contributes to the persuasive argument and overall atmosphere.

6. At least 60% of the game must involve some type of action (rhetorical, visual, textual, etc.) and not just walking around like a derp.

Your 500-word essay must have:

1. One section discussing the argument your game is meant to present and what the game’s position is.

2. One section discussing the visual and rhetorical strategies your group employed in the game to convey the opinion in #1 to the player. Be detailed as to what various elements are meant to specifically accomplish.

3. One section covering how group work was divided.

4. One optional section discussing how you think this assignment could be improved to teach you more about digital rhetoric, or, alternately, what you thought was the best part of this assignment.

Hints:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf72Ybtg7DA

2. “Retro arcade” seems to be the easiest and most popular form. If your group is having difficulties, I suggest starting out with this. Be aware, though, that because this is the one with the most tutorials available, I will expect a more complex game should you choose this style.

Student samples from Fall 2013:

1. Anti-bullying and methods of conflict resolution:
http://www.sploder.com/games/members/tomasdamico/play/final-project-rhe3...

2. Saving the world from pollution:
http://www.sploder.com/games/members/hsieh0422/play/save-the-world/

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Spend maybe an hour or two on the website just experimenting with the different game types and design options. Students, for the most part, have more technical questions such as “how do I save?”. When students present, you'll be moderating - asking questions about the narrative, devices used, etc. I asked one student from another group to play, and as this student played, the group would explain their intentions and techniques.

Instructions For Students:

That entire prompt posted above.
1. Make the game in groups, fulfilling instructor requirements.
2. Write a 500-word essay detailing intention, process, rhetorical devices, and workload.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Students will play each other’s games. As a student plays through another group's game, that group will be in charge of explaining and presenting on their game at the same time (it's basically an interactive powerpoint presentation). The instructor will grade based on a preset rubric. The general hope is that students will incorporate the rhetorical skills they have developed all semester into the game.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I tried to put students into groups of 4, with each group containing someone familiar with video games of any sort (the earlier PETA’s Pokemon Black and Blue exercise helped me see who in my class was proficient and who was uncomfortable with this type of media).

To my surprise, I found that the next time we met (after I’d first introduced the project), half of the groups had already started the project without any prompting from me. I’d anticipated having to devote a class or two to work-shopping the groups’ games, but this turned out to be unnecessary as they were all fine and highly motivated on their own. This may have to do with the nature of the 500-word essay (in which students must discuss the division of labor).

Students really will go above and beyond for this project. They'll make complicated and involved projects that will constantly surprise you!.

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.

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

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

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:

Literary Studies 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:

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:

Single Class Period

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

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:

Early in the Semester

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:

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

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:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

Class blog in which each student is a contributor.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

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:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

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:

Early in the Semester

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:

Agonistic Debate on a Course Blog

coulson — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:44 +0000

Author:

Doug Coulson

Image Credit:

Wikipedia Commons

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students break up into two groups to engage in agonistic debate regarding an issue in an assigned reading in the course. One group offers a critique of the ideas in the text in a brief written critique posted on a course blog, then the second group formulates a response also posted on the blog, followed by a reply by the first group and an oral debate to finish the assignment and debrief.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goals of the assignment are to practice written agonistic debate for purposes of discussing forensic debate, particularly the form most commonly found in legal disputes. The assignment is also designed to teach principles of online writing in dispute resolution contexts.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

In-class computers with internet access and a course blog.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The assignment requires students to engage in agonistic debate regarding an issue in an assigned reading in the course through both written and oral forms of debate. This facilitates discussion of rhetorical strategies for each for of discourse as well as how they often intersect, while also furthering critical discussion of an assigned text. The assignment is particularly useful for helping students understand the time management and emotional considerations involved in agonistic dispute resolution, particularly the form most commonly found in legal disputes.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment is best used after the text in question has already been discussed in at least one class period or at least after the students have been given a general introduction to the text in class. To begin the assignment, discuss the purposes of the assignment and the instructions with students. Have students log in to the classroom computers and to the course blog. After the students discuss and submit their blog posts, moderate the discussion in the order of the posts and discuss the challenges and tactics involved in written forensic debate as well as how the students experienced the debate, including a discussion of the emotional component typically involved in taking sides in a dispute. The assignment should ideally be completed in a single class period.

Instructions For Students:

After breaking into groups, Group 1 will have 15 minutes to prepare 3-4 points of criticism of the ideas advanced in the text and post a brief description of the criticisms on the course blog. These may include rebuttals of the arguments advanced or important issues neglected or unanswered by the text. During this time, Group 2 should begin discussing potential points of criticism in an effort to anticipate Group 1's arguments and prepare possible responses. Once Group 1 submits its criticisms on the blog, the roles of the groups will be reversed as Group 2 prepares written responses to Group 1's cricitisms and Group 1 discusses potential points of rebuttal in an effort to anticipate them and prepare a reply. Group 2 will have 15 minutes to prepare its response and post it to the blog. After Group 2 submits its response, the roles will again switch and Group 1 will have 10 minutes to submit any desired reply. At the conclusion of this initial 40 minutes, the groups will orally debate the arguments posted to the blog and discuss how they experienced the debate.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I've never graded this assignment. It's primarily designed to engage students in questions considered during the course and facilitate class discussion.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students have enjoyed the assignment and it has led to critical and engaged discussion regarding key readings in the course.

Course Type: