DWRL Lesson Plans - Organization

Course Description:

RHE 306: Rhetoric and Writing

This course is grounded in the rhetorical analysis of "controversies," broadly defined. It is divided into three units, each one requiring some sort of outside research. The first two units are devoted to rhetorical analysis; they are mostly descriptive and allow students to become familiar with what is being said and how. The third unit is devoted to advocacy; having become familiar with the controversy, students now take a position within it and produce an informed argument for that position.

Tags:

Mind map

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:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

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:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

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:

Facilitating Multimedia Composition

RMazique — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 06:33:14 +0000

Author:

Rachel Mazique

Image Credit:

Rachel Mazique's "Disability in Pop Culture" Class YouTube Channel

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson helped students begin composing their final rhetoric assignment: a Multimedia Argument Project (MAP). I encouraged students to work with each other during the planning process and to collaborate with one another as they developed their digital literacy skills.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Course Unit

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

In addition to the goals above, students were to:

-become familiar with the range of digital resources available for multimedia composition projects

-practice composing in multiple modes (visual, aural, alphanumeric)

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

--Please Note: all of the links below were organized onto appropriately titled pages in a folder titled "Final Project Help" on our class wiki--

1. samples of student-authored multimedia projects:

either from The Journal for Undergraduate Multimedia Projects (TheJUMP) or past student work from my class YouTube channel,

2. KeepVid website (best run on Safari),

3. a Google Doc for class brainstorming on “Beginning the Final Project,” (stored on a class PBworks wiki page)

4. Internet Archives,

5. Creative Commons for songs,

6. Disability song list,

7. Animoto website, instructions for Animoto video production, More Animoto Help,

(beneficial, though not required):

8. Digital Writing and Research Lab (DWRL) rental equipment,

9. our class PBworks wiki Homework page

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Dr. Rodrigue's Digital Writing Resource Page

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Adapted from Justin Hodgson’s Multimedia Research-Argument Creation

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Multimodal Argument Project Prompt:

Using your prior knowledge, that of your peers’, and the skills you will gain during this unit, you will create a multimodal researched-based argumentative "document." These multimodal arguments should demonstrate a significant research effort as well as showcase your abilities to write, think, and express yourselves via the integration of multiple media. This research will include the time you spend with “how-to” guides/tutorials with the aim of improving your digital literacy skills. But, unlike the common approach to this type of "writing," where students/researchers write a traditional paper and then try to remediate that into multimedia forms, these projects will be "born digital." Composing digitally requires you to think, draft, design, and revise in multimedia, not engage in a text-to-multimedia practice.

The multimodal project is fairly open, but its breadth is necessary as each project will be different and take a different shape depending on the intent, skills, and risk-taking strategies of each student-author. I am open to your creative input and ideas!

Your controversy or the pop culture source that you’ve analyzed should shape your creations and the varying rhetorical strategies that you employ. For example, if you’ve analyzed a cartoon or comic in Paper 2.1, you may want to create your own. If you analyzed a documentary, consider creating your own documentary. We will more fully discuss the flexibility of this project in-class, both on the day this project is assigned and throughout the unit, to ensure that you have a solid grasp of how to navigate these guidelines.

That said, here are some concrete guidelines.

Minimum Requirements:

Must take a stance with relation to your controversy and attempt to persuade readers/viewers;

Must clearly be framed as an argument of conjecture, definition, ethics, value, or policy

Must engage your analyses of representations in pop culture by either supporting certain representations, subverting stereotypical representations and/or transforming an argument made in pop culture.
Must integrate and/or utilize multiple media (both the visual and alphanumeric modes are required) for rhetorical purpose (audio is encouraged, but optional—depending on your medium);

The video is not the only medium open to you; you can also compose a comic, be creative and innovative with PowerPoint, create a website, a video game, etc.
Feel free to run an original project idea by me for approval.

Must rebut/refute at least one counterargument/position with the presentation or production of counter-images, words, and/or voices.
Must include at least 5 quality sources and "Works Cited" details (in MLA format) within the MAP--not in a separate document:

At least 2 must come from scholarly resources (you should use the research you gathered for your Annotated Bibliography; you may also use the scholarly class readings)
If your project is nearing the maximum length, you may go over the limit (if you need more time/space to add in the Works Cited and make it readable). Note, this exception to the length requirement applies only for the Works Cited. If you want to discuss another exception, please see me. See the length requirement below.

Length requirement:

Create a 2-3 minute video if you’re working alone.

If you’re working with a partner or two, the video's length requirement increases based on the number of people involved: 4-6 minutes, or 6-9 minutes, respectively.
Group size max: 3 people
If you’re not composing a video, the length requirement still applies with relation to an in-class final presentation of your project. So, if you’re using PowerPoint, it should run 2-3 minutes long in a presentation.
If you’re making a comic strip, the strip should be about 2 pages long--or however long you need to make your argument and be able to present it to the class in 2-3 minutes.

Accessibility requirement:

Make your project accessible to a deaf audience (captions/a transcript)

I can work with you on captioning your video in the Open Lab (PAR 102) on Wednesdays from 5pm-8pm.
I can also point you to some guidelines I created and work with you during class.
Fyi: if your submission to TheJUMP is accepted for publication, you will also need to make your project accessible to a blind audience (descriptions of visual features). If you did this work in advance of publication in TheJUMP, I would consider this evidence of going above and beyond in the argumentation/digital literacy course strands.

For a variety of digital resources, see the link below:

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Plan for at least five weeks of in-class time to work on this multimedia argument project. Students need in-class time to familiarize themselves with the various technologies available to them and to learn how to compose in a digital medium besides the alphanumeric programs they are used to composing in (i.e. Microsoft Word).

If feasible within your department, sign up for at least a "plus" account with Animoto. Here in the Digital Writing and Research Lab (DWRL), instructors are fortunate that the lab will renew or subscribe to digital services like Animoto--as long as they serve a pedagogical function. I communicated with the supervisor in the DWRL, who renewed our plus account so students could create a video up to nine minutes long, which was what I required if a group had three students working together.

Below are the major steps I used for this day's lesson plan on "Facilitating Multimedia Composition":

Review vocabulary important to beginning students' composing process: topic, controversy, position and stakeholder. Ask students: what do these terms mean? What is the difference between a topic and a controversy? Explain how students should organize their arguments.
Have students review what their classmates are doing (on a Google Doc students filled in at the start of today's class: “Beginning the Final Project”) and consider who they may want to collaborate with in a co-authorship of this final project.
Introduce students to KeepVid as a way to export videos from YouTube.
Discuss Copyright laws.
Introduce the Internet Archives and Creative Commons.
Point students to “Disability Songs” list.
Have students use the rest of class time to talk over ideas with classmates they want to work with, review samples of student-authored multimedia projects on TheJUMP/previous work from our class YouTube channel, plan their final project with a rough outline, and look for images, videos and/or songs they may want to use.
Remind students to not only look for images, videos and songs that they agree with or those that could support their argument but also images, videos, and/or songs that they disagree with and will refute/rebut in their final project.
Review the definitions of refutations and rebuttals.
Point students to instructions for Animoto (on the wiki) but also mention that I can help students with this program.

Instructions For Students:

As a starting point to today's class, I had students go to the “in-class activities” folder on our class PBworks wiki.

From there, they went to the Google Doc folder and clicked on the “Beginning the Final Project” page.

Here's what they needed to write out as a starting point to the composing process. (The page also functioned as a class resource that would allow students to determine who they might want to co-author a project with.)

Please write:

1. Your topic;

2. Your controversy;

3. The pop culture source you will remediate

4. At least three positions that stakeholders take with regards to your controversy

5. The position that you saw your pop culture source taking

6. The position that you yourself take. (I explained that for this final unit, students were invited to share their viewpoint and to tell us where they stood with regards to their controversy.)

7. Possible multimedia project ideas you are considering (website, comic, documentary, photoessay, stop motion animation, etc).

Evaluation Suggestions:

For information on how I assessed students' final projects, please see my blog post on the topic: "Multimodal Writing: How do we Assess New Media?" at the Digital Writing and Research Lab's Blogging Pedagogy website

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students had the choice to author a project alone or to work in groups of two or three. The number of students involved in a project affected the length requirement. Longer projects were expected of group-authored multimedia arguments.

Most students felt that their controversy was unique and would not merge well with fellow classmates' controversies or topics. (These final projects were the result of a semester-long process researching a single controversy). Those who did choose to co-author a project chose to work with only one partner rather than two (for logistical reasons apparently). One group started with three members, but one member eventually decided she wanted to work on her own due to creative differences. She had a specific argument she knew she wanted to pursue.

Students who were interested in co-authoring a project needed extra guidance from me on how to coherently weave together an argument on two distinct controversies. With these students, I encouraged the student groups to start from a broader standpoint--to work from our class topic "Disability in Pop Culture"--and to use research from their specific controversies to determine an argument they wanted to make about their particular topics within our class's "umbrella."

Several students were anxious about multimedia composition.

Several others were excited about this change of pace.

In the end, through in-class guidance and collaboration amongst peers, students who were anxious about composing in iMovie for the first time (for example) were eventually proud of their final product and the new digital literacy skills they gained throughout this composition process. Several students creatively went above and beyond the requirements to create a project they would be glad to publish in a public forum such as our class YouTube channel.

One student even composed an entirely original music video; another student drew and created an original stop-motion animated video; several others drew their own comics (either by hand on paper, or online with digital drawing tools/comic software).

Additional Resources:

Recommendations from Justin Hodgson:

Bump Halbritter's recent book Mics, Cameras, and Symbolic Action: Audio-Visual Rhetoric for Writing Teachers talks about audio and video work,

Sean Morey recently had his textbook The New Media Writer come out with Fountainhead Press,

and Kristin Arola, Jennifer Shepard, and Cheryl Ball recently published their Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

According to Professor Hodgson, those three texts provide a nice (but not comprehensive) avenue into conversations about multimedia composition and some particular strategies for writing (with) media.

Beyond that, he recommends that instructors peruse the Computers and Composition (and Computers and Composition Online) journals for works that might resonate with your class's particular focus.

And, as always, the Blogging Pedagogy site and TheJUMP are useful resources!

Course Type:

http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/sugar-daddy-website-has-coeds-rationalizing...

Course Description:

In this course, students focus on analyzing the relationship between pop culture and rhetoric. Their analyses examine public disagreements about various issues such as: How do popular (mis)representations of "the supercrip" convince us to make political decisions regarding accessibility, advocacy, education, and/or social policy? How can we evaluate arguments that not only depict (dis)abled people as "heroic" but also those that portray the converse: the "grotesque unfortunate" deserving of "pity" and "help"? How do these arguments address questions of basic human rights, needs, drives and "eugenics rhetoric"? Will children (and adults) make political decisions based on recurrent thematic representations of "disability" in pop culture, and, is that a good or bad influence?

Tags:

Rhetorical Analysis of "Sugar Dating" Ads and Audience(s)

Wiedner — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:59:46 +0000

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students work on argumentation techniques, rhetorical fallacies, and other concepts via reading a heavily-biased article from the New York Post discussing the relatively new but quickly growing phenomenon known as "sugar dating," which consists of web sites that pair older men (sugar daddies) who are willing to pay money for the company of young girls ("sugar babies"). The amount that any potential sugar daddy can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

While sugar dating sites seem to be happy to recruit young girls of all stripes, they are clearly most interested in attracting students, as evidenced in part by the fact that membership fees are waived for any potential sugar baby who registers with a .edu email address. The banner ad above is illustrative of most common underlying technique found on these sites. That is appealing to the fact that the typical undergraduate student is cash-strapped, and that being a sugar baby is an easy way to solve the problem. The titillating subject matter and the fact that half of the classroom are part of the demographic being so narrowly marketed towards caught everyone's attention from the get-go.

After they finish reading the article, displaying and bouncing through one of the sites on a projetor is great in a classroom that is equipped to do so, but it is by no means necessary.

The class is divided into two groups who assemble their respective arguments as to the propriety of selling such a product using the rhetorical appeals employed and the audience to which they are marketing (primary and otherwise); a loosely-moderated class debate/discussion ensues.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Social Media

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Increasing Classroom Participation, Building Rapport Between Students, Building Rapport Between Instructor and Individual Students, Building Rapport Between Instructor and Class as a Whole

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

Nothing other than copies of the article distributed by the instructor at the beginning of class.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

The instructor distributes copies of an article taken from the web site of what is generally regarded as a reputable source for news. The class has no access to the article beforehand. The instructor asks the class if any of them are familiar with “Sugar Dating;” calling on student(s) with raised hands to explain what sugar dating generally refers to. The instructor then elaborates on the definition provided, paraphrasing points that might have been lost in the student’s explanation, adding any aspects of the concept that were not mentioned in the process. (5 minutes)

Students read the article individually. (5-10 minutes) phenomenon

The class then divides into two equally-sized groups, and discuss positive and negative aspects of the concept of sugar dating in general, along with the article’s presentation of the concept. One group is identified as the “pro” group, with the other identified as the “con.” However, the instructor does not articulate a specific question upon which they are taking sides. The two groups each work to flush out and organize what they believe to be their most salient points. (10-15 minutes)

An open discussion in a point/counterpoint format is the conducted, with the instructor keeping the discussion from straying to far afield, while casually interjecting to emphasize and elaborate upon the concepts that are relevant to rhetoric and/or law as they arise during the discussion. It is important that the instructor is as unobtrusive as possible throughout the ensuing discussing, to the extent that the collective “personality” of a particular class will allow. (30 minutes for a class meeting twice a week)

The instructor wraps up the debate and the class by highlighting some of the most important substantive points and the most effective argumentation techniques from each side of the discussion. Students are informed that there is a discussion prompt related to the day’s discussion; each student must submit one original posting, along with at least one response to another student’s original posting before the next class meeting. (5-10 minutes)

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

To prepare for the class, the instructor should spend time analyzing the specific article to be distributed to the class, composing a rough outline of considerations such as (1) the arguments (and counterarguments) most likely to be made by students, (2) the rhetorical concepts the instructor is most interested in covering, (3) questions that the class discussion might not touch upon.

The instructor should also do their due diligence in researching the subject in general. Visiting the actual sugar dating web sites is especially important. Students will have varying degrees of knowledge on the subject. Given the fact that these sites specifically target female college students, there is a strong likelihood that at least a couple of students will be well-versed on the subject; the instructor does not want to be learning about nuances of the sugar dating process, etc. from one of their students.

Instructions For Students:

As indicated above, instructions to be given to students are minimal (intentionally so). They're instructed to take about 10 minutes reading the article being contemporaneously distributed, with particular attention to tone, word choice, authorial bias, context, and visual rhetoric. They are then divided into two groups with opposing viewpoints, and are instructed to construct the most persuasive argument that they can, taking rough notes (to be submitted at the end of class) outlining the same.

They're reminded to consider likely arguments from the other side, and the best way to address/respond to them. Students then partake in a debate wherein the instructor guides them back on track if they are getting off-topic, overly emotional, or missing each other entirely (from a stasis theory standpoint).

At the end of the class, the students are given instructions to make a substanive blog posting responding to an instructor-provided prompt; the will seek to continue aspect(s) of the in-class discussion. Along with one original blog posting, students are instructed to post at least one response to the original posting of a classmate.

There is not any reading students are instructed to do in preparation for the class.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The article’s author has a clear bias from the title onward, so I ask for a show of hands as to who agrees with the author’s…unflattering…representation of sugar dating and their advertisement and recruitment techniques. To my surprise, about 18 of my 22 students said that they agreed with the author. To keep the group numbers equal, I (somewhat lightheartedly) pointed out that the pinnacle of achievement for any rhetorician is to be able to effectively argue a point with which they wholly disagree. As my class is entitled “Rhetoric of Law,” I pointed out that this skill is of particular importance to attorneys, given that they take an oath to be “zealous advocates” for their clients in court, even if those clients are individuals whom they might find repugnant on a personal level. I then split the class roughly in half, based only upon where they happened to be sitting (or standing) at that moment, and then moving individual students towards one of two camps in order to arrive at numerical parity. I did not give consideration as to what side any particular student chose during our initial show of hands.

This lesson plan is well-suited for developing familiarity between students, increasing student participation, and establishing rapport between the instructor and his students- both individually and as a class. For these reasons, the lesson plan might be particularly useful at the beginning of the semester, or later on if class participation begins lagging.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Tags:

Transforming Video with Popcorn Maker

Wise — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:40:10 +0000

Author:

Beck Wise

Image Credit:

Image: Joakim Wahlander

Brief Assignment Overview:

Like many things, visual rhetoric is often best learnt by doing. This lesson plan introduces students to video editing using Popcorn Maker, a web-based tool for mashing up online texts.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Organization

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Hardware

Computer access for all students (laboratory or bring-your-own-device; small groups often work better than individuals for this)

Web access

Software

Access to modern, Flash-capable browsers (Safari in particular often does not play nice with this tool)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

In this class period, students are asked first to analyse a piece of visual rhetoric and then to create their own using Popcorn Maker, a web-based tool for mashing up online texts including videos, images, audio and text.

I begin the class by introducing students to visual rhetoric, asking them to analyse the various levels of a visual text progressively -- first by silently reading a transcript of a video narration, then by listening to the audio, and finally by playing the full video. Unpacking the text in layers like this helps students engage with the possibilities and effects of medium, as well as or instead of content (for a lesson plan which lays this out in detail, see Laura Thain's 'Shifting Focus from Content to Medium', which uses records of the Hindenberg disaster in this way; I often use Anonymous' 'Message to Scientology' as my text for this activity, since it fits with themes of my 'Rhetoric of Hacking' course and conveniently provides a transcript, saving me the effort of creating one).

I then introduce students briefly to Mozilla's Popcorn Maker, demonstrating the very basics and offering them links to a couple of tutorials. The tool lets students quickly and easily create web videos -- and because it's designed to incorporate and transform other online texts, the barrier to entry is lower than with other video editors; in my experience, students are more comfortable transforming existing tests and can feel paralysed when asked to create from scratch.

Working in small groups or individually, they are asked to 'play with the tool', using it to create videos which make 'some kind of point', whether or not it relates to the course theme or content -- I keep my language fun and the instructions unspecific, since the goal is to gain fluency with a tool they might want to use for later projects, and to come up with something quick-and-dirty in a single class period. As a result, I've seen a lot of in-class videos featuring Miley Cyrus! Towards the end of the class period, I ask anyone who has a video work-in-progress they're comfortable sharing to email me the link and we review some of the products on the overheard projector. As well as illustrating the various possibilities of Popcorn Maker, it tends to serve as a good icebreaker, as students discover shared interests.

Depending on your class' interest in making and viewing videos, you can extend this into a second day or ask students to share their videos on a course website.

One thing to be aware of: when replaying videos, expect long buffering times. My students this semester have also reported the tool becomes unstable when producing complex texts with many included elements; I'd steer students towards offline video editing software if they want to compose extended video and multimedia projects. Popcorn Maker is great for quick-and-dirty projects using existing web content, and is particularly good for introducing students to video editing (its interface mirrors a lot of popular offline editors), but it definitely has its limits!

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before class, you'll want to prepare to share your chosen text in written, auditory and video form. You might provide the text as printouts or display it on a projector; for the audio version, you could play the video with the projector screen blanked or use a YouTube-to-MP3 converter to obtain an audio track to play.

You'll also want to spend some time with Popcorn Maker -- follow the tutorials linked above (I recommend Miriam Posner's tutorial over the official Mozilla one!) to become familiar with the tool. I suggest making a video of your own to show your students ... I throw something terrible together real fast to encourage them to be OK with imperfect results (remember -- this is just play), and make it clear that something can be achieved inside a class period. Don't believe me it's kind of rubbish? Here you go. This is about 15 minutes of work and is designed to subvert the messages in the video I use in the analysis section of the class. You can play the video right through and then hit the 'Remix' button to get a look at the actual construction, which makes the example doubly valuable as it allows students to reverse-engineer the project if they want.

Instructions For Students:

My instructions to students for this activity are extremely informal; I tell them ahead of time we'll be talking about visual rhetoric and assign a brief reading outlining what that means. On the day, I guide them through the various levels of analysis of the assigned video (to which they have not previously been exposed) and demonstrate the tool we'll be using to make our own videos, then essentially cut them loose to play and create. I provide links to the tutorials above for their reference, but most students prefer to figure things out on their own (and typically succeed in doing so).

Evaluation Suggestions:

My suggestion for evaluation: don't! This is a plan for play, designed to give students tools (and in my experience, they WILL use them later).

Course Type:

Course Description:

This activity was designed for 'Rhetoric of Hacking', an intermediate writing course conducted in Fall 2013 and Spring 2014. The course engages with public discourse around hacking, the notion of hacking as rhetoric, and ways to hack rhetoric (in this instance, by transforming and repurposing existing texts).

Tags:

Web video

Remix

Play

"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:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

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:

Media Console/Projector

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:

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)

Homework Assignment

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:

Advanced Writing Course

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:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

Writing in Digital Environments/Writing for the Digital Humanities

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:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

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:

Media Console/Projector

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:

Early in the Semester

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:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Course Description:

This excercise was originally designed for use in Rhetoric 306 for in preperation for the first major research paper. It can be adapted to be used in a variaty of rhetoric courses which emphaize research.

Tags:

Drawing Logos

Laura Thain — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:08:02 +0000

Author:

Laura Thain

Image Credit:

Flatrock

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment asks students to map out logos with the aid of visualized arguments and, ultimately, to create and explain their own vizualization of a textual argument that helps highlight the elements of logos within that textual argument.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Organization

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Remediation

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignments is designed to help students identify and employ logos through visual rhetoric. By the end of the activity, which may take up an entire class period or multiple class periods, students should be able to effectively identify logos in a formal argument and replicate what they've identified in an informal visual argument.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

If conducted in a classroom that is not enabled with technology for each student, instructors should provide basic drawing materials, such as crayons and butcher paper or markers and posterboard.

Students should also bring in or have access to a copy of a research summary or short writing assignment that asks them to anaylze a textual argument or source.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

First, the instructor should review or introduce the concept of logos to the class, emphasizing the reliance of a chain of reasoning on the enthymeme. It may be helpful to outline a few simple examples, like the ones Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz use in Everything's an Argument (5th ed.):

“We’d better cancel the picnic because it’s going to rain.” This statement assumes...

Picnics are normally held outdoors.
When the weather is bad, it’s best to cancel picnics.
Rain is bad weather for picnics.
A 70% chance of rain means that rain is more likely to occur than not.
When rain is more likely to occur than not, it makes sense to cancel picnics.
The weather bureau’s predictions are reliable enough to warrant action.

Once the class is comfortable attempting to identify both the chain of reasoning (explicit logos) and the enthymeme (implied premises), choose one of the excellent RSAnimate videos from the Royal Society's Youtube Channel. These talks address a broad variety of topics, many of which may be applicable to the course content. Most of these talks are about 10 minutes in length.

Before you start the video, emphasize that logos provides reasons for an argument, and thus always appears in claim and evidence format. Tell the students you would like them to identify logos appeals within the clip. You may choose to have them record their work on a worksheet. I used a simple worksheet like the one below:

I.Hard Evidence

facts and statistics (claim paired with quantitative evidence)

personal testimony/experience

II. Soft Evidence

reason (claim paired with qualitative evidence)

common sense (claims that require no evidence, "self-evident" claims)

If you choose this format, it may be helpful to include empty spaces for CLAIM and EVIDENCE below each header so that the student can practice pairing the two.

Show the video, stopping as often as you feel necessary to allow students to write and process the argument they are witnessing. I find it helpful to encourage thes students to recap the bare-bones summary of the argument at two to three minute intervals.

When the segment concludes, break students up into groups of three or four and have them choose several logos appeals they would like to present to the class. Keep the final "panaroma" illustration on the projector and allow students to identify and describe the logos claims they have chosen, tying those claims to the part of the illustration to which they correspond.

Once the students have shared their findings, ask them, in groups, to refer to a short analytical writing assignment that one of them has already completed. (In my class, we use Research Summary 4.) Instruct them to, as a group, create their own visual representation of the logos appeals in the original text using Photoshop. Students may find it useful to separate out the illustration into panels so that each member can work independently on one piece of the puzzle.

Once students have created an illustration, have each group present and explain the logos appeal they have illustrated, as well as its context, to the class.

Below is a sample project created from this Perez Hilton article on Jennifer Aniston's upcoming nuptials:

bride wars.jpg

This activity typically takes 2 class periods, although portions (image manipulation) could be assigned for homework.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Usually, at least a quarter of the classroom is proficient in Photoshop, so it can be helpful to put at least one proficient user in each group. The pedagogical payoff of teaching photoshop for a single exercise is slim, so other, easier image manipuation tools may be substituted if students are on the whole unfamiliar with the software. Blingee, Draw Something, Online Flash-based sketch applications, or good ol' fashion art supplies may all be substituted.

Instructions For Students:

Students should come to class having read logos material from the instructor's preferred rhetoric textbook.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Students commonly confuse identifying a chain of reasoning with summary, so in evaluating presentations, it can be helpful to ask them to identify enthymemes in logos appeals they choose to discuss to keep them thinking analytically, as opposed to descriptively.

Course Type: