DWRL Lesson Plans - Ethos

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Writing Process

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This class activity came out of several grading sessions, wherein I realized my students were having a hard time subordinating an author's points during a summary. They seemed to give each of the author's statements equal weight, without differentiating between which ideas were primary and which were more supporting details. So while this activity is meant to reinforce the skills of summary and syntehsis, it's foremost an thought-exercise, which I hoped would help them give themselves permission to fairly emphasize certain statements over others.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

This activity will go more smoothly if each student can efficiently take notes. I allow them to take digital notes on a laptop or tablet, but this isn't strictly necessary. The project does require that the instructor have a media console and projector.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Ask students to sit in groups of three. These groups will be informal, and they shouldn't get too hung up on them. Most of their work will be individual, but asking them to share with a tiny group before discussing with the entire class can make them feel more confident.

Screen a clip from a popular comedian's standup special. I chose Louis CK, Aziz Ansari, and Bill Burr, to get a range of comedic styles. Each clip should last no more than 3-4 minutes, although the length will of course be based on the amount of time devoted to a single topic within the special. I also chose clips that I felt addressed primary controversies circulating in the news, and ones I felt my students would probably be familiar with.

Ask students to take notes on the clip and to identify the comedian's main point. Then ask them to fill in the supporting details.

Students should share their breakdown of the clip with their miniature group.

Once they have had a chance to discuss (this should only take two minutes or so), get a class consensus about what the comedian is "really" talking about, and what lines are there for effect or support. This is an opportunity to point out which points may seem like they're geting a lot of focus but are actually in the clip for a laugh or for emphasis.

Students should be able to summarize the clip in one statement. Encourage them to write an informal thesis as a class. For example, "In this bit, Aziz Ansari pokes fun at gender conventions by highlighting the arbitrariness of marriage rituals." This statement bridges a summary understanding of the text and an introduction to basic analysis. The extent to which the dicussion veers toward how the comedian's performance and language are affecting the humor is flexible; depending on how far the instructor would like to introduce or foreshadow Unit 2, this activity could stick to summary, or it could invite students to begin considering ethos, logos, pathos, and so on.

Repeat the exercise two or three times, time permitting, and debrief with students. They should feel more confident identifying primary and secondary points, especially with such a flexible genre.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I recommend converting the YouTube videos to an MP4 file that can be embedded in a Prezi or PowerPoint. This avoids the mid-class confusion of watching ads, finding the right clips, and so on.

Instructions For Students:

1. Watch the following comedy clip.

2. Take notes on what is being said.

3. When the clip is finished, re-read your notes and organize the bit based on its primary argument and its supporting subpoints.

4. Discuss with your group: compare your own breakdown of the primary and secondary claims with the others. Be prepared to report your organization to the class.

Repeat with three different clips, time allowing.

Homework:

1. Find your own clip.

2. Take notes on the content and revise your notes into some kind of outline that separates the main ideas from the subpoints.

3. Write up a short paragraph summarizing and synthesizing the comedian's argument.

4. Post both the paragraph and a link to the clip on the Canvas discussion board.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I ask students to share their choice/phrasing of the comedian's main argument and subpoints with the class. This is an informal evaluation, but it allows me to both determine their comfort with pulling out the major threads of an argument and to encourage them to make those distinctions between which ideas are emphasized and which are supplemental.

I also ask students to do one more summary/synthesis on a Canvas discussion board. They find their own set of clips, summarize them and synthesize their relationship to one another, and post their writing with the clip link on Canvas. I grade it for completion, but it can be a good, efficient way to guage whether students can differentiate between main ideas and subpoints.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My PowerPoint didn't actually work, but I did have the separate downloaded clips, so it went relatively smoothly. Despite the technical glitch, I got a lot of positive feedback on this assignment. I think my students liked the project simply for content--it made a nice vacation from reading arguments about marijuana legalization--but they did also seemed to really enjoy applying their summary skills to less-conventional media. After we discussed the major/minor points, they enjoyed very briefly discussing how the rhetorical turns worked, which was what made me think this assignment worked well as a pseudo-bridge between Unit 1 (research/summary) and Unit 2 (analysis).

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Performance

Bridging Summary and Analysis with Standup Clips

Plourde — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:51:15 +0000

Author:

Aubrey Plourde

Image Credit:

Image Credit: Cory Schmitz

Brief Assignment Overview:

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Writing Process

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Ask students to take notes on the clip and to identify the comedian's main point. Then ask them to fill in the supporting details.

Students should share their breakdown of the clip with their miniature group.

Repeat the exercise two or three times, time permitting, and debrief with students. They should feel more confident identifying primary and secondary points, especially with such a flexible genre.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I recommend converting the YouTube videos to an MP4 file that can be embedded in a Prezi or PowerPoint. This avoids the mid-class confusion of watching ads, finding the right clips, and so on.

Instructions For Students:

1. Watch the following comedy clip.

2. Take notes on what is being said.

3. When the clip is finished, re-read your notes and organize the bit based on its primary argument and its supporting subpoints.

4. Discuss with your group: compare your own breakdown of the primary and secondary claims with the others. Be prepared to report your organization to the class.

Repeat with three different clips, time allowing.

Homework:

1. Find your own clip.

2. Take notes on the content and revise your notes into some kind of outline that separates the main ideas from the subpoints.

3. Write up a short paragraph summarizing and synthesizing the comedian's argument.

4. Post both the paragraph and a link to the clip on the Canvas discussion board.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Course Type:

Course Description:

Tags:

Performance

Teaching Credibility with Twitter

Schultz — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:48:25 +0000

Author:

Patrick Shulz

Image Credit:

Twitter

Brief Assignment Overview:

Introducing the concept of credibility by analyzing tweets.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Ethos

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Twitter

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This in-class exercise/discussion gets students to think about author credibility. It familiarizes them with concepts and terminology they will need 1) when researching and writing papers and 2) for rhetorical analysis.This lesson plan is based on a paper studying the credibility of Twitter users ("Tweeting is believing?", available online: http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/155374/tweet_credibility_cscw2012.pdf). In this study, participants rate the credibility of tweets such as the following:

First step: To start things off, students rate the credibility of these tweets (or bring your own). They then come up with criteria that influenced their ratings.

In the study, among the most important indicators of credibility are:
1) "verified author topic expertise", "author often tweets on topic",
2) "personal photo as user image", "credible user name"
3) "non-standard grammar/punctuation".
4) "is a RT [retweet] from someone you trust"

The students will come up with similar criteria. To illustrate, teachers can then show made-up tweets such as:

@SillyKitty95
There is life on Mars.
v.
@NASA
There is life on Mars.
v.
@SillyKitty95
RT @NASA: There is life on Mars.
v.
@NASA
There is life on Mars ;).
v.
@NASA
Their's life on Mars.

For each example, students discuss which feature affects the tweet's credibility in what way.
Second step: The point, obviously, is then to point out how these criteria apply to TV news, newspaper editorials, books, research articles, and other publications that students work with every day. Since a lot of students work with newspaper editorials in RHE 306, I try to make it explicit for that genre: What is the equivalent to a credible user name? How do we assess "verified author topic expertise" in this context? Can we find out whether the author often "tweets" about this topic? What is the newspaper equivalent to a retweet? A short discussion of differences (edited content v. social media) could/should/might follow.
As a third step, students should try to apply these ideas to their own writing. Some, such as "non-standard grammar", will be obvious. But what are other ways of improving credibility? They might discuss how to signal author expertise (e.g. by citing external research), how to present a "personal photo" in writing (e.g. discussing personal experience and background) and how the use of non-standard grammar/punctuation will affect their credibility.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Read the paper. Bring some tweets to class, made-up or real. Any part of the paper may be used in class: "Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on the first page."

Instructions For Students:

See above.

Evaluation Suggestions:

No evaluation.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 306. Rhetoric and Writing
An introductory writing course that includes instruction in practical reasoning and the principles of rhetoric.

Villains versus Villains: Writing Persuasive Dramatic Monologues

lazhu — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 06:09:01 +0000

Author:

Lily Zhu

Image Credit:

Movies and Candy

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students work in groups to compose persuasive, dramatic monologues from the perspectives of famous, fictional villains.

Their goal is to convince the audience that the fictional, villainous actions committed were justified or, at the very least, sympathetic. This assignment focuses on voice, audience, and ethos.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

No Classroom Technology Required

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

In preparation for their final paper (in which students choose a particular written form and publication venue – with very specific styles – to “publish” their argumentative essay), students will practice developing a consistent persona, recognizing the importance of context and audience. Writing from the perspective of an “unlikable” or unsympathetic figure will force students to exercise more awareness when modulating tone and more precision when structuring their syllogisms.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

No technology is required although the availibility of desktops/laptops would make this assignment easier for the students.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Have your students watch or read an excerpt of a villainous speech you’ve found commendable or seductive. In my case, I showed a YouTube clip of Zorg’s (Gary Oldman’s) speech from The Fifth Element.
(As an added bonus, I later showed a clip of Al Pacino’s irreverent speech as John Milton from The Devil’s Advocate)

I also gave them a printed version of the monologue so that they could follow along

Priest Vito Cornelius: I try to serve life. But you only seem to want to destroy it.

Zorg: Oh, Father. You're so wrong. Let me explain.

[Puts an empty water glass on his desk]

Zorg: Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder, and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed -

[Pushes the glass off the table. It shatters on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up]

Zorg: Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. Why a lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.

Students are told to engage in a detailed analysis, breaking down rhetorical elements of the chosen monologue. How does the speaker twist his/her morally reprehensible actions/behaviors into positive ones?

Because Zorg’s speech was based on an 1850 essay by Frédéric Bastiat, I had my students read a portion of that text (That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen) – “the parable of the broken window” - and discuss how Bastiat essentially deconstructs and points out the flaws of Zorg’s argument (and any like his).

Students are then divided into groups of threes. They must pick a tv show, film, book, comic, game, etc. with a clear villain/antagonist everyone in the group is familiar with (this ensures equal contribution).

Depending on the amount of time the instructor plans to spend on this assignment, the requirements can be adjusted. I told my students to

“Write a dramatic monologue of at least 2 paragraphs from that character’s perspective, justifying a major villainous action or story arc. Be sure to make use of ethos and pathos (e.g. The Tragic Back Story or The Misunderstood Misfit).

Be as serious as possible. You may use humor, satire, irony, etc. when appropriate, but that is no excuse for weak argumentation and sloppy writing. Style and voice matter! Stay in character.”

Students then posted their completed monologues to a discussion board and had the option of presenting their speeches in front of their classmates. I had a class of 14 and the major villains were: Lotso from Toy Story 3, Captain Hook from Peter Pan, Magneto from X-Men, and Scar from The Lion King.

Though we ran out of time, the final bonus round involved a villains versus villains debate. The groups were to compose brief arguments as to why each was the most ethically sound, or least morally problematic antagonist.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Find an interesting sample speech, and if possible, a complementing one that serves as a foil or rebuttal.

Instructions For Students:

1. Contribute to class discussion

2. Contribute to group work (analyzing and writing)

3. See assignment description

Evaluation Suggestions:

The interactive, creative component of this assignment – and making sure that the groups were small – helped motivate every student to go all in. This is more of a participation grade than anything else.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Many of the students were very excited about their final product and enjoyed looking at ethos and voice from this perspective.

Course Type:

Course Description:

TX Political Stars are Big and Bright: Identifying Audiences

Rhiannon Goad — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:51:09 +0000

Author:

Rhiannon Goad

Image Credit:

Know Your Meme

Brief Assignment Overview:

Getting students to think in more specific terms about audience, without generalizing, is challenging. Using political ads, work with students to identify audiences and think of themselves critically as audience members.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Full Assignment Description:

First, play Rick Perry’s infamous Strong ad. You know, the one where he says, “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” That one. Before showing the ad, quickly remind students that the ad premiered as Rick Perry was losing traction for GOP voters in the Republican primary. Then, watch the ad and discuss who this ad was meant to encourage and why. Ask students, “What does this ad tell us about the state of Rick Perry’s campaign? Who is he reaching out for?”

Then, we watch two recent ads for TX governor: one for Greg Abbott and another for Wendy Davis. I ask the students, “As a student at UT-Austin, do you think either ad is meant to attract you? Why or why not?” Discuss what demographics each ad might appeal to and why.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

You’ll want to preload ads and watch through pesky commercials before class. You might want to prepare a handout with questions.

Instructions For Students:

Answer the following questions after each video:

Who’s this ad meant for? How do you know?
Does this ad demonstrate good knowledge of audience?
Who isn’t this ad meant for?
How do you know?
Might this ad backfire? Meaning, might this ad drive more voters away than it attracts?

Ethos and Online Dating 2.0 - Incorporating Visuals

Cate Blouke — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:54:10 +0000

Author:

Cate Blouke

Image Credit:

Image from The Dating Game scene in Mallrats. Found on The Baltimore Chop website.

Brief Assignment Overview:

A remix of a previous lesson plan, this exercise asks students to analyze the ethos of an online dating profile and then pair it with an appropriate image - drawing on the relationship between written and visual rhetoric.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This works as a great introduction to the concepts of ethos, audience, and/or visual rhetoric.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

In theory, you could do this assignment without classroom technology, though an internet connection and projector would be ideal.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

#A - twocentsworth. "Studious." Flickr.com. 3 June 2008.

Full Assignment Description:

This is an update on a previous lesson plan: Teaching Ethos Using Online Dating Profiles, which relies strictly on textual analysis. As I explain in that plan, "Perhaps more so than any other piece of writing, and even more so than my students' facebook pages, the self-summaries presented in online dating profiles are fundamentally arguments of ethos. Regardless of specific rhetorical aim (a casual hook up, a future spouse, or something in between), at heart, each of these texts is saying to readers, 'this is who I am, accept me.' So they seemed like a great source text to get my students really thinking about how and why they evaluate people: what sort of snap judgements they make, how they read into things without even realizing it."

In this version (re-designed for my Introduction to Visual Rhetoric course this semester), I ask students to draw connections between written ethos/self-presentation and pieces of visual rhetoric. I offer them a written profile alongside a series of pictures of eligible "bachelors" to choose from. They then had to make the case for why they thought a particular image fit the written profile.

For this specific class, we had just begun a unit on style, and my students had been reading excerpts from Barry Brummett's A Rhetoric of Style and Stuart Ewan's All Consuming Images. Our discussion, therefore, focused a lot on the stylistic choices in the images and how those might be read as reflections of particular values indicated in the written profile. While those readings and that framework aren't necessary for this exercise, they did help to get my students grounded in the way they read people's visual style. Without this kind of foregrounding, you may end up having to do a fair bit of extra wrangling to get students to articulate why they draw the conclusions they do (i.e. how they connect mustaches with driving a Vespa). But that can be a great discussion - forcing them to confront/explain the assumptions they make.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I spent a fair bit of time compiling a set of "bachelor" photos from creative commons liscenced images that I found on the web, rather than using people's actual OKCupid profile pictures. I'd recommend just using the ones I've put together (see below), though you're welcome to make your own. The idea of using actual images from OKCupid profiles didn't sit well with me, even if they are publicly available. It seems like an invasion of privacy (in a way), or at least a kind of appropriation that I'm not comfortable with. The written profile I excerpted was previously a public page but has since been taken down/made private - which means if you have students do this as a homework assignment or on computers, they can't just google some key phrases to find the actual profile (one of the downfalls of the previous lesson plan).

I tried to compile a diversity of styles that nevertheless might fit with the written profile, as well as some that I thought clearly didn't fit. However, I was surprised by my students' responses. There were multiple votes for five of the seven images - a much wider range than I anticipated.

Instructions For Students:

In our introduction to the concept of style, we also talked about the idea of "ethos" - the character, or sense of authority, that one presents to the world, either through writing (as you may have addressed in previous rhetoric courses) or (for our purposes) through style.

This unit is all about thinking through the assumptions we make about, or (more kindly) ways in which we read, both the styles of others and our own styles. What we think of a particular style or clothing item isn't necessarily the same as how others view it.

There is, perhaps, no clearer instance of an argument based on character (and style) than online dating profiles. Each person's profile essentially makes the argument that "you should date me because of who I am." These arguments are paired with a selection of images, presumably chosen to cast the author in his or her most favorable light. On the free online dating site OkCupid, users combine images of themselves with written self-summaries in order to convince potential matches to give them a chance.

For this exercise, read over the written dating profile below, and then review the potential images. Your task will be to pair the written profile with one of the possible images. We'll assume that all elements of the image were carefully crafted/selected for this particular purpose/venue.

Questions to consider in making your choice: What kind of person does this profile describe? What does he value/care about? Which image do you think best reflects those values or that style?

Write a few sentences explaining your choice. Be sure to offer evidence for your analysis. Why does this image/person seem most fitting to you? What kinds of things about the man's style do you infer from the image? How, specifically, does that connect with the written description? You might also include your rationale for eliminating other potential options.

Keep in mind that you want to think about the "big picture" of this profile. While one or two aspects of the written part might point toward a particular image, is that image wholly congruent with the rest of the profile?

The Written Profile:

I have a yearning to explore different territory. To frolic in a refreshing mist atop the Yellow Mountains of Mainland China. To play with other great musicians. To watch shows in the opera house of Lyon, with an intermission of French kids break dancing outside the hall. To cook my own recipe in a Paul Bocuse culinary. These are things that most of my homies won't touch. Lest we forget, I am an abnormal guy; and I am looking for an extraordinary girl.

I want a girl who can be fun and adventurous. The kind of girl who isn't too afraid to suddenly break out of a three-day isolation and take a road trip across the country on a 1987 Vespa which I am convinced can take at least another hundred thousand miles.

Interestingly, my most passionate relationships involved completely contradictory personalities. Speaking of character--unfortunately, not all of us can be satisfied with pixellated photos and interview format autobiographies. Call me old-school, but coffee and a heated intellectual conversation beats the hell out of a 9 day back and forth email chat marathon. If you want to get to know me, call me. Tell me about yourself. Talk to me about politics. What is really important to you? I never get tired of meeting new and inherently good people.

The Potential Bachelors:

Bachelors.jpg

Image Credits:

#B - Mosborne01. "Ashs-student-playing-guitar." Wikimedia Commons. 1 July 2010.

#C - torbakhopper. "Cool Dude." Wikimedia Commons. 10 Nov 2011.

#D - Chris Hunkeler. "Running with Music." Flickr.com. 5 May 2013.

#E - siuhonglo. "Singapore Flyer." Flickr.com. Aug 27 2011.

#F - connerdowney. "7 - Meditation." Flickr.com. 08 Jan 2009.

#G - sadly, I have lost the citation information for this one. I know it was CC licensed, though. I will post citation if I can find it again.

Evaluation Suggestions:

This was in in-class exercise, so it wasn't evaluated.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students really enjoyed the exercise, and I was surprised by the arguments they made for one image over another. It fostered a lively conversation about stereotypes and assumptions (particularly the way they read the image of bachelor #C).

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

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

Course Description:

RHE 315 - Introduction to Visual Rhetoric

With the rise of new media and network television, Americans are exposed to thousands upon thousands of images on a daily basis. From our facebook streams to our television viewing choices to our personal email accounts, we are bombarded with images: of celebrities, of politicians, of consumer goods, of natural disasters, of… cats. And we must filter through it all in order to make sense of our world.

In this course we will explore the ways in which images can be read, analyzed, constructed, and manipulated. We will interrogate how images inform our reading of historical and political events, of personal identity, of public and private spaces. We will think through issues of self-presentation: how our stylistic choices convey messages to the world around us, and how we interpret the choices of others. We will look at the spaces we frequent and consider the rhetorical effects of everything from the architecture to the furniture to lighting. In short, we will investigate how the visual (non-linguistic, non-textual) world conveys its messages.

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:

Intermediate Writing Course

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:

The (Selling) Powers of a Good Cry

lazhu — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 05:31:18 +0000

Author:

Lily Zhu

Image Credit:

A popular meme

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students will look at a series of popular, “sad” advertisements and discuss the ways in which certain commercials have successfully tapped into elements of rhetoric specific to viral videos. Through this, students will expand their understanding of argumentation to include the very relatable perspective of consumerism.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Citation

Writing Process

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Audio

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment acts as a transition point from Unit 1 (summary) to Unit 2 (analysis), ideally introduced the day Paper 1.2 is turned in. Since this activity functions primarily as an introduction to Unit 2, students will be expected to apply Unit 1 concepts – such as summary and kairos – with an additional, analytical dimension. Though not all students studied rhetorical analysis in high school, a brief overview of ethos, logos, and pathos will suffice for this assignment. They will be paying particular attention to intended audience and the ways that it might impact choices in rhetorical strategies.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

As long as the instructor has access to a console/projector, that should be enough.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This can be both an informal or formal exercise depending on the instructor’s preference.

I split the students into two groups and showed students two video advertisements with vastly different strategies. Half of the class focused on visual rhetoric and the other half focused on verbal, written, and aural rhetoric. Each student was given a table where they would cite a piece of evidence from the text and then explain, in detail, how it contributed to the company’s persuasive effectiveness based on intended audience. Students presented their findings in a back-and-forth fashion between groups and eventually came to understand that rhetorical strategies often work as a cohesive unit rather than measurable, separated components (whether that’s ethos, pathos, and logos working together, or visual, verbal, and aural interactions).

The first advertisement was Chipotle’s high-budget “The Scarecrow.” The ensuing discussion included not just the ad itself, but Chipotle’s situated brand, its parent company, and the smartphone game app associated with the video. In addition, there is an edited version of this same advertisement,“Chipotle Scarecrow (Honest version),” which critiques the hypocrisy and consumerist qualities of the original; this commentary is a nice complement and is a good example of the analytical thinking necessary to writing Paper 2.1.

The second advertisement (“Giving is the Best Communication”) is from Thailand, funded by a massive communications company (True Move H) and contains very little dialogue and text, but makes great use of lighting, music, camera angle, etc. Students have to think a little more creatively to truly analyze it. Many of the students enjoyed viewing and discussing this one and even offered suggestions for further videos to dissect, including “Silence of Love” – a Thai advertisement for life insurance. Life insurance is obviously a sensitive topic which makes this commercial even more interesting. Be warned, half of my class teared up/cried after viewing it.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Watch through all of the commercials so you have a sense of what overlapping strategies are used, how cultural relativism may tie in, etc. There are too many points to cover with these commercials, so be sure to prepare and pick out what you think is most important and relevant to your syllabus.

Instructions For Students:

Watch and take notes on each commercial.

Decide on the intended audience

The notes should be detailed and organized as follows:

Evidence from the commercial – corresponding analysis

Prepare for a discussion about the advertisements’ effectiveness based on audience/kairos

Evaluation Suggestions:

Participation and/or worksheet completion

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students really took to this, which is unsurprising. The advertisements chosen above went viral because they’re engaging to watch. This eventually grew into a larger conversation about advertisement tropes (in particular, those involved in car commercials).

Course Type:

Course Description:

Tags:

Teaching Ethos with Selfies

Sloan — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:50:10 +0000

Author:

Casey Sloan

Image Credit:

Personal Selfie

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students will be asked to think critically about the argumentative weight a visual picture of the author adds to a position. For homework, students will be instructed to construct a persona, capture it with a "selfie," and turn it in to the instructor. The instructor will compile all of the class selfies into a slideshow, distribute a worksheet of fake article titles, and ask students to "match" appropriate selfies to their articles. The ensuing discussion should clarify the purpose of effective ethos in an argument.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Visualization

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Technology with picture-taking capabilities for the students' homework assignment, projector for class exercise

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Students will be aked to think critically about the argumentative weight a visual picture of the author adds to a position. For homework, students will be instructed to construct a persona, capture it with a "selfie," and turn it in to the instructor. The instructor will compile all of the class selfies into a slideshow, distribute a worksheet of fake article titles, and ask students to "match" appropriate selfies to their articles. The ensuing discussion should clarify the purpose of effective ethos in an argument.

Instruct students to construct a persona by brainstorming five to six traits. A persona might be brainy, social, kind-hearted, fashionable and sensitive, for example. For homework, ask students to "capture" this specific persona by embodying it and taking a "selfie." Students without camera phones or home computers with photo-taking capabiliies should be directed to campus technology resources. Students should be asked to think about how best to convey this particular persona using visual rhetoric. They should be conscious of the setting, costume, facial expression, photo quality, number of people in the shot, etc. Ask them to turn in this selfie to you.

Next, compile the class selfies into a slide show. Hand out a worksheet comprised of a number of fake article titles matching the number of selfies. The articles should cover a wide range of style and tone. For example, several of mine were: "Pollution? Not as Big an Issue as My Dating Life," "Toxic Ontology: The Risk-Benefit Factors of Factory Pollution Output," and "Together, We Can End Pollution." Go through the slideshow several times, asking students to match the selfie with the article that would most benefit from its ethos. Go through the results as a class. Ask students to explain their choices using visual rhetorical analysis. The ensuing discussion should clarify the importance of ethos to an argument.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Locate technology resources for students without camera phones or home computers with photo-taking capabilities. Decide beforehand how students should turn in their selfies: class blog, email, class Prezi, etc.

Instructions For Students:

Before this assignment, students should be introduced to the concept of ethos. This exercise is a great way to emphasize the importance of ethos and demonstrate its efficacy in argumentation.

1) Homework: Describe a persona using five to six adjectives (generous, friendly, cruel, professional, fun-loving, etc.). Get creative--the more entertaining the persona, the more fun this assignment will be! Now it's time to embody this persona! Take a selfie capturing this character. Think about how best to convey the traits you identified: setting, photo style, costume, facial expression, number of people in the shot, quality of the shot, etc. Send the selfie to your instructor.

2) In-Class Exercise: Match the numbered selfie in the slide show to the article title you think that person would have written. We'll go through the slide show multiple times to let you see all the options.

3) In-Class Discussion: Why did you match the selfies with their respective articles? How are the selfies making statements about a person's character? Think about what each selfie declares about the character of the "author." How might those character traits contribute to and strengthen the argument being made in the article?

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this assignment in Rhetoric 306, an introduction to rhetoric course.

Tags:

Ethos

Visual Rhetoric

Rhetorical analysis

Using Google Drive for Collaborative Bias Analysis

Meredith Coffey — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:53:25 +0000

Author:

Meredith Coffey

Image Credit:

The "Gold Guys"

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this exercise, students research potential sources of bias within a set of assigned texts and add their notes to a Google Drive spreadsheet. The students and instructor then review the spreadsheet as a group and finish with a class discussion.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Ethos

Ideology

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Bias Analysis

Google Drive

Google Spreadsheets

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Required:

-individual computers for each student or pair of students

-access to Google Drive for all students

-pre-assigned readings

Recommended:

-overhead projector

More information:

Prior to class, the instructor should assign short online readings and create a corresponding Google Drive spreadsheet (see more under "Full Assignment Description"). I would strongly recommend a set of three readings about the same general topic but from different perspectives.

In class, each student (or pair of students, if the instructor prefers) will need a computer and access to the Google Drive spreadsheet. Ideally, the instructor should also be able to show the spreadsheet using an overhead projector.

Timeline for Optimal Use: