DWRL Lesson Plans - Stasis

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rebuttal

Stasis

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Students will be asked to think critically about ways to effectively make an argument in a small amount of space, the "venue" of forum comment walls, the genre of the comment post, and the importance of fair, balanced rebuttals. This exercise also helps students understand the impace that rhetorical skills can have in real-world situation. Students will find an online argument that takes a position in their controversy (YouTube videos work well here), read through the comments section, identify a disagreement, evaluate various users' use of rebuttal, and, ultimately, insert theirown opinion. This assignment works in-class for rooms with computers with internet access. It can also be assigned as homework.

Before this lesson, define refutation, concession, and rebuttal for your students. Ask students to surf the web (a simple Google search worked well for my class) for a position within their controversy. Ask them to examine the argument, then read through the comments section. Ask them to find some examples of effective and ineffective responses to the argument. Ask them to think about why particular comments are convincing and why others are not. Are some responses simply offensive? Do they give faulty evidence? Do they give a fair summary of the argument or misrepresent it?

After your students have looking through the comment walls, have them report to the class or to small groups on their findings. The ensuing discussion should solidify the importance of a fair summary, concession, and refutation.

Ultimately, ask them to write less than 100 words offering a rebuttal to either the argument or to a comment they found particularly intriguing. Instruct them to focus on fairly representing their opponent's position and finding common ground before persuasively using refutation.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment requires computers with internet access. Decide beforehand whether this assignment will be performed in-class or as homework.

Instructions For Students:

Before this assignment, students should be introduced to the concepts of refutation, concession, and rebuttal. This is a great way to emphasize the importance of brief, fair summaries and of finding common ground, or points of stasis, with opposing positions.

1) Locate an argument online that participates in your controversy. Try using some key words in the Google search engine. Make sure the blog post, opinion news article, YouTube video, etc. has a comments section that you can access. Read through the argument, then read through the comments wall. What do people disagree with in the article? Where are commenters disagreeing with each other?

2) Pick two comments that you think are particularly effective in convincing the reader. Pick two that are particularly ineffective. How do these comments differ from each other? Which comments fairly represent the main argument? Which comments use concession? Which comments use refutation? How does each comment go about rebutting the main argument (or another comment)? Do any of the comments make faulty claims?

3) Write up your own comment that will contribute to the conversation on this forum. It must rebut either the main argument or another comment on the wall. Your rebuttal must be less than 100 words, offer a fair summary of your oppositon's position, and offer some point of concession.

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this lession in an introductory rhetoric course.

Tags:

Using Flag Burning to Teach Icons, Symbols, and Speech Acts

Wiedner — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:09:40 +0000

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

"Plus" by Andre, "Fire" by Nick Abrams, "Equal" by Edward Boatman, and "Light Bulb" by Chris Brunskill, all from The Noun Project; (Flag Icon Is in Public Domain)

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students come to class having read read an analysis focused upon the importance of the seemingly minor distinctions between "icons" and "symbols" in the context of Texas v Johnson, the definitive Supreme Court case regarding the extent to which an American flag and/or the burning thereof is “speech,” and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

The class then explores the definitions of- and distinctions between- icons and symbols, analyzing the assigned reading’s contention that the majority and dissent opinions of the sharply divided court actually comes down to whether a flag in this context constitutes an icon or a symbol. Students then logon to classroom computers in pairs to find an example of one symbol and one icon. Students post their examples onto our Canvas discussion board with brief explanations as to why their choices do, in fact, constitute icons or symbols.

As time allows, the instructor puts the Canvas discussion page on the projector, and student postings are analyzed together as a class. The instructor assigns a brief follow-up reading.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Cultural Context

Historical Context

Performance

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Vergobbi, David J. "Texas v. Johnson." Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Ed. Richard A. Parker. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama, 2003. 281-97. Print.

Classroom with enough computers to accommodate all students at two students per computer.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Speaking as generally as possible, this lesson plan seeks to help students think about the many different forms of rhetoric that exist aside from the written and spoken word. More specifically, the plan seeks to establish the ways in which actions, objects and images can constitute rhetoric. The definitions and uses of icons, symbols, and what the Supreme Court calls “speech acts” as rhetoric are then explored in the specific context of the definitive Supreme Court decision on the issue of flag burning, Texas v. Johnson (1989).

“Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions” is exactly what the title suggests. It is organized by chapters, with each chapter authored by a different attorney, judge, or legal scholar of note. Each chapter consists of a communications-based analysis of a different Supreme Court case, the vast majority of which revolve around First Amendment issues. A copy of the chapter entitled “Texas v. Johnson” from the collection is posted on Canvas several days before class, with instructions to read and make note of any questions they have while reading.

After a general class discussion on the reading, we focus our attention upon the primary contention of the article’s author. Specifically, that the conflicting opinions among the Supreme Court justices in this case came down to whether a particular justice viewed the burning flag as an icon or as a symbol, even though the justices were not aware that this is where their disagreement was founded.

The class discussion is directed in a quasi-Socratic method of instruction, with the instructor seeking to elicit contradictions among student responses to questions pertaining what it is that makes this case so nuanced and multi-layered. The instructor asks a question outright: “If a person just douses something in kerosene and lights it on fire without saying or writing a word, are they “speaking?” Again, a Socratic method is useful: asking students questions such as the above and challenging their answers with further questions and new contingencies lends itself to students rethinking their visceral responses to the original question, resulting in the class as a whole coming up with a more inclusive yet refined working definition of “speech.” We look at explicit and implicit reasoning in the Supreme Court’s analysis of the same question(s). Students are reminded that they’re allowed to disagree with the reasoning of a Supreme Court justice and that they shouldn’t be shy about challenging any of their statements and/or assumptions.

As we continue thinking about non-verbal rhetoric, the instructor directs the class to the portion of the assigned reading where the author begins elaborating upon his claim that whether the justices thought flag burning was speech or not came down to whether they treated the flag as an icon or a symbol. Given that even the Supreme Court wasn’t able to make sense of this icon/symbol distinction (or so says the article’s author), it should come as no surprise that students struggle with the nuance as well. Rhetoricians, linguists and the like disagree amongst themselves as to the precise definitions of these terms, but I tried to make the broad explanation that both icons and symbols are types of signs.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

There is no need to read the actual Supreme Court opinion in Texas v. Johnson. The instructor should, of course, have a firm grasp of the analysis of the case that the class has been assigned to read.

I also found it very helpful to spend time refining my own understanding of icons, symbols, signs and the like. There is much grey area and a fair amount of disagreement on some aspects of these concepts.

Instructions For Students:

Before class: Read the article posted on Canvas, making note of questions they have as they arise.

During class: Following class discussion, logon to the classroom computers in pairs, and find one example of an icon, and one example of a symbol, and to post both to the Canvas discussion board, along with brief explanations of their choices.

After class: Read a short “article” (in comic form) that will be available on Canvas after class. Create a short posting as to whether this follow-up reading helped clarify the symbol/icon distinction, and the way in which it did so.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This lesson went over better than I ever expected. Although looking at these issues in the context of a Supreme Court decision might seem uniquely befitting a Rhetoric of Law course (which is what I teach), the issues discussed are of broad interest, and students don’t have to actually read any judicial decisions.

I would recommend pulling up the Canvas discussion page on the projector, and going through a few of student postings for as long as time allows (approximately 10 minutes).

Additional Resources:

The Noun Project- An excellent site full of simple icons and symbols to peruse. The images at the top of this lesson plan are all from the Noun Project.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Conducting interviews - animating a controversy

Bohmann — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:49:47 +0000

Author:

Axel Bohmann

Image Credit:

www.audio-luci-store.it

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students are asked to extract key claims and questions from an assigned article and then interview people about these claims and questions. The results can be used to demonstrate the spectrum of possible responses to a controversy, as contextual information when mapping a controversy, or even - with the appropriate strategic presentation - as evidence for a final, persuasive paper.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Audience

Stasis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Article(s) for generating questions
Audio-visual recording devices will be helpful, but can be done on a questionnaire basis
Media console/projector will be helpful for presenting results

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment is designed for lower level/intermediate rhetoric and writing classrooms. Its aim is to get students to think of the controversies they are working on as ongoing discussions with real life consequences rather than in abstract academic terms. It also introduces them to the concept of doing (light-weight) original research.

Students are assigned an opinion article related to the course topic as homework, from which they extract key claims and develop interview questions. Since this assignment is designed as a group project and students will benefit from a shared base for comparison when results are presented, I would not let each student work on their own articles. But this depends in part on the point in the semester at which the exercise is done. At some point towards the end, at least in my classes, students will have their own, quite specific research interests. By that time it might make sense to divide students into groups according to overlapping interests and let them work more freely. Depending on the technology available to you, it may be important to make sure that each group has at least one member with a mobile phone that can do audiovisual recordings.

For the first 15 minutes of class time, students get together in groups and design an interview questionnaire as they discuss their understanding of the assigned material. They should also talk about how to conduct interviews: will they have one person who will consistently be the interviewee and another one or two who will record, or do they want to switch roles? Finally, they should think about what kind of people they want to interview (only a certain age group, gender, only people from Texas, etc.) depending on the controversy at hand.

Students then get between 30 to 45 minutes to find interviewees and conduct their surveys. You may want to give them an area in which they are allowed to find interviewees if you don't want them wandering off too far. And it may be a good idea to be present in the general area to keep an eye on your different groups.

There will not be enough time to present each group's results in the same class period, but a quick de-briefing is a good idea. Ask students to talk about the questions people had most to say on and the ones for which it was most difficult to elicit a response. Did they identify any general trends in their interviewees' answers?

As a homework assignment, ask each group to condense their material and prepare a quick (2 min.) presentation on it. Depending on when in the semester the exercise is done, the presentations can be used as a springboard to discuss different stakeholders, audiences, or to talk about developing arguments from the interview materials

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

You should identify an area on campus close to your classroom that is busy enough for your students to find plenty of interview partners there. Ideally it should also be an area that you can overlook from a strategic position to follow what your students are doing.

Instructions For Students:

Homework:

Read the article "[...]"
Extract the x main claims the author is making
Develop a catalogue of 4 questions you as a journalist might ask a 'man on the street' who has not read the article in order to find out more about the topic

In class:

Get together in groups of 3
(if instructor cannot provide recording devices, make sure at least one student per group can record with their mobile device; of make this a written survey assignment)
Discuss the article and the questions you have come up with
Decide on a 5-8 question protocol to interview people on campus
You have 15 minutes to do this

In your groups, go to [area on campus you identified]
Interview at least five people about the topic of the article

Be back by [10-15 minutes before class is over]
Prepare to discuss your interviewees' reactions to different questions, their general positions, and any common trends you can identify

Homework:

Sum up you group's findings in a brief (2 min) presentation
You may use snippets of original footage and/or statistical graphs to represent the most important information you obtained

Course Type:

http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/File:Freemind_logo_by_dyv...

Using FreeMind to Draft Controversy Maps

Sarah Frank — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:21:14 +0000

Author:

Sarah Frank

Image Credit:

A variation on the FreeMind logo, using both the butterfly and the light bulb. (Made by Dyvim using Inkscape)

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this week-long assignment, students draw on stasis theory to generate a visualization of available arguments in a controversy.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Stasis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Visualization

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

For computer classroom (with Freemind software):

- FreeMind software

- 3-4 viewpoint articles on a single topic, assigned by the instructor or chosen by individual students

For a traditional classroom (no computers or no Freemind):

- large paper or posterboard

- 3-4 viewpoint articles on a single topic, assigned by the instructor or chosen by individual students

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This lesson plan draws on stasis theory, and aims to help students visualize their controversy before composing Essay 1 (the Controversy Map).

Before coming to class, students read a chapter on stasis theory (I assigned a chapter from Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, but any textbook chapter on stasis theory will be adequate). To open class, students discussed the reading, and we reviewed four points of stasis (conjecture, definition, quality, policy) and the common questions that characterize those stasis points.

Next, I had students assemble in small groups (3-4 students per group). Each group created a Mind Map using FreeMind software. I asked each group to create a map with four arms—one for each point of stasis.

Each group then reviewed four articles I provided. I asked each group to record the arguments made by each author, and to map those arguments onto the appropriate stasis, using FreeMind. Two examples of the students' Mind Maps are displayed below:

GARCIA_Mindmap.png

Huerta_MindMap.png

Students then uploaded their Mind Maps to our course workspace (on pbworks.com). As a class, we viewed and compared each group's map. We discussed the similarities and differences between maps, and speculated on how and why these differences can exist.

Before the next lesson, I imported each group's Mind Map, and I combined their Maps into one comprehensive Map:

306_GroupMindMap_Gentrification.jpg

During the next class meeting, we viewed the comprehensive Map as a group. We noted that all authors responded to questions of conjecture (per our example: "Does gentrification exist?") similarly. Referring back to stasis theory, we agreed that no substantive debate was taking place at the conjecture stasis.

We also noted, however, that authors tended to respond to questions of definition ("What is gentrification?") quite differently. The Map above demonstrates this point visually; the definition stasis (mapped in the top left corner) shows that authors tend to make more arguments at this stasis than at others. In the same vein, authors tend to respond to questions of quality (mapped in the bottom right corner) in various ways, depending on what definition they adopt.

Finally, we noted that discussion at the policy stasis (bottom left corner) is sparse, and we hypothesized (drawing on stasis theory) that authors cannot yet speculate on policy because they have not agreed on definition and value questions.

After discussing the comprehensive map, I asked students to use the remainder of class time to create their own Mind Maps for their chosen controversies. This assignment gave students the opportunity to conduct more research in class, and it helped students begin to visualize the field of their controversies. At the end of class, we discussed the relationship of their Mind Maps to their first major essay. I recommended that students use their Mind Maps to think about the landscape of the debate, and to help them draw connections between various viewpoints.

This assignment can be condensed into one class period, if the instructor does not wish to do the preliminary group exercise.

This assignment can also be adapted to traditional classrooms if the instructor provides materials to create physical (pen and paper) Maps.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instructors wishing to implement the preliminary group exercise should select 3-4 viewpoint articles on the same topic, and make those articles available to students. Additionally, instructors should familiarize themselves with the FreeMind software. Instructors should also determine how (and where) students should save completed Mind Maps, since most campuse computers will not support FreeMind.

Instructions For Students:

DAY ONE:

1. Assemble in groups of 3-4 students, and create a Mind Map with the topic in the center (gentrification, in our example), and four arms protruding from the center. Each arm should represent one point of stasis.

2. As a group, review the articles provided. As you read, record the various arguments (both thesis and claims) each author makes.

3. Record the arguments in the Mind Map, linking individual arguments with the appropriate stasis. For example, an author who argues that gentrification is a problem in which race is central is making a definitional argument. This argument woud need to be recorded on the "Definition" arm.

DAY TWO:

1. Examine the comprehensive map created by the instructor. Reflect on (and/or discuss) how the map represents the field of the controversy. Based on the Map, how would you describe the controversy?

2. Using the research you have conducted on your own controversy, create a new map that records the various positions in your chosen debate.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Students completed this assignment as part of the Learning Record, but instructors may have their own strategies for evaluation. While the maps do not lend themselves to a quantitative grade, instructors may ask students to compose written reflections on group Maps and individual Maps. These written reflections may be more easily evaluated based on the students understanding of stasis theory.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise is successful as a pre-writing exercise in Unit 1. Students are often confused when asked to describe the "field" or the "big picture" of a controversy in Essay 1, but this assignment helps them by representing this "field" or "big picture" visually.

At the end of Unit 1, some students remarked that, in writing Essay 1, they needed only to describe linguistically what they could observe visually on their individual Mind Maps.

This exercise was also successful in introducing stasis theory.

Course Type:

Tags:

Maps Worth Reading - Visualizing Controversies

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

Author:

Cole Wehrle

Image Credit:

Image credit: Cole Wehrle

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

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

You should also queue up this video:

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-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:

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:

Researching a Controversy using Twitter

gerdes — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:14:58 +0000

Author:

Kendall Gerdes

Image Credit:

Class Twitter account, @rhetoric306, with Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students (5th ed.) as background

Brief Assignment Overview:

By creating their own Twitter accounts and finding accounts to follow that are related to their research topic, students learn the difference between library resources and online resources like daily news, blogs, and opinion.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Social Media

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Research, digital literacy

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Students need a computer (or conceivably, smartphone) with internet access to sign up for a free Twitter account. When I taught this lesson in a computer mediated classroom, I had a projector screen to introduce students to Twitter.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Students created their own Twitter accounts in class, and I asked them to follow our class Twitter account right away. I use the class account to retweet my students and make short announcements. Then, I asked students to find an active Twitter account (with recent tweets) that is relevant to their research topic. I asked students to follow the account, then tweet the handle of thtat account to our class account. I also asked students to come up with a class hash tag.

I also gave students some research guidelines (see Instructions for Students, below) to help them think about the relationship between library resources, with their slower editorial gatekeeping process, and online resources, and the different research strategies required to use both.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Creating a class Twitter account can help keep students organized around a central account. I also recommend reading about what other instructors are doing to come up with a mix of ideas that suits your class. Some recommended reading is included in the additional resources, below.

Instructions For Students:

These are the instructions I gave my students:

Your first Twitter assignment is as follows:

Create your own professional Twitter account (or if you're not shy, you can use a Twitter account you already have).
Follow our class Twitter account, @rhetoric306, and tweet us to introduce yourself online (your name and the issue you're researching would be helpful!).
By Friday at 2 pm, you need to find an active Twitter account (with recent tweets) that is relevant to your issue. Follow them, then tweet their handle and how you found them to our class account. I'll use the class account to follow your recommendations!
We're going to need a class hash tag to keep track of our class tweets across our different accounts. When you tweet the account you followed, you should also propose a hash tag by tweeting @rhetoric306. The goals here are short, unique, and informative.
If you have ideas for how you want to use Twitter in our class, tweet them @rhetoric306.

Some Twitter guidelines:

You can only tweet 140 characters at once.
You create a link to other Twitter accounts when you put their handle, like @rhetoric306, in your tweet.
Hash tags help categorize your tweets for searches. #likethis
Although Twitter created a way to re-post someone else's entire Tweet (called retweeting), many people often still edit or comment on the tweet and post it again using the marker "RT" to credit the original poster.
If you can't figure out how to do something, try to Google it.
NB: Using Twitter puts us in contact with people outside of class. Obviously, we have no control over what these people say or share. If you find yourself uncomfortable with any Twitter content for any reason, you may unfollow or block any user, and disregard any comments, conversations, or links. Please come to me if you have any questions or concerns about this.

Some Twitter/Research guidelines:

Don't just go with the first thing you find. The goal is to find high-quality sources. Even just one quality Twitter account will give you much better returns than a dozen mediocre ones. Look through lots of Tweets (30-50) from each account, and look through lots of accounts before you decide who to follow.
Think about your search terms. You can search for words that appear in tweets, but you can also search for hash tags and usernames. And there are more ways to search Twitter than just the interface they provide you. Get creative.
Try to find experts and advocates. Journalists may be excellent news, but you also need opinion, and sometimes organizations or even scholars will have useful tweets.
Follow the links. Read what they are reading, check out who they are re-tweeting, surf their hash tags. Twitter doesn't use MLA, citing sources in such a way that your readers can recognize and locate the originals is still important.
Experiment. Whether it's on Twitter or on the Library site, effective research requires some creativity and experimentation. You have to try things out, and don't be disappointed if you don't what you want on the first try--use your failed and frustrated searches to figure out how to do it better.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I evaluate my class using the Learning Record, and I have students complete brief reflective writing exercises on what they learned each class.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I admit, I was surprised at how many of my students were not already using Twitter. I wished I had left more time and given them more detailed instructions on the first day I introduced it. But, I also think Twitter is relatively easy to learn. A technological challenge can also foster student collaboration, since they pose questions and help each other figure out how to solve the problems that inevitably arise.

Additional Resources:

My post on Twitter at Blogging Pedagogy: http://bloggingpedagogy.dwrl.utexas.edu/content/researching-public-issues-twitter
Grad Hacker on Teaching with Twitter: http://www.gradhacker.org/2012/11/26/teaching-with-twitter/
Matt King's RHE 312 Twitter Assignment: http://rhe312.pbworks.com/w/page/21055220/Twitter%20Assignment
The Learning Record: http://www.learningrecord.org/

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this lesson in my introductory writing course, RHE 306 Rhetoric and Writing.

Tags:

Using Facebook to Review Local & Global Argument Types & Rhetorical Appeals

Delacroix — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:03:54 +0000

Author:

Julia Delacroix

Image Credit:

facebook

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this lesson students review the basics of argument types & rhetorical appeals. Working in groups, they look for examples of several argument types in facebook status updates. As a class we review the examples, evaluate their classifications, and discuss the rhetorical appeals at play.

This lesson is particularly useful for articulating arguments that may be implied by the text but not directly stated and for differentiating between local and global arguments (since nearly all of the pages in question share the same global proposal argument – that viewers should support their institution or product – it’s useful for students to see how different types of local arguments work together to support that claim).

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Social Media

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Reinforcement of the idea that “everything’s an argument”

Review of argument types

Review of rhetorical appeals

Review of audience

Practice identifying local vs. global arguments

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Outside of a technology classroom, this exercise could be used with printouts of the pages, or it could be adapted to be a whole-class activity.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

After a brief review of the various types of arguments & rhetorical appeals, students are asked to go to the UT rhetoric facebook page. Together we read through the first few status updates and discuss what arguments are being made, to whom they’re being made, what types of arguments they are, and what rhetorical appeals are being employed. Then students are asked to divide into groups of three or four, and read through the facebook page of a national figure, television show, corporation, or governmental department. They're asked to find in the status updates examples of various types of local arguments: definition, evaluation, causal, rebuttal, and proposal. When they find an example, they make a note of the status update and raise their hand. Once three or four groups have found examples of a particular argument type, we come together as a class to analyze one or two of them. We identify the audience, decide what type of argument each represents and how it might work to support the global argument, and discuss the rhetorical appeals being made. Then students return to their groupmates to identify the next argument type.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Because these pages change daily, it’s worth checking them a day or so before the assignment & possibly altering the list. I decided on a list of nine or ten sites, including this year’s presidential candidates, some sites for television shows (The Apprentice, The View, and Deadliest Catch) several commercial sites (Starbucks, Home Depot, Taco Bell) and a few others (City of Austin, NASA).

Instructions For Students:

[The following instructions are communicated aloud]

Today we’ll be testing the idea that “everything’s an argument.” We’ll look at Facebook status updates to find examples of different types of arguments. We'll begin by looking at the UT rhetoric facebook page.

[have students access page on their computer, and in group discussion identify the global argument and the audience. Then read through a few status updates and discuss the local argument types, how they support the global argument, and what rhetorical appeals they use to do so]

Please divide into groups of three or four and choose one of the facebook pages on the board. Call up the page and read through it for a few minutes to decide what you think the global argument is, and who the audience is.

[allow students five minutes or so to read and then discuss]

Now we'll turn to local arguments. Read through the status updates on the page. When you find an example of a [definition, or causal, or proposal] argument, please make a note and raise your hand.

[The assignment proceeds as outlined above.]

Evaluation Suggestions:

There is no formal evaluation, but the exercise itself will allow instructors see who may be having trouble identifying argument types, and to check for understanding with these students during the larger class discussion and analysis.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This is a revision of a lesson I taught using the biography section of five or six different celebrity websites rather than facebook profile pages. That lesson generally went well; students were engaged and having them pick the arguments was useful practice for rhetorical analysis. I’ve revised this lesson to use facebook pages rather than celebrity websites because I hope that this exercise will produce a more interesting discussion about the role of audience. I also think that this will be more difficult for students than it may seem; the arguments implied by status updates are frequently pretty buried, and taking the time in class to model and practice how we might draw such arguments out will be useful preparation for students moving toward rhetorical analysis. I’ll be sure to update this section after I teach the revised version.

Course Type:

Reviewing rhetorical appeals

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:

Facebook

Local arguments

Argument types

Pre-Writing: Surveying Expectations on the First Day of Class

RMazique — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:18:32 +0000

Author:

Rachel Mazique

Image Credit:

Gallaudet University Tutorial & Instructional Programs: http://www.gallaudet.edu/tip/english_works/writing/pre-writing_writing_a...

Brief Assignment Overview:

On the first day of class, students think about the course topic and document their personal definitions of and understandings of the topic. In our case, students had to think and write about "Disability in Pop Culture." This type of writing serves multiple functions; it allows the instructor to glimpse the students' thinking and writing processes. It allows students to express or face any anxieties they have about writing/the course topic. It serves as an ice-breaker, and it serves as evidence of student development as this piece of writing can be referred to after students have developed a critical framework for understanding the course topic.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Semester-long Project

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

No Classroom Technology Required

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

1. To have students examine their personal conceptions of "disability" and think about examples of "disability" in pop culture.

2. To have students demonstrate their writing skills in a low-stakes, in-class writing exercise, in which they must write in complete sentences.

3. To document a "starting point," which can serve as evidence of the development of critical thinking after students have read about and discussed the critical frameworks for the class. (In our case: rhetoric and disability theory.)

4. To have students become familiar with our class wiki and develop their digital literacy skills from the first day of class.

5. To expose students to the ways in which one activity may apply to multiple course strands and dimensions of learning under The Learning Record assessment system.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

I planned this exercise for a classroom with computers as well as a media console and projector as our class work is primarily documented and stored in a PBworks wiki. However, it could be adapted for a classroom without computers as students may write on paper rather than on a computer or in a classroom wiki.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

I designed this as an in-class writing exercise so I could address student concerns or challenges with writing in an online environment (as most students had not yet joined the class wiki that I invited them to prior to our first meeting). After introducing the class and reading through the course description, I invited students to free-write on the topic of the course. I indicated that there was no right or wrong answer, as I wanted this to be a low-stakes writing exercise. I gave students about fifteen minutes to set up their wiki page and write their thoughts before hitting "save." I also explained that this would serve as evidence of their thinking and writing processes from the first day of class and that we would refer back to their thoughts during class discussions as well as in a Unit Two short reflection paper--when they would revisit these concepts--after having developed a critical framework for thinking about and through rhetoric and about disability theory. Because the "firstness" of this exercise--first time using the wiki, first time writing for the class, "first day" evidence of thoughts about the course topic--was very important to the pedagogical goals, I assigned this as homework to those who did not complete writing their thoughts out to their satisfaction. I also assigned this as homework to students who added the class later and asked that they write their thoughts before they delved into the course readings on disability theory and disability studies. I also indicated the exercise's relevance to our course goals and the dimensions of learning by emphasizing the goals in bold and underlining the dimensions, so students would realize how each activity was relevant to mutiple course goals and relied upon several dimensions of learning as their progress is measured not by traditional methods of grading, but by The Learning Record.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Prepare your list of questions to prompt student thinking about the course topic.

If having students post their work online, create the webpage or wiki page with the writing prompt.

Or, make copies of the writing prompt for students to write on (for classes without technology).

Instructions For Students:

In your student folder, create a page titled "1st Day Pre-Writing Exercise" (with your preferred name, major & year in school in the top right-hand corner of the page). [Digital Literacy & confidence and independence or prior and emerging experience]
Free-write, or write a brief, one paragraph reflection (full sentences) on how you think pop culture has influenced your perception of (dis)ability & what (dis)ability means to you. [Presentation & prior and emerging experience]

Here are some writing prompts to get you thinking (answer as much as you can/feel free to add to this anything you think is relevant to the discussion) [Writing Process & creativity, originality, and imagination]

What does "disability" mean to you? What does "ability" mean to you?
How might pop culture have influenced your perception or understanding of these terms?
What kinds of images come to mind when you think of (dis)ability?
What kinds of pop culture have you seen or heard--relating to (dis)ability?
How do these images or sounds persuade you to think a certain way about (dis)ability?

Evaluation Suggestions:

In a class with traditional grading systems, this piece of writing may only receive "completion" points as it is designed to be a low-stakes writing assignment. However, in courses that use The Learning Record assessment method, this piece of writing becomes an essential piece of evidence that documents the thinking and writing skills of students on the very first day of class. It allows students to better analyze their development when they have a concrete example of the ways in which the course may or may not have transformed their writing and thinking skills when they can contrast writing from the first day of class with writing and thinking at the midterm as well as at the end of the course.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students were anxious when I mentioned they would have a writing exercise to do in class and that they would create a page on the wiki to do so. Some students mentioned after class that they do not write well within time constraints and were concerned about whether they would be allowed to finish their writing at home. I assured them that they could as the point was not to test their speed. And, for those students who were anxious about writing and using the wiki, writing on the first day allows students to face their inhibitions about their writing and it allows me to glimpse their writing skills as well as their prior experiences on the course topic. With The Learning Record system of assessment, challenges, frustrations, fears, and problems (as well as successes) writing in digital environments are documented in weekly (or daily) observations that students make about their learning processes. So, encouraging students to experience these dilemmas and to strategize ways to confront their concerns gives them an opportunity to develop their skills as well as their confidence and indepenence (two dimensions of learning). Students who wrote observations about this "First Day Pre-Writing Exercise," noted that their initial anxieities faded away once they were actual in the digitial environment and saw that they were not alone in their concerns--as their peers around them were also encountering similar experiences. Students are also able to build a rapport with one another as students ask a peer for help on creating a wiki page or with navigating the wiki.

With regards to content, some students had very sophisticated thoughts on "disability" and extensive experience with or examples of "disability" in pop culture. Most had common, stereotypical answers to give when defining "disability." These answers were touched on during class discussions on readings by "disabled" writers or during discussions of disability theory. Students will also refer to their thoughts from the first day when we begin Unit Two and they write a reflection on "disability" in pop culture given their new knowledge and critical analyses of (dis)ability in pop culture.

Additional Resources:

1. The Learning Record

2. To access my syllabus with more information on how I use The Learning Record, click "View" under the column, "Syllabus."

3. PBWorks

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This course is an intermediate writing course, but the activity could apply to any course with a specific topic that instructors want their students to interrogate. Here's my course description:

RHE 309K – Disability in Pop Culture is a rhetoric and writing course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance your ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate your own position effectively. Your work in this course will help you advance the critical writing and reading skills you will need to succeed in courses for your major and university degree.

In this course, you will focus on analyzing the relationship between pop culture and rhetoric. Your analyses will 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?

Beginning with a selection of readings that introduce disability theory, you will conduct research to explore a controversy of your choice on (dis)ability in pop culture. Throughout, you will engage with your controversy, analyzing editorials, print and video advertisements, and other contemporary portrayals of “the supercrip” in pop culture to analyze rhetorical appeals. The last unit will focus on multimodal arguments; you will create a multimodal composition that takes a position on the representations of bodies and abilities.

Tags:

Rebuttal Sparring

Bohmann — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:05:20 +0000

Author:

Axel Bohmann

Image Credit:

GodWiki

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students pair up to practice rebuttal. Partners present their position on their chosen controversy and have to fend off arguments for other positions that their partner comes up with. Partners change frequently and in quick succession.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Peer Review

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

No Classroom Technology Required

Presentations

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

refine students' position in their chosen controversy
become aware of and address potential arguments opposed students' own positions
increase awareness of different audiences
develop effective rebuttal strategies

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Space (good for a session outdoors)

Writing equipment (digital or oldschool) for reflection.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Use this lesson plan fairly early in Unit 3 of your RHE 306. Ideally students will have read about and discussed the basics of rebuttal (refutation, counterargument, possibly concession) in a previous session and have started to think about their own position in their chosen controversy. This exercise should both get them to think more carefully about their position and potentially qualify it, as well as raise their awareness for opposing positions, their arguments, and how to rebut them. I have my student continuously do little free writing exercises in which they reflect on their position and this exercise culminates in one of those, too.

This is an exercise that needs a bit of space, so if you are in a computer classroom it might be a good chance for you and your students to see some sunlight for a change. Mine definitely appreciate that. Divide the class up into two groups of equal size. The first forms a circle, facing outwards, and the second an additional circle around that one, so two students always face each other. If there is an uneven number of students I get into one of the circles as well to even it out. Tell them that this is their chance to do 'intellectual sparring,' to practice their punches, jabs, and defense with actual partners to strengthen their essay 3 and presentation performance. There, other positions are implicit and it can be a difficult task to consider all of them and their potential arguments. But the more fully they can be addressed, the better essay 3 is going to be.

Tell students they will have three minutes to do the following:

partners in the outer circle present their controversy and their position with regards to it
partners in the inner circle give an argument for a different position
partners in the outer circle must find a way to rebut/refute/discredit said argument, thus strenghtening their own position

After three minutes, the outer circle moves on clockwise (or counter-clockwise if you wanna be a gangster :) ) and the same routine starts again. Half-way through you should switch roles, having the students in the inner circle present and defend their positions. Alternatively, you can leave a little more time between moving circles and have partners switch roles in that interval. Emphasize to your students that this is an exercise where they should really push each other. Of course, you want them to treat each other with respect but it will not do any good if they give in to each other's points too easily. In general, etiquette has not been a problem in my class so far, so I try to get them to really get at each other's arguments.

How long you keep this exercise going depends a bit on your time constraints and the way the students react to it. My experience has been that they enjoy the dynamic dimension of rapidly moving from partner to partner and also feel more comfortable talking when everybody else is too and they know the instructor is not listening. So I don't seem to have any trouble letting it go on for about 30 minutes. You want to give them a chance to listen and respond to a range of opposing viewpoints, so I would not go much shorter than that. Longer potentially, but there is a danger of repetition and information overload as this is quite an intense exercise for the students.

When you feel everybody has had enough chances to listen and respond to different arguments, bring your students back together and let them take 10-15 minutes to compose a written reflection on the exercise, including the following questions: What were the different positions opposed to your own? Were they associated with any particular stakeholders? Give at least two arguments you heard that run counter to your position. Can you find ways to construct refutations or counterarguments to those arguments? You can assign a written homework to your students where they come up with a mire elaborated version of this reflection, including fully developed rebuttals.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before Class:

Very little preparation needed
Make sure students have a good idea of rebuttal in general and a sense of their own position in their chosen controversy prior to doing this exercise
Make sure there is enough space for students to move around comfortably

In Class:

Keep an eye on the time, while also getting a sense for how long it takes students to go through the cycle
Be prepared to 'stand in' as a sparring partner if there is an uneven number of students
total class time taken: 45 - 50 minutes (30-35 circle exercise; 10-15 written reflection)

Instructions For Students:

Circle Exercise:

Students divvy up into 2 groups of equal size
Stand in two circles, facing each other
Students in the outer circle present their controversy and their position with regards to it
Students in the inner circle give an argument for a different position
Students in the outer circle must find a way to rebut/refute/discredit said argument, thus strenghtening their own position
You have three minutes for this; when I give the signal, the outer circle moves on clockwise

Reflection:

Write a brief reflection answering the following questions:

What were the different positions opposed to your own? Were they associated with any particular stakeholders? Give at least two arguments you heard that run counter to your position. Can you find ways to construct refutations or counterarguments to those arguments?

Evaluation Suggestions:

I would not evaluate students on the exercise itself. The written reflection (especially if you assign an elaboration for homework) can certainly be used for feedback, but I would not attach a grade to it. The exercise is designed to allow students to play around and get comfortable with their own position.

Course Type:

Course Description:

I am teaching RHE 306 with Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble. The content does not matter for this exercise, though.

Tags:

Refutation and Rebuttal

Collaborative Web Page Annotations With Diigo

Battistelli — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:29:21 +0000

Author:

Todd Battistelli

Image Credit:

Todd Battistelli

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson introduces students to a collaborative annotation tool to facilitate class discussions and to encourage active reading and research practices.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Introduce students to a tool that enables organization and annotation of web pages. Encourage active reading and research practices. Support in-class group discussions with references to common reading.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Diigo accounts for each student & Diigo toolbar add-on installed in Firefox.

Timeline for Optimal Use: