DWRL Lesson Plans - Epideictic

Identifying Reasons and Evidence with Friends

sariddick — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:21:31 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

his"File:Friends (letras brancas, fundo preto.svg." Wikimedia Commons. Last modified 24 Dec 2014. Web. 5 Mar 2015. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friends_letras_brancas,_fundo_preto).svg>.

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson uses the popular sitcom Friends and the classic public debate of "Faith Vs. Reason" to create a fun, accessible way of understanding the relationship between claims, reasons, and evidence.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Video

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

1. A media console/projector

2. A computer

3. A whiteboard or chalkboard

4. Access to Friends "The One Where Heckles Dies" (Season Two, Episode Three).

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In this lesson, students will watch a few brief clips between two characters, Phoebe and Ross, on the sitcom Friends. In these clips, Phoebe and Ross argue about whether or not evolution is real, but not in the way that this argument tends to be portrayed. Ross, a paleontologist, insists that evolution is real, but Phoebe is unconvinced that it is absolutely better than any other possible theories. In teams, students will locate the reasons and evidence that their character gives in support of his/her claims, and they will look at how these components contribute to the most convincing argument, as identified by them, the show's audience.

This lesson is intended to be a fun, fast-paced, and engaging way to illustrate the differences between and significance of reasons and evidence in an argument. Because the argument featured in this assignment is an inoffensive play off of a common, longstanding public debate ("Faith vs. Reason"), this lesson also reminds students that looking at the parts of an argument from a rhetorical standpoint can be done without letting personal opinions affect the process. The "Faith vs. Reason" debate is one that students will likely have encountered before this lesson, but its comical, unusual, and lighthearted treatment in this episode will allow the students to easily respond from an analytical perspective, rather than an emotional one.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instructors must have a way of playing the episode of Friends called "The One Where Heckles Dies" (1995). This can be viewed on DVD, online rentals (e.g., iTunes, Amazon), or through a paid streaming service (e.g., Netflix).

If the instructor does not have a chalkboard or whiteboard on which to write, they should prepare a chart that clearly separates the following: Ross's reasons, Ross's evidence, Ross's claims, Phoebe's reasons, Phoebe's evidence, and Phoebe's claims.

Instructions For Students:

Instructor should divide the room into two teams: Team Ross and Team Phoebe. From there, half of each team should be responsible for reasons and the other half for evidence. For example, in a room of twenty students, there should be ten Ross students and ten Phoebe students. There should be five students looking for reasons from Ross, five for reasons from Phoebe, five for evidence from Ross, and five for evidence from Phoebe. Everyone is responsible for recording any claims that they hear. This should make the task feel more manageable to the students, and it increases the chances that the students will capture a wide variety of points from the clips.

1. On your computer or tablet, or on a piece of paper, record any claims that you hear from your Team Leader (Ross or Phoebe) as you watch this debate. Also, write down all of the reasons or evidence that you hear he/she give. You may hear multiple claims, and you may hear reasons/evidence that support different claims. Do not worry about putting those pieces together yet. Just write down the reasons or evidence that you hear (depending upon your assignment), and write down all of the claims that you hear from your Team Leader.

The instructor should play clips at the following minutes: 4:10-6:00, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-10:00, and 15:00-17:10 (6 minutes total).*

2. Share all of the reasons, evidence, and claims that you identified.

Instructor should record these on a visible chart for the class. As the discussion progresses, students can see (1) who provided more reasons and/or more evidence (2) and which pieces of reasons and evidence affected them more as an audience. Have the class vote on who they believed won the argument, and have them discuss why that is based on the reasons, evidence, and claims that they heard and the ways in which all of those components were presented.

*Note: A bonus round can be the female characters vs. Chandler at the end of the episode (beginning at 17:10). If time permits, students really enjoy this round, and it ought to be worthwhile because it reinforces the lesson. Watching the show from 4:10 through the end may be helpful because it contextualizes the content a bit more, but it is not necessary.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students loved this episode, and later in the semester I received praise for it from a student.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

This lesson was designed for "RHE 306: Rhetoric & Writing," an introductory writing and research course.

Tags:

Composing Short Writing Assignments for the Internet: Confronting the Digital Native Myth

Steel — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:13:32 +0000

Author:

Connie M. Steel

Image Credit:

Digital native image found at http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/144-digital_native2...

Brief Assignment Overview:

This peer learning assignment and lesson plan series gives students the opportunity to explore digital composition. It allows students to research container designs for themselves; set up a website or blog; peer-train each other to use the site; develop writing standards for content; and write peer-editing and publishing content. This plan can be adapted equally well to short rhetoric or short literary criticism assignments.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

1) To develop ideas of critical reception in digital formats by asking students to analyze and benchmark websites and blogs

2) To develop standards for on-line writing by having the students generate the writing prompt

3) To access on-line composition technologies by choosing a product capable of meeting their aesthetic goals within their resource limits (i.e. free and within time constraints)

4) To develop research skills by selecting books for review appropriate to the blog theme

5) To develop collaboration and oral argumentation skills through an in-class debate and final selection of aesthetics, technology and writing standards

6) To formulate ideas for logos and arrangement of multiple textual pieces

7) To write a short review essay. (The short reviews become the final product and content for the website).

8) Peer review and copyediting of short essays

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

A computer classroom; or enough laptops that every two students could share

Internet access

Students

An idea for a short writing assignment relevant to course content that would be interesting to potential audiences outside of the class room, such as book reviews on a particular theme, or research summaries on a coherent topic of current interest

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

I designed this series in response to the 'Digital Native' myth. The 'Digital Native' myth goes something like this: today's students grow up surrounded by technology, and therefore, magically know how to use it. But when I surveyed actual students at the beginning of a course "Literature and Artificial Intelligence," I found that the number of students who knew how to compose on the internet was very small. When I showed the aggregated results to the students they noticed immediately a large gender bias in our class--only one of the young women had ever started their own blog. This raised a sort of accessibility issue that we decided to address as a class. Further discussion revealed that instructors tend to set up courseblogs or course websites for students, and then just ask the students to create a login and add the content. Many did not understand the data input side of things well enough to explain it to a peer. The majority of students did not know how or why those containers had been chosen or how to set up a blog of their own, thus indicating a significant barrier to entry for digital composition in spite of access to the relevant hardware. In response to the students' survey results and comments, I expanded the original blog post assignment to include the full range of steps required to get from Step A to Step B in digital composition for the internet. This series was designed for a computer lab classroom (I have done similar things with a series of reservations for a computer lab).

This is a series of in class workshops and take home assignments. The entire class functions together as a collective to produce a single website with a common theme composed of multiple short essays. These are the skeletons of the prompts I used to guide the students through the process of selecting a container, developing standards, writing, editing and publishing content.

TAKE HOME ASSIGNMENT #1—Selecting Texts Prompt

As a take home assignment, I asked students to post three suggestions (each) for texts to review on the website we would build. The idea here was that the texts selected might influence the overall aesthetic choices. The stories needed to fit the course theme of science fiction involving artificial intelligence with the added dimension of a female author as we found a shortage of information about female science fiction writers on the internet. Here’s the discussion board prompt:

“List three stories by giving MLA citations for the copies you find (on Amazon, at the PCL, your local bookstore, etc). If someone else checked them out of the library, recall them now! If we don’t own the book/story, use Inter-Library Loan to request a copy from another university.”

Then we whittled down

WORKSHOP #1—Brainstorming and Benchmarking Writing Standards and Technologies

In order to accomplish the next goal the class was divided into four teams representing different types of decision making steps. Each team is giving a specific task building towards decisions that will effect the writing of the whole class. The instructor should leave some time at the beginning and end of class for discussion and should check in with each team to make sure they understand their job and how their job fits in with the other jobs.

Technology Selection Team: This team consists of students with prior web/blog/wiki experience. It is this teams job to compare notes on the usability of programs they have used and come up with their top recommendations for the class. (Tumbler and Word Press are favorites).

Aesthetics Team: This team's job is to identify sites that do similar types of work and look appealing. What might be the technical challenges of making something similar? They come up with a list of sites and narrow it down to their favorite four to show the class.

Writing Standards Team: This team is given the task of developing standards for content. In this case the students benchmarked the genre elements in a graduate level E3W Review of Books and adapted them to a shorter on-line format. Students should think about word limits (discourage anything longer than 500 words) and types of questions they want answered in the review, and think about things like pictures.

Managing Editor Team: This small team (two students is fine) compiles, polishes, organizes and removes the duplicates from the lists of books in the discussion forum. At the end of class, final decisions are made as to who will read and review which texts. Everybody commits.

HOMEWORK #2—Find and begin reading your story

Prompt: “This past week you were supposed to find and start reading the text you will review for our blog/wiki on Women and Science Fiction. BRING YOUR STORY TO CLASS on X Date! If it is something you are accessing through EEBO or other on-line source PRINT the cover/title page and the way to access it (website/database) onto a sheet or two of paper and bring that to use. Come to class ON-TIME and ready to do some creative workshopping.”

GAP CLASS—Schedule a day for something else while you give students the time to find/buy/read their books.

WORKSHOP #2—Caucusing and Decision Making

First half of class:

1) At the beginning of class students turn their books and book covers over to the General Editing Team. The Gen-Ed Team gets a delegate each from the Tech and Aesthetics teams to come up with two creative ways to organize texts in the on-line exhibit. (Total of four people). They will present these to the rest of the class.

2) The Tech and Aesthetics Teams caucus to figure out which of their favorite aesthetics are ones that are technologically feasible. They will come up with their best two options to show the class.

3) The Writing Standards Team meets with the professor to publish a handout with their content requirements. This will be distributed at the end of class.

Second half of class:

1) Managing Editor Team presents the final list of books.

2) Tech and Aesthetics teams present their recommendations.

3) Voting on container choices.

4) The Writing Standards team explains the content requirements prompt.

5) Final Decisions are posted as a plan on the discussion board (by the professor) for students to refer to at home and in the next workshop.

HOMEWORK #3—Short Content Writing Assignment

Students write their content using the standards developed as their prompt. They are asked to bring their work to class in electronic format (we used Word).

WORKSHOP #3—Peer Review and Content Building

1) Students read and peer review each other’s content. (This could also be a homework assignment).

2) Students copyedit and correct their work.

3) The tech team peer trains everybody to upload their content. People who "get it" first become peer trainers for the person next to them.

4) Uploading and final proof reading.

5) Troubleshooting. More troubleshooting.

FINAL SHOWCASE

Some students may need to take their time with the content upload. Give them the chance to finish their upload and editing during office hours or for homework. The instructor can review the site for typos or you can leave the remaining mistakes. Extra credit opportunities can be offered for students to add bells and whistles to the site, or for submitting an extra writing assignment.

At the beginning of the next class show off the final product and give the students a chance to discuss what they learned. A fun follow-up is to ask everyone to publicize the site by posting it on their social networking accounts (like Facebook, Twitter or their own blogs). Follow up in a later class by reporting the number of hits.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment/lesson plan requires clear communication with the students, and a certain amount of patience with utter chaos. By that I mean, the students did all the things I would normally do for them, like picking the website technology and designing the prompt, and I had to stand back and let them take control. Basically, my main job was to keep the teams communicating, to keep them aware of how their jobs fit into the bigger picture, and to help them figure out how to do things without micromanaging. This meant letting them make and learn from minor productive mistakes. There were a couple of challenges, which are described below.

Instructions For Students:

The series of steps are listed above in the Assignments section. Assignments and content can be flexibly adapted to course themes. The in-class workshops were designed for a 1 hour 15 minute class format. When lesson planning, it is important to include time for explaining tasks clearly to students and for getting their feedback at the end of class sessions. This time could vary quite a bit depending on the size of the class, the experience level of the students, and how well they have bonded as a group. I save this type of series for the end of the semester when students already have experience with writing, editing and conducting peer review. This assignment builds off those skills and teaches them new ones.

Evaluation Suggestions:

GRADING

This is a multi-piece project, so I split the grading into smaller chunks, which could be adapted to a variety of syllabi. This also encouraged class attendance.

1) Homework grade for the discussion post listing book choices (credit/no credit--went into the homework grade built into my syllabus)

2) Quiz grade for bringing books to class so that the general editors for workshop number 2. (Pass/Fail--went into the reading quizzes part of my syllabus)

3) Writing assignment for content, and upload completion—Students were given a letter grade. The writing assignment was worth 10% of the syllabus total.

4) Peer review quiz credit for editing during the third workshop. (Pass/fail quiz grade).

5) A small extra credit bonus was given for the “best peer editing team.” This was awarded to the peer editing pair that had the fewest number of copyediting mistakes in their final blog entries.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The students chose to make a wordpress site. The following is a representative entry of the work they produced.

http://womenofsteel.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/34/

Their target audience was potential high school and lower division college instructors looking for science fiction texts for their courses. They decided each entry should include an image; a quote reflecting the author's writing style; a brief gloss of plot, genre, and themes; and an indication of the relative reading difficulty, along with pricing information. Two of the students were radio/television/film majors and the class decided it was OK if they reviewed science fiction films by women directors. Tagging and navigationals levels were added to reflect time periods, genres, theme and popular media. One challenge occurred when it was discoverd that the blog's default is to list entries by the date of upload. This wasn't a useful navigational feature but the students discovered it after they had already committed to their container theme. Another challenge appeared with the image uploads. Some of the book cover images load exactly as they are supposed to and others don't (in spite of a uniform training session). Overall, they did a nice job with the content and peer editing. The feedback from the students was that their overall confidence in trying to build a website or blog on their own had increased with knowing the types of decisionmaking steps to make, and their overall ability to explain what they were doing to a peer increased.

The site has since become the target for trolls. As a consequence there are some random unauthorized entries dating after May in the blog. A blog's flexibility for multiple users is an advantage, but sometimes older static website designs have better security. So, that's something to think about.

Additional Resources:

They needed to read books to complete this assignment.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This lesson plan was developed for a writing intensive sophomore level course designated as "introduction to the major/introduction to literary methods." The course variant was titled "Literature and Artificial Intelligence." Course content bridged the canons of English and Artificial Intelligence with a selection of science fiction, philosophy, literary criticism and scienctific essays. In the second half of the semester, students were asked to build a website featuring book reviews for relevent science fiction stories by women authors. Their potential audience was instructors in high school and lower division college courses.

Tags:

Using Music Videos to Explore Historiography

Laura Thain — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:08:36 +0000

Author:

Laura Thain

Image Credit:

Reality by Rach

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment encourges students to think about how they can read and piece together primary sources to create a descriptive narrative. Students are asked to pair together Steven Horowitz's useful Billboard article "The Boys! Are Back in Town," (Billboard 124.11 (2012): 24-29) and three music videos: 'N Sync's "Bye Bye Bye," One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful," and The Wanted's "Glad You Came" in order to construct a history of "the boy band" as a class.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Video

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This lesson plan should help students practice

observing characteristics of historical narrative in the example article.
employing primary sources in order to construct their own historical narratives.
visual analysis. This helps prepare students for more rigorous analysis later in the semester.
genre analysis. This helps students understand how to describe boundaries for celebrity groups and construct their own definitions of key terms in the realm of celebrity.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

This activity is discussion-based, though students may opt to take notes for reference during the larger discussion.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In Unit 1 of my class, The Rhetoric of Celebrity, I require my students to construct a historical account of a specific area of celebrity of interest to them. Throughout this unit, we practice descriptive modes of discourse oriented around the conventions of historiography. The goal of Unit 1 is to encourage students to recognize how different sources construct histories of people, places, and events by employing several key historiographical conventions: designating points of origin; describing the composition of groups, genres, or movements; tracing historical trajectory/historical narrative; addressing concerns of taste and cultural register; and positing possible future trajectories.

I begin class by handing out Horowitz's article and asking the students to read it. After students finish reading, we spend a few minutes summing up Horowitz's main argument. I ask them to identify elements of the article that they think make it "historical" in terms of the rhetoric it employs. If the students struggle to accomplish this, I bring up the Essay 1 prompt and remind them of the requirements of their own history writing project--Where do boy bands begin? What are some examples of boy bands? What constitutes a boy band? How do media and technology influence the development of the genre? What trajectories can we identify? How can we fit boy bands into high or low culture? What is the future of boy bands? Then we discuss how Horowitz has answered these questions, and how we might use primary sources to substantiate, contest, or expand Horowitz's claims.

I then show, in chronological order, three music videos: 'N Sync's "Bye Bye Bye," One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful," and The Wanted's "Glad You Came". I ask the students to address the genre of boy band celebrity and identify commonalities and differences between the three pieces. We start with commonalities:

How can we define a boy band using these three sources?
What elements do all the "boys" share? (clothing style, hair style, choreography, distinct personalities, indistinct personalities?)
Who else could we add to our list of boy bands?
Who wouldn't fit under the heading of boy band?
What can audience reception lend to our definition?

Then, we move on to differences.

How are the three bands different?
How have the image of the boy band changed over time?
What influence does cultural register/taste have on boy bands' presentation over time?
How might boy bands exist in the future?

Finally, I ask students to construct their own abbreviated "history" of boy bands in groups to share with the class, using one additional video source to substantiate their claims. The additional source could be omitted for non-technology-enabled classrooms.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instructors might read the article, watch the videos, and think of leading questions to propel discussion if student should have trouble getting started. Once a student articulates a few ideas, in my experience, the discussion is generally lively.

Instructions For Students:

Students should take notes on the historical elements of the article, as well as on some formal elements of the music videos, to help them generate specific points of reference during in-class discussion.

Evaluation Suggestions:

In general, student presentations at the end of class indicate how well students can both identify and employ the historical elements we are examining in Unit 1. I like to walk around during group work in order to informally evaluate brainstorming/invention at this level, as well.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Although it embarrasses students a little to watch Boy Band videos, this lesson plan has in the past been a fairly foolproof way to engage them in both descriptive rhetorical practice and analysis of descriptive rhetoric. Almost everyone participates in the larger discussion, and the informal student presentations at the end of class are generally of good quality considering the amount of time devoted to them.

Additional Resources:

This lesson plan can easily be applied to any descriptive unit that wants to tackle the rhetoric of a particular historiography by merely swapping out the sources. If the sources are from the realm of popular culture, students seem particularly able to grasp somewhat complex rhetorical concepts and apply them to other spheres.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

I teach the Rhetoric of Celebrity, which I break down into three units. Unit 1 deals with descriptive writing; Unit 2 deals with analytical writing; Unit 3 deals with evaluative or critical writing. The activity above is useful for Unit 1, although I try to introduce skills in each unit that will ease students' transitions between these three modes.

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

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

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:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Media Console/Projector

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:

Early in the Semester

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:

Introductory Writing Course

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

Reviewing rhetorical appeals

Mapping Memorials: Research and Public Advocacy on Campus

Hoag — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:13:47 +0000

Author:

Trevor L. Hoag

Image Credit:

Cesar Chavez statue on the University of Texas campus.

Brief Assignment Overview:

Through this assignment, students learn to close-read (critique) monuments on campus and consider the rhetorical nature of memory.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Research

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimodal

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment promotes student research by having them look into what monuments and memorials are on campus, learning why those objects exist along with their histories, and considering arguments and controversies concerning those monuments and memorials that already exist. Through this assignment, students also practice advocacy by making a “two-fold” argument (dissoi logoi) concerning whether or not (and why) a monument or memorial should exist. Moreover, this argument is made in a public forum, which may invite response from persons outside the university. Finally, this assignment helps familiarize students with two digital programs, Google Earth and Panoramio, programs that students can use again in the future for other courses, projects, professional applications, and personal enjoyment.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

A digital camera; access to a computer as well as the programs Google Earth and Panoramio.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

In this assignment, students learn to digitally map and critique on-campus monuments and memorials. Unsurprisingly, then, students are first asked to find an interesting monument or memorial on UT-Austin’s campus. After finding a monument or memorial (e.g., the Caesar Chavez or Barbara Jordan statue), students must take a photo of that statue and load it into the on-line program Panoramio. Once logged into Panoramio, students must post the photo to Google Earth with a comment/critique that explains a.) what the monument or memorial is about, i.e., its history and so on, b.) a very brief argument concerning why the monument is appropriate and should remain in UT’s public memory, and c.) a very brief counter-argument concerning why the monument is inappropriate and should be forgotten. After the photos are approved by Panoramio’s site administrators, anyone can visit UT’s campus in Google Earth and learn more about its monuments and memorials, as well as read students’ critical reflections upon those monuments and memorials. One can also have students tour the campus on-line later in the semester, reading each others’ entries and posting responses.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before having students do the assignment, I highly recommend that the instructor first do the assignment him- or herself. This way, the instructor can become familiar with the computer programs as well as any potential hang-ups that may occur. Moreover, by doing the assignment ahead of time, the instructor will have a nice example to show their students. Once again, keep in mind that Panoramio photos require approval from the site administrator.

Instructions For Students:

RHE 309K: Rhetoric, Memory, and Forgetting

Mapping and Critiquing UT-Austin Monuments

In this assignment, you’ll find an interesting monument or memorial on UT-Austin’s campus to photograph, research, and critique—offering both an argument for the monument’s existence as well as one against its existence. You’ll then post your findings to the web.

To begin, you’ll need to find an object on campus to work with. It can be a statue, a memorial, a monument, an artwork, and so on; all that I ask is that its existence have something to do with remembering (or forgetting). Let’s say you pick the Caesar Chavez statue near the Student Union. First, you’ll want to take a picture of statue with a digital camera so that you can load the photo onto the internet. If you don’t have a camera, let me know and I can pair you up with someone who does (or we can use my camera). Next, you’ll want to do a little research on the statue: Why is it near the Union? Who built it? Who paid for it? What is its significance? And so on. After reading about the statue, you’ll then want to envision two arguments, one for why it should remain on campus and one for why it should be removed.

At this point, you’ll create a Word file and write three concise, but dense, paragraphs explaining: 1.) what the statue is all about, 2.) an argument “for” it, and 3.) an argument “against” it. Then, on the appropriate day, you’ll bring this write-up plus your photo to class—though you’ll only turn in the write-up.

In class, I’ll show you how to use the programs Google Earth and Panoramio. We’ll load both your photo and write-up into Panoramio, and after they’re approved by the site administrator, everyone who goes to UT-Austin’s campus on Google Earth will be able to see what you’ve come up with. Thus, you’ll not only educate yourself through the course of the assignment, but you’ll also educate people visiting the Google Earth website! Who knows, what you write may even elicit a response from someone outside the university, but it’s up to you whether or not to keep the conversation going.

Finally, later in the semester after all your photos are approved by site administrators, we’ll take a digital tour of UT-Austin’s monuments and memorials in class. That way, everyone can learn about the different monuments and memorials that people researched, as well as comment upon what you’ve written in your critique.

Points: This assignment will count for as much as a research summary (i.e., four pts). Good luck! And please let me know if you’ve got any questions!

P.S., If you’d like to do something non-traditional for this assignment, please ask. For example, you might take a picture of the bullet-holes left by the 1966 tower shootings, offering an argument both for and against replacing the stones scarred by the event. If you’ve got something like this in mind, just ask!

Evaluation Suggestions:

For this project, I gave students credit equivalent to a short writing assignment. They were evaluated on: a.) whether they successfully posted their photo and comments, b.) whether they provided ample background on their monument or memorial, and c.) whether they respectfully and responsibly advocated in writing for at least two positions concerning the monument’s or memorial’s continued existence (or non-existence).

Note: For evaluative purposes, it’s a good idea to have students submit their write-ups to the instructor, along with posting them on-line. And this assignment can easily be preceded by a short peer review, which promotes evaluation of student work by the students themselves.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

All in all, students were excited about this assignment, and found using the digital technology fairly easy. They enjoyed taking photos as well as investigating on-campus “artifacts” that had previously eluded their attention. Many were surprised by what they discovered in their research, and felt strongly about relating their views on-line. Students also expressly mentioned looking forward to the digital campus tour later in the semester, not only in order to see what monuments and memorials their colleagues had highlighted, but also their colleagues’ critical evaluation of these monuments and memorials.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

Rhetoric, Memory, and Forgetting

Tags: