DWRL Lesson Plans - Deliberative

Course Description:

Writing in Digital Environments/Writing for the Digital Humanities

Tags:

Remediating and Reviewing Peer Arguments

coulson — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:14:17 +0000

Author:

Doug Coulson

Image Credit:

Jbrazito's Photostream

Brief Assignment Overview:

Designed to facilitate a deeper level of peer review and collaborative learning, this assignment asks students to deliver oral presentations of each others' work and offer constructive commentary on their peer's paper.

Type of Assignment:

No Classroom Technology Required

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Peer Review

Revision

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Presentations

Remediation

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is intended to facilitate a deeper level of peer review and collaborative learning as well as facilitate classroom discussion regarding the writing process.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

No classroom technology is required for this assignment, although a media consolae/projector facilitates students who want to use technology in their presentations.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In this assignment, you will deliver an 8-12 minute oral presentation to the class (1) restating your peer’s paper, (2) identifying the conversation in which your peer’s paper is situated, and (2) offering constructive feedback or questions regarding your peer’s paper that might be helpful for the class to discuss to assist the author. Your peer will in turn deliver a presentation regarding your paper. After each presentation, a brief Q&A period will be permitted for the class to discuss the paper and ask the author questions if desired. The author may respond to questions during this period, but otherwise the author should not intervene to explain their work during the presentation but should instead simply listen to the restatement and commentary offered by the presenter and the class.

You should approach your presentation as a writer sharing a peer’s work with fellow writers and not be overly formal. Your presentation must follow a formal outline, contain the content called for by the protocol below and in the order set forth in the protocol, and be delivered within the stated time limits. When the time limit is up, the presentation will be stopped. You should practice the presentation before you deliver it live to ensure that you can deliver it within the stated time limits. Please note that a paper outline is required and must be handed to me before to your presentation on the day it is scheduled. You’re allowed but not required to use audio-visual materials during your oral presentation as long as they’re not used to substitute for your own extemporaneous commentary during the presentation. You can present sitting down or standing from any location in the classroom that you wish.

*Authors are obligated to deliver a copy of their paper to their presenter no less than 72 hours before the scheduled presentation so that the presenter has adequate time to prepare.

Protocol

Your presentation should closely approximate the following format:

(1) Describe the paper and identify its central argument(s)/contribution(s) (4-6 minutes). What appears to be the central issue/puzzle that the paper seeks to address? How would you state the paper’s central argument or thesis? How does the author develop the paper? (Provide a very brief summary of the paper and its arrangement.) In what debates/discussions does the paper situate itself? What does the author contribute to the conversation the paper engages.

(2) Identify the evidence/methods the author uses to support the claims made (2 minutes).

(3) Offer constructive feedback (2-6 minutes). Identify one or two broad areas in which the paper might be improved. What might be helpful for the group to discuss to assist the author?

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

No instructor preparation is required.

Instructions For Students:

Students are provided the full assignment description set forth above.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The assignment is graded based primarily on the basis of completion, contingent only on the students meeting the minimum requirements that the presentation follow a formal outline, contain the content called for by the protocol and in the order set forth in the protocol, and be delivered within the stated time limits.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students have reported some anxiety both as author and as presenter of a peer's paper, particularly regarding losing control of the presentation and not being in a position to defend their work as author or mis-characterizing their peer's work as presenter. My experience is that students take the presentations more seriously when presenting a peer's work than when presenting their own, however, and in some ways experience less anxiety because they don't have to defend their work. They also appear to value the experience of hearing a peer restate their paper's content. Requiring them to read a peer's paper in sufficient depth to deliver a presentation regarding it has also proved educational about the writing process.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

In his book On the Contrary, rhetoric scholar Thomas Sloane writes, ”Rhetorical thought is—let us admit it—highly perverse and lawyerly in nature.” In this statement, Sloane not only alludes to the closely intertwined history of rhetoric and law from the earliest days of Western thought to the modern era, but highlights the shared promotion by both of these fields of an agonistic “art of controversy” which seeks to facilitate controversy through the practice of arguing both sides of a case, a practice classical rhetoricians called in utramque partem (“on either side”). The principal theorists of classical Greek and Roman rhetoric promoted agonistic contests in which speakers argued opposite sides of disputed issues, often with specifically judicial contexts in mind, and the American legal system’s adversarial system of justice is founded on a contest of accusation and defense between parties in which each seeks to persuade a judge or jury of disputed issues on opposite sides of a case.

Despite the close relationship between rhetoric and law, however, and the fact that the lawyer remains, in the words of legal scholar James Boyd White, “the modern rhetorician in its purest form,” the modern professionalization of law has frequently attempted to deny or repress the rhetorical aspects of legal discourse and the agonistic conflict on which the adversarial system of justice is founded. Instead, modern law has promoted a view of legal discourse as a value-neutral “science” based on logical deduction and immune to social and political influence. This paradoxical relationship between law and rhetoric in modern legal discourse has produced a recent revival of questions about modern law’s denial of rhetoric, including important questions about the role of character and emotion in legal argument, the role of narrative in the analysis of legal evidence, the effect of the adversarial system of justice on social cohesion and division, and the relationship of legal rhetoric to democracy, coercion, and violence.

We’ll study these questions by first examining the forms of argument used in the legal profession today, focusing on arguments regarding the interpretation of circumstantial evidence in legal cases and the analogical, or case-based, form of legal argument known as “legal reasoning” which is used to argue for or against the application of judicial precedent to new cases. Specifically, we’ll study arguments regarding the evidence in controversial trials such as the 1976 Patty Hearst trial, the 1982 Lindy Chamberlain (“Dingo”) trial, the 1992 Randy Weaver (“Ruby Ridge”) trial, and the 1994 trials of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., and Jason Baldwin (the “West Memphis Three”), as well as arguments and judicial opinions in U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause and the minimum standards of effective legal advocacy found in the Sixth Amendment’s right to assistance of counsel. After examining the forms and purposes of legal rhetoric as it is actually employed in the legal profession, we’ll then consider contemporary critiques of the adversary system and the agonistic rhetoric on which it depends, including critiques implicit in public perceptions of the legal system and cultural representations of lawyers.

Tags:

Generating Consensus on Textual Interpretation Through Circulating Critique

OyP — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:28:09 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This exercise has groups of three students answer questions about an assigned reading; read and revise other groups' answers; consider other groups' revisions of their first answer; and revise their first answer--all in preparation for class discussion.

Type of Assignment:

No Classroom Technology Required

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rigorous and accurate reading is at the heart of this exercise: it is designed to argue to students that not all readings are correct and some are better than others. The goals are to get students to read closely and to use textual evidence to support their answers. Having each group critique (or agree with) each other's answers raises the stakes enough to make the students try in earnest; putting the students in groups of three reduces the fear of offending that often prevents productive peer review. Discussion is used to bring the students into concurrence and a sense of certainty, two things often lacking in humanistic discussion, which I believe often leaves undergraduate students feeling like texts mean anything at all, which is to say nothing.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

An assigned reading and loose-leaf paper

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The exercise has students break up into groups of three (a magic number for discussion purposes). The groups answer three questions about the reading (see "Instructions for Students"), writing down their answers on paper. Each group passes the paper to the next group. This group considers the other group's answers: any one they agree with in its entirety they place a check mark next to. If they think something needs changing, they revise the original sentence in a space provided on the sheet. If they think the answer is wrong, they place an X next to the answer and, in the provided space, explain why they think the answer is incorrect. Then they hand the sheet to the next group and repeat the process. Each group criticizes the original answers, but they can also see other groups’ work. This generates consensus or disagreement. At the end of the exercise, the groups pass back the sheets until they get back their original answers. They then consider the other groups’ responses: Did they get check marks? Were there revisions? Did they get X’s? They then have a chance to revise their original answers. Now they are prepared for discussion: I ask one student the first question. Heads nod in all directions and hands start to go up; there is consensus and even side-taking, because each person now has a strong idea of their own answers. The discussion after this exercise was the best I have witnessed in my short experience as a teacher.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The success I experienced was likely due to asking the right questions. We were reading John Ruskin’s “Of the Pathetic Fallacy,” which suits itself well to three very straightforward questions: 1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin? 2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?) 3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?) There are better and worse answers to these questions, perhaps even right and wrong answers, and that is key, because it gives the students a stake in their responses. Select a text and write questions that students feel they can answer with some degree of correctness and comprehensiveness.

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for Students:

Part I. In your group, answer the three questions after discussing it with one another. Record your answers in the space below and then hand the sheet to the group on your right.

1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin?

2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?)

3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?)

Part II. Read the answers from the other group. Are they different than yours? If you agree with one of their answers and believe its entirely comprehensive, please place a check mark in the left margin next to the answer. If you think its missing or wrong about something, rewrite their sentence in the space below, indicating which sentence you're rewriting by numbering it accordingly. If you think the sentence is incorrect, please place an X in the left margin next to the sentence and explain below why you think the sentence is incorrect. Once you're finished, pass the sheet to the right and repeat Part II for the original group's answers.

Evaluation Suggestions:

If you evaluate what students are saying as they discuss, you can know whom to ask to get discussion started on the strongest possible foot. Evaluation is written into this assignment, since each group is evaluating the answers of the others to complete each pass. I believe this is why making small groups works well, since individuals are often more shy to criticize than groups. This exercise generates some team spirit. Since I use the exercise to generate classroom discussion, I don’t give it a grade.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise, although very simple, holds several advantages. When it came time for discussion, I asked a student I’d been listening in on to answer the first question, "What is the Pathetic Fallacy?” Her response was concise and strong; I was satisfied. But two other students added nuances in Ruskin's text they found when critiquing other groups' answers. The first question took care of the second. Then I asked the third question (to a different student), and again the student provided a superior answer, which also tied in a previous comment from a different student. I think we all left class feeling like we were sure what Ruskin means by the “Pathetic Fallacy,” why he thinks it is a fallacy, and why he believes we pity a person making it. To emerge from discussion with clarity like this is very rare in my experience.

Additional Resources:

Another advantage of this exercise is that it requires very few resources.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

E314J: Psychology and Literature::

This course explores key literary and psychological works in which the two fields become deeply indebted to one another. The course is designed with both English majors and non-English majors in mind. The skills it focuses on help students succeed in upper-division courses in many majors across campus, including English. These skills include close analytic reading and critical writing, as well as methods for understanding texts in their formal, historical, and cultural dimensions.

Tags:

Using Mind-Maps to Make Modular Arguments, MASS EFFECT Style

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:28:36 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson is best used in conjunction with “Using Mass Effect 1 to teach critical situations," which can be found under that title on this site. One of the primary purposes of the Mass Effect lesson is to get students to think about how persuasive essays are “modular:” decisions a rhetor makes early on in an argument afford other rhetorical options later but at the same time take some options out of play. This lesson plan uses NovaMind Pro to help students create modular arguments of their own.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Software

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To develop in students an understanding of persuasive speech and writing as rhetorical decision making.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

NovaMind Pro. (Note that Mac and PC versions of this software differ significantly. The concurrence seems to be that the Mac version is more user-friendly.)

Other mind-mapping technologies should work as well.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In preparation for the class, students read three persuasive essays. The student’s task is to read each essay and break it down into its rhetorical steps: i.e. the author starts by doing x, then she makes y claim, then she makes z claim, and concludes with w. The class begins with discussion of the steps, until we’re all settled on how each argument proceeds. Then the instructor brings up a NovaMind map that visualizes each argument as its own “arm.” While it would be possible to have students make their own maps of the arguments, I recommend completing this preparation work for the students, to save time. You may ask students to make changes to the map depending on what came out of our discussion of the articles. You should also devote a little time to familiarizing the students with the software.

The instructor asks the students to get into small groups and then collaborate to combine the three arms of the map. They should do so by, 1) finding nodes in each arm that are similar, 2) taking the arm that follows from such a node and attaching it to the similar node on another arm. These steps are intended to be performed recursively, and while it is not necessary to end up with one big argument, arms should lead off of arms that lead of off other arms. (See instructor preparation below on how to facilitate the rather complex cognitive work this lesson requires.)

I ask students to think about what they come up with as a sort of “potential” argument. It could be navigated, from beginning to end, in a linear fashion. I ask students to traverse the map, making decisions at “crossroads” nodes that put you on a new track, which in turn brings further options “down the line.” Depending on decisions you make, the persuasive purpose of the argument may change.

In my class, students present a mind-mapped modular version of their persuasive essays as their final presentation. Instead of giving a persuasive speech, they tell us what options were available for them as they wrote their final essay, and why they chose to go one way as opposed to another.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This is a heavy preparation lesson because the instructor must first make a map that contains lots of possible connection points. When students pull up the main map, they can click over to the connection points map, which I color code to emphasize possible connections. I do this because NovaMind can be a bit cumbersome to work with, and I want my students thinking about rhetorical decisions rather than how to untangle one arm from another (a common occurrence, once maps get bigger. I recommend using the auto-arrange feature liberally: “Command =” in the Mac version.)

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for reading homework:

Read the following each of the following articles.
After reading each, make a bullet-point list that enumerates each “step” in the article:

How does the author start? What does the author claim next? What’s the following move, etc.? How does the article conclude?

3. Bring your list with you to class. You’ll use it to construct a mind map in class.

Instructions for in-class NovaMind exercise:

Use the possible connections point map to find nodes that are similar on two different arms. Notice that arms are color-coded to emphasize similarity, but do not feel constrained to connect where suggested only. I recommend that you start by filling out one of the original argument arms, and then developing other arms if you have time.
Connect arms from similar nodes, wherever possible. Select the node from the connection points map from which the arm you want to connect begins. Push Command/Control C. Then select the node on the modular argument map, from which you want to attach the copied arm. Push Command/Control V.
If the arms get tangled, push Command/Control = sign. Remember that you can always push undo if something undesired occurs. Be patient and deliberate.
Follow argument paths and eliminate redundancies while preserving the greatest possible number of options.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use this assignment to prepare my students for their final presentations. I encouraged experimentation and thus wanted to create a low-stakes environment; so I didn't grade the in-class exercise.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students seemed to really enjoy making larger argument structures, but I found one class doesn't provide enough time to get to the second part of the assignment, in which you step back and consider how you might traverse the map from start to finish. I'd recommend you use two classes for this lesson, and I'd also recommend you provide the starting materials for the students. The materials I provide below could be improved upon: as one of my students pointed out, the exercise works best if you break the articles down into the rhetorical decisions that went behind the progression of each argument. In the materials below, I do the much easier task of listing the steps in each argument. There's a fine but real distinction there

Additional Resources:

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE306, a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance students’ ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate their own position effectively. Students’ work in this course will help them advance the critical writing and reading skills they will need to succeed in courses for their major and university degree.

Tags:

Using MASS EFFECT 1 to Teach “Critical Situations”

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:14:50 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

unknown

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan uses the interactive video game Mass Effect 1 (BioWare, 2007 for XBOX 360) to teach students about making situated speech acts that effectively address a certain audience in a particular rhetorical situation.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

I use Mass Effect as a rhetorical modeling technology that affords for students to “play” in and with rhetorical situations in order to expand students’ understanding of the following notions:

“rhetorical situation”
“rhetorical purpose”
“rhetorical appeal”
“intended audience”
“stakeholder”

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

X-Box 360 linked up to the over-head projector

Mass Effect 1

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

The situation is that you, the gamer, are playing as Commander Shepard, captain of the starship Normandy. You have just been assigned a mission by Milky Way’s “United Nations” to save the galaxy from an evil master-mind species of Borg-like computer-assimilators. Shepard is considered by some of the galaxy’s denizens to be a savior who will bring peace to a warring galaxy, yet Shepard is considered by others to be a no-good, power-grubbing, monomaniac. Mass Effect 1 leaves developing Shepard’s character up to the gamer. Will you play to forge a coalition between alien species or will you play to better the position of the human species on the galitco-political stage?

In the scene I have the students play, Shepard has just been given full command over the Normandy and s/he (the character’s gender is player selectable) is about to give a speech to the crew to rally them behind her/him. The Normandy’s crew is unlike that of any other human-military vessel, since it is composed of both humans and aliens. Shepard’s crew is highly distrustful of one another and of Shepard. The purpose of Shepard’s speech is thus to build trust among the crew by getting them fired up about their mission. You the gamer get to choose Shepherd’s rhetorical decisions, while the character/avatar Shepard “decides” how to articulate your rhetorical decisions.

See this YouTube video for further illustration.

I have one student play through the scenario in class. As she or he is playing, I ask the other students to observe 1) the crew’s reaction to each rhetorical decision, and 2) the way in which Shepard translates the player’s rhetorical stimuli into actual language. I also ask them to consider why might the game award certain rhetorical decisions with “paragon” points and others with “renegade” points. Then, I have another student play through the same scenario, and ask the observing students the same questions. Finally, I lead a discussion where we discuss the different choices the game affords and the rhetorical consequences of each decision.

My purpose, ultimately, is to get the students to see how Shepard’s rhetorical decisions are afforded by the rhetorical situation. As a modeling technology, Mass Effect 1 puts the gamer into a rhetorical situation through the character/avatar Shepard. By allowing the gamer to experiment with the different sorts of appeals Shepard uses to get the audience to believe his or her claims, while simultaneously providing a perspective from which the gamer can judge the consequences of Shepard’s rhetorical decisions, Mass Effect 1 positions the gamer at once “inside” and “outside” the game. Rhetorical modeling technologies like Mass Effect are thus particularly useful pedagogical tools because they afford positions from which students can both “play” and “observe”—two fundamental ingredients of effective learning.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I’ve played the game up to the relevant scene and saved it just before this scene several times. Use saves 22-24 (at 1hour 42min into the game) to run this lesson. If you’re careful not to save the game over any of these saved games, you can use the same load point each time you play through the scenario. I saved it several times just in case you accidentally save over one of the games (since in Mass Effect, you can’t go back but only start over).

The scene itself lasts about one and half minutes, so you should be able to play it through several times before moving on to questions and discussion.In order to start the scene, walk Shepard's character into the starship Normandy. To select rhetorical options, push and hold the left thumbstick in the direction of the option, and push A.

I use this plan on the day the students turn in their final "short assignment" essay. At this point in the semester, the students tend to be a little burned-out and maintaining their interest can be difficult. I frame this plan as a sort of "reward" for their hard work: since we are playing and talking about a video game, students consider this a "fun" day, which has the added advantage of getting them to think about rhetoric in a low-pressure environment. The lesson plan thus requires no pre-class preparation, but you could append a homework assignment (see questions below).

Instructions For Students:

Take notes while you watch. After you’ve watched several play-throughs, answer the following questions:

1) When does the game give you a chance to make decisions? In other words, at what points in Shepard’s speech does the game offer you decisions?

2) What decisions can you make? (Try to make a list as you watch).

3) How does Shepard articulate the option you choose? In other words, how does what Shepard says differ from what you ask her to say? (Use direct quotations to answer this question).

4) How does Shepard’s overall speech change depending on the paths you take?

a) First, think about where Shepard invents her ethos in the speech. How does this ethos change depending on the decisions you make? Be specific.

b) Now think about where Shepard appeals to her crews values (that is, where does Shepard try to evoke an emotion from her audience. How does this pathos change depending on the decisions you make? Be specific.

c) Finally, think about where Shepard reasons with her audience. Can you change this logos by making different rhetorical decisions? If so, where does this happen?

5) Is there one decision that changes the speech more drastically than others? If so, how does that decision change the speech: does it send it in a new “direction”? does it change its purpose? does it make Shepard seem like a different sort of person?

a) Why should that decision change the speech more drastically than others?

6) How does the crew react differently depending on the sorts of speeches you give?

7) Why do you think some speech-paths earn “paragon” points, while others earn “renegade” points?

a) What implicit criteria is being used to judge your decisions?

Evaluation Suggestions:

Because I intend this lesson to offer a low-stake opportunity for students to re-learn some of the concepts I introduced earlier in the semester, I grade this assignment as complete/incomplete.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I was thrilled with my students responses to the game. I had several different students play through the same scene, choosing different rhetorical options each time. Depeding on how you play, the camera shoots to different sections of Shepard's audience (who also react differently depending on what Shepard says. In one shot, for instance, an alien species either crosses his arms and turns away from his human crew-mates or uncrosses his arms and turns towards them depending on whether Shepard emphasizes the superiority of humans to other species or humans' willingness to cooperate with other species). Students wanted to discover every possible audience reaction, and they were helping each other to select options we hadn't yet tried. (Students would say, "oh! try that one, because that will bring up all those other options, and we've only tried one so far). This way of thinking led into a wonderful discussion about how persuasive essays are "modular," so that decisions you make early on in the paper afford other rhetorical options later on at the same time that they take some options out of play. I wouldn't have been able to explain this complex concept had not the students been playing around with the way rhetorical decisions lead on to others.

I might have used this lesson plan earlier in the semester to introduce the notion of "critical situations," or to teach the concepts of "ethos." Next time, I also intend to incorporate this plan into an assignment series that will take up more than one day. I think the pedagogical value of the lesson would have been more fully realized had I required the students to transfer their interactive/visual experience onto paper, either by having them systematically answer the questions above, or by completing a correlated writing assignment. (For instance, you might have students mind-map their own Essays 3 by translating them into "Mass Effect-style" rhetorical prompts: what rhetorical tactics were available to you in the first paragraph? which did you choose? which further rhetorical options were opened up by that decision? and so on).

Additional Resources:

Once you've put the disc into the XBox, be careful not to disturb the console (in particular, do NOT move the console from vertical to horizontal, or vice versa, while the disc is running, as this will gouge and ruin the disc). I recommend laying the console down flat to play the game; otherwise, the disc might make a distracting rattle while it runs.

My other plan, "Using Mind-Maps to Make Modular Arguments, MASS EFFECT Style," pairs nicely with this exercise.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE306, A course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance students’ ability to analyze the various positionsheld in any public debate and to advocate their own position effectively. Students’ work in this course will help them advance the critical writing and reading skills they will need to succeed in courses for their major and university degree.

Tags:

In-Class Group Evaluations of Short Videos

Gulesserian — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:30:07 +0000

Author:

Lisa Gulesserian

Image Credit:

Image of Chrysler's "Imported from Detroit" taken from a post on Jalopnik

Brief Assignment Overview:

For an entire class period, groups of students are tasked with evaluating a short video. Each group is assigned a video and a category of evaluation that they will use to evaluate their assigned video. They will work together to come up with criteria, evidence, and an evaluative claim for their video. By the end of the activity, students will present their evaluation to the class.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Video

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

With this activity, I want students to get familiar with seeing how evaluations can look very different if the category of evaluation is not the same. This activity is also quite useful for getting students to practice coming up with criteria for a given category, as well as making them see that some criteria need justification depending on the audience. Students also start thinking about the rank of importance for the different criteria that they've chosen.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Computer classroom with internet access. I use my course Wiki at PBworks to get students to post their group's findings, which I then project onto the screen so that the whole class can see a group's Wiki page as they present their evaluation. I can see a number of different websites besides PBworks fulfilling the same function.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In small groups, students evaluate one of two short videos, Chrysler's "Imported from Detroit" Superbowl Commercial with Eminem and Jay-Z's "Empire State of Mind." Each group is assigned a video and a category of evaluation. Students then work in groups to come up with at least three criteria (appropriately ranked and supported/justified with two other "texts" from the same category) to use to evaluate their video. Students will then find evidence for whether or not their text meets/doesn't meet each criterion. By the end of the activity, each group will present their findings, starting with an evaluative claim that they drafted together.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I spent the previous two classes discussing evaluations, categories, and criteria. The first class was mostly spent explaining the concepts, and the second was spent looking at sample evaluations (of the same item, such as an album by a specific musical group). Students should be familiar with evaluation, category, and criteria before this in-class activity.

Before the activity, I assigned two short videos for students to watch for the day's homework: Chrysler's "Imported from Detroit" Superbowl Commercial with Eminem and Jay-Z's "Empire State of Mind." Students should have finished watching these videos before the in-class activity.

On the day of the activity, split students up into six groups.

Instructions For Students:

You will be put into one of six groups. I am going to assign a video and a category of evaluation to each group. Groups 1-3 will evaluate Chrysler's "Imported from Detroit" Superbowl Commercial with Eminem, and Groups 4-6 will evaluate Jay-Z's "Empire State of Mind." The first Chrysler group will evaluate the Chrysler video as a Chrysler commercial, the second will evaluate it as a 2011 car commercial, and the third will evaluate it as a 2011 Superbowl commercial. The first Jay-Z group will evaluate "State of Mind" as a rap music video, the second will evaluate it as a Jay-Z music video, and the third will evaluate it as a music video set in NYC.

In the next 45 minutes, each group should:

Find two other "texts" in the same category using YouTube.
Use the assigned video and the two supplemental "texts" to come up with at least three criteria for the category, justifying the criteria as necessary for your audience of peers.
Decide on a rank for the criteria.
Provide evidence as to whether or not the assigned video meets each criterion.
Draft an evaluative claim about the video.
Post their findings (category, criteria, evaluative claim) to our PBworks "Group Work" folder.

At the end of 45 minutes, each group will present their findiings to the class using their Wiki page.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I did not assign a grade for this assignment, since I want students to experiment with evaluations before they had to write their own without the help of their peers.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students love this activity! They enjoy giving their opinions, and they gain confidence in the rhetorical concepts of evaluation, category, and criteria. Many of them say it's the activity that finally made them understand what kind of paper they'd be writing in the coming weeks! Plus, I inevitably have a few Jay-Z or Eminem fans in the classroom who are always vocal about their undying love for either artist.

Additional Resources:

Jay-Z's "Empire State of Mind"

Chrysler's "Imported from Detroit" 2011 Superbowl Commercial

youtube.com

pbworks.com

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 309K: Rhetoric of Suburbs & Slums

Depending on who you ask, London can be a cultural mecca or a den of vice, Los Angeles can be a palm tree paradise or a polluted suburb, and Lagos can be a dangerous slum or an exciting place where residents reclaim space for their own uses. In this course, we will identify, analyze, and evaluate the discrepant ways that we think and feel about cities (and their respective suburbs and slums) around the world. We’ll begin our exploration by looking at explicit arguments made about (sub-)urban places by urban planners, architects, and citizens. After rhetorical analyses of the various arguments made about these places, we’ll then move into uncovering and evaluating implied arguments made about cities, suburbs, and slums by artists, musicians, writers, and filmmakers. We’ll end our journey through these locales with you and your peers adding to the conversation. For better or for worse—with the rapid urbanization of our planet—cities, suburbs, and slums are here to stay. What we say about the nature, value, and future of these places is just as important.

Tags:

Teaching the Enthymeme with Restaurants

detweiler — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:02:16 +0000

Author:

Eric Detweiler

Image Credit:

Screenshot of Torchy's Tacos Website

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment requires students to think about how the enthymeme might function in practical argument—specifically, in convincing a group of out-of-town visitors to Austin to try one of the local restaurants. It serves as the tail end section of a two-day lesson on logical proofs, providing students a chance to apply and revisit some of the terminology we’ve covered.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Teaching students to utilize rhetorical logic—specifically enthymemes—in constructing an argument. The assignment also highlights the importance of considering audience, and revisits the notion of commonplaces.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Access to online restaurant reviews or restaurant websites. Though I like having students research restaurants in small groups during class, this could work in a classroom without computers if the teacher were to either (1) bring printouts of reviews/websites to class, or (2) provide students with time outside of class to research.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

As a fan of classical rhetorical theory, I like to cover ethos, pathos, and logos fairly extensively in my 306 sections. I generally find logos the most difficult to teach. Not only is the set of terminology surrounding it (e.g. "enthymeme") tough; the entire epistemological frame required to think about "logic" in the nonscientific, probability-oriented way it's construed in classical rhetoric is often a new and tricky thing for students. I've found students tend to think "logic" must mean things like statistics and scientific facts. All this may be a story for another day, however.

So after introducing the concept of logos, I narrow to enthymemes. I start by writing a few examples of syllogisms—the relatively airtight chains of reasoning that enthymemes are not—on the whiteboard or document viewer. Since logos can be dry, I try for at least mildly interesting examples:

Premise #1: All sharks can detect the electromagnetic fields generated by their prey.
Premise #2: Genevieve is a tiger shark.
Conclusion: Genevieve can detect the electromagnetic fields generated by her prey.

Or, more germane to 2011-12's first-year forum topic:

Premise #1: All public schools receive government funding.
Premise #2: Lee High School is a public school.
Conclusion: Lee High School receives government funding.

I then shift into examples of enthymemes; examples that are based less on hard logic and more on probability and the commonplace beliefs of the audiences for whom their constructed:

Premise #1: Bigger bears are better.
Premise #2: Brown bears are bigger than black bears.
Conclusion: Brown bears are better.

Premise #1: Urban school disctricts in America are struggling.
Premise #2: Charter schools are the best way to reform struggling school districts.
Conclusion: We need more charter schools in America's urban areas.

(N.B.: As a way of reinforcing the ties between logic, ethos, and emotion—as well as the probabilistic nature of enthymemes in rhetoric, I like to show a clip from "The Promotion," the third episode of the sixth season of NBC's The Office. In the clip, one character—Jim—is attempting to construct a pro-con list as a way of making an important business decision. Another character, Michael, chides his logical approach, and Jim indeed ends up failing in presenting his eventual decision because of some presumed emotional baggage that undermines his ethos. The clip begins about 9 minutes into the episode, and I show it via Netflix. Jim's pro-con list can provide some additional examples of enthymemes that I've found students are often good at identifying.)

Once I've covered enthymemes, the activity unfolds as follows:

I put students into small groups—two or three students per. I then set out two bowls. One contains slips of paper, and on each slip is printed the name of a local Austin restaurant (obviously this is flexible, but I use Bite Mi, Torchy's Tacos, Madam Mam's, Trudy's, Homeslice Pizza, Wheatsville Coop, Kerbey Lane Cafe, Fran's Hamburgers, G'Raj Mahal, and Franklin Barbeque). The other bowl contains slips with the names of relatively well-known national chains (Chili's, Taco Bell, Five Guys Burgers & Fries, Wendy's, The Melting Pot, Olive Garden, Cracker Barrel, IHOP, Texas Roadhouse, Red Lobster, and Ruth's Chris Steak House). The locals are printed in italics and the chains in bold for easy differentiation.

Each student group picks one slip out of each bowl. I then present them with the following rhetorical situation: You are serving as a tour guide for a prospective UT student, who's coming to visit Austin and the campus with his/her guardians. The bold name indicates your tour group's favorite restaurant. The italicized restaurant is a local spot you're responsible for convincing the group to eat at during their visit. In order to think through this situation, construct at least one enthymeme you think would likely convince the group to eat at the local restaurant. Also think of at least one enthymeme the group might use to challenge your suggestion. In both cases, your first premise is likely to be a commonplace attitude towards food indicated by your group's favorite restaurant. The second premise is likely to be either a potential affinity or disconnect between that commonplace and an aspect of the local restaurant. Use the computers to research these restaurants and figure out what persuasive options might be available to you.

I don't provide examples at this point in introducing the activity to students, as I like the groups to puzzle things out on their own. But the persuasive enthymemes they construct—I hope—look something like the following (first with a Wendy's/Fran's combo, then with IHOP/Kerbey Lane):

Premise #1: Your favorite restauant, Wendy's, is known for their hamburgers.
Premise #2: Fran's is known for having excellent hamburgers.
Conclusion: While in Austin, you should try Fran's burgers.

Premise #1: Since IHOP is your favorite restaurant, you probably like breakfast food.
Premise #2: Kerbey Lane Cafe serves breakfast food 24 hours a day.
Conclusion: You should stop by Kerbey Lane Cafe this evening and try their breakfast menu.

I've had students draw on price, ambience, convenience—all sorts of interesting variables. The enthymemes I ask students to anticipate their tour group responding with might look like the following:

Premise #1: Red Lobster's menu consists mainly of seafood.
Premise #2: Franklin Barbeque does not have seafood options.
Conclusion: We don't want to try Franklin because they've got no seafood.

These response enthymemes can be thought of as concessions, elements in a larger rebuttal or refutation, or simply ways of considering one's audience carefully.

I give students 10-15 minutes to construct these enthymemes, and then have them share both their restaurants and their enthymemes with the whole class. They are myriad discussions that can emerge here. I might point out, for example, the mini-entyhmeme already present in the first premise of the IHOP/Kerbey example above, or challenge students to come up with a way of responding to their tour group's challenge enthymemes. Students often end up visiting various restaurant review websites (Trip Advisor, Urban Spoon), so a credibility-of-research-sources conversation can also take place here.

As a bonus, I like to think of this activity as one teacher's small way of keeping Austin weird.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The most difficult part of this activity for me is keeping the definitions and limits of such rhetorical terms as "logos" and "enthymeme" straight. Students often have very good questions about what does or doesn't qualify as an enthymeme, and the more clear definitions and examples I'm ready with, the better.

More practically, you just need to have the slips and the bowls ready.

Instructions For Students:

You can divide students into groups yourself, or have them form pairs and/or trios. My speech, mostly quoted from above:

"Once you're in your groups, have one member come up and get one slip of paper out of each of these two bowls."

Wait for this to occur.

"Here's your rhetorical situation: You are serving as a tour guide for a prospective UT student, who's coming to visit Austin and the campus with his/her guardians. The bold name on one of your slips of paper indicates your tour group's favorite restaurant. The italicized name is a local restaurant you're responsible for convincing the group to eat at during their visit. In order to think through this situation, construct at least one enthymeme you think would likely convince the group to eat at the local restaurant. Also think of at least one enthymeme the group might use to challenge your suggestion. In both cases, your first premise is likely to be a commonplace attitude towards food indicated by your group's favorite restaurant. The second premise is likely to be either a potential affinity or disconnect between that commonplace and an aspect of the local restaurant. Use the computers to research these restaurants and figure out what persuasive options might be available to you. You have about 10 minutes, at which point your group will share your enthymemes with the class."

Evaluation Suggestions:

I don't formally evaluate this one, though I do try to keep it in mind as a way of providing examples to students who struggle with logical proofs and enthymemes in their major 306 papers.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students seem to get excited and like learning about Austin culture. Maybe not good if you have particularly hungry students and you want them to stay focused on enthymemes.

Additional Resources:

Explanation of enthymeme via Silva Rhetoricae

Urbanspoon website (for Austin)

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 306 - Rhetoric & Writing is a 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.

Tags:

How to Advocate a Course of Action via Excel

gertken — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:11:20 +0000

Author:

Matt Gertken

Image Credit:

"Spreadsheet" by Jon Newman via Flikr

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students will use a combination of rhetorical analysis and Microsoft Excel formatting to brainstorm and write a two-page policy proposal that advocates a particular course of action. Students will watch and discuss a presidential speech and read a short literary essay to generate ideas, and use Microsoft Excel to draft an outline for their own policy proposal before writing it.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Software

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To advocate a position within a controversy with recognition of strongest arguments against it; to understand difference between advocating opinion and advocating policy; to craft a policy proposal that considers questions of feasibility and implementation; to answer or appeal to skeptics and opponents by means of anticipating, refuting or conceding to their claims; to understand important organizational, rhetorical and logical features of a policy proposal or statement; to gain awareness of ethical considerations inherent in policy advocacy.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Computer work stations with Microsoft Office and an Internet connection. Optional: access to Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO), an electronic database.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Day One:

The class begins with a video clip showing a rhetorical moment devoted to advocating a policy: President Barack Obama’s speech requesting Congress to vote for his proposed jobs act - a video avaiable on YouTube. Students watched a brief introduction to the speech (3:08-3:35) and then a section covering education (7:35-9:45), since education is the broad theme of the course to which all students’ writing topics relate.

After the video, we held a discussion. I asked students what policy or course of action the president proposed, and what he proposed in particular for education? Then they discussed a series of general questions that I raised. I made it clear that they should ask these questions when analyzing any policy:

Is the proposal desirable? Is it possible? Is it feasible?
What are the pros and cons of the proposal?
Would the proposal require formal (official) or informal (unofficial) action?
Would the proposal reinforce the status quo or change it?
Qui bono? Who would benefit (or suffer) from the proposal’s adoption?

Following discussion, I asked students to go to their work stations and begin writing a draft of their own policy proposal by applying these questions to their stance. I instructed students to put emphasis especially on (1) making sure that their proposal addresses the strongest arguments against their own position and (2) ways in which their proposal demonstrates compromise with at least one major objection. I also told them to recognize obstacles to implementation, whether economic, political, ethical, or otherwise.

I asked students to come to class on on Day Two having read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," showing them how to access it through ECCO's facsimile or (in modern type) Project Gutenburg's version. I warned students that although the essay is short, the slightly archaic language and drawn-out sentence structure can make it a challenge to read, and I made it clear that nevertheless they were responsible for reading it closely and preparing to discuss it.

Day Two:

Day Two was devoted to making use of the reading assignment, Swift's essay. The purpose of this session was to discuss the logical, rhetorical and organizational aspects of policy proposals by showing the greatest parody of one. My goal was to teach the lessons of Swift's satirical policy proposal in an accessible way, so I started the class by clarifying problems with comprehension. We then discussed students' general responses to the essay, and I guided discussion to make sure that we adequately addressed the essay's demonstration that there are ethical implications for every political or economic policy, and also that intentions (however "good") do not ensure ethical or effectual policy.

One of the indispensable mechanisms of the satire is Swift's successful appropriation of the organization of a genuine policy proposal. Working through the text section by section, I asked students to identify the purpose of each section, and we arrived at the following outline:

Identify main problem and need for solution
Define scope of problem and group of people to be most affected by proposed solution
List minor problems to be solved or averted by upcoming proposal
Present policy proposal itself, explaining how it solves main problem directly
List additional benefits of proposal
Consider anticipated objections, refute them
Explain willingness to consider other proposals, but insist that they address root of problem
Disavow any conflict of interest on part of author

Finally, I asked students to identify the use of logical and rhetorical figures in the essay. Some examples included the three chief rhetorical modes, the lesser of evils, the law of unintended consequences, Ockham's razor, reductio ad absurdum, etc.

After discussing the essay's organization, and logical and rhetorical methods, I encouraged students to review genuine policy proposals (from think tanks, corporations, NGOs, and other organizations) to think about they could utilize these methods in their proposals for non-satiric purposes.

Day Three:

Students arrived at class with the draft of their policy proposals. I had them pair up and conduct a peer review of each other's proposals, with the specific purpose of probing the series of questions outlined on Day One, identifying objections to the policy or difficulties in feasibility that the writer had not considered, and analyzing the organization and rhetorical style of their argument, as discussed on Day Two.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

On Day One, students will come to class already having written papers both summarizing and analyzing different arguments in a particular controversy in an impartial manner, and aware that they will now need to choose a side of the debate and advocate it. I familiarized them with the concept of rhetorical stasis, and basic questions arising from stasis such as conjecture, definition, quality, and especially policy. But even if an instructor has not spent time teaching rhetorical theory, the students should come to class already having formulated their own opinion about the controversy they are investigating and having decided their answer to the question “What is to be done?”

On Day Two students should come to class having read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." On Day Three students should come with a typed draft of their own two-page proposal.

Instructions For Students:

In order to solidify these lessons, I asked students to create a short (one page) spreadsheet on Microsoft Excel that contained three columns (see image below). First, in the left column, students named the organizational components of their partner's essay, section by section, so that the entire structure would appear in sequence in that column. Second, in the middle column, students paraphrased each section of their partner's text, being careful to cover the key arguments or rhetorical figures. Third, in the right column, students explained their response to the section, for instance by stating an objection or qualification to the argument or evaluating the success of a particular rhetorical figure. After completing the Excel sheet, each student emailed it as an attachment to each partner, so that the partner could use it to help revise the draft.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The best way to evaluate the assignment is to compare the students' first draft of their policy proposal with the revised draft. Excel sheets are sometimes cumbersome to print off, although in this particular case it is feasible since they are short (see image below). But the important evaluation is whether the assignment was helpful in giving each student a clearer mental picture of the organization of their paper in a way that will help them anticipate objections to their argument or to their rhetorical techniques in specific sections. The only way to evaluate that is to compare the revised draft.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students responded variously to each component of the assignment. Day One was easy and trouble free. Day Two was more difficult because it focused on Swift's essay, which (as expected) was a challenge for student's reading comprehension abilities. However, students responded enthusiastically to having a prototypical structure to use for their own policy statement. Day Three was successful: students did not generally have trouble using Excel and could assist each other as needed, and the process of laying out each paper in the three-part format (organization-argument-objection) seemed helpful in visualizing it and preparing for revision.

Additional Resources:

Clearly my decision to use Swift led to complications that some instructors might wish to avoid. Another way to execute this lesson plan would be to draw the reading assignment from a sincere policy proposal published by credible think tanks, institutes, corporations, NGOs, or other organizations. My reason for avoiding sincere proposals is that I think parodies of policy proposals make for better and more enjoyable reading, which is helpful when talking about organizational and stylistic principles and makes the lesson more memorable. If an instructor wanted to use a parodic form without bothering with Swift's slightly archaic diction and numerous subordinate clauses, he or she would find ample material from the Onion, or even the local satirical paper (UT has the Texas Travesty, which, for instance, recently featured an article entitled,"Congress Discussing Failure as an Option.")

Here is a sample image of what this spreadsheet might look like:

swift excel_0.png

Course Type:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Course Description:

RHE 306 – Rhetoric and Writing is a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance a student's ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate his or her position effectively. Work in this course will help the student advance the critical writing and reading skills he or she will need to succeed in courses for the university degree.

Tags:

Designing an Online Commenting System

Wall — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:41:21 +0000

Author:

Amanda Wall

Image Credit:

Screen shot of student project

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this group project, students design a commenting system or other forum/method for conversation within a website, matching the system to the particular rhetorical goals of the site. Groups present their systems in a presentation and are required to turn in two documents: a visual representation of the conversational interface and a 3-5 page design rationale.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Course Unit

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Course Unit

Semester-long Project

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

In the Rhetoric of Flame Wars*, I teach that online comment posts, discussion boards, blogs, and other discourses constitute important sites of public discourse. These discourses are influenced not only by the traditional rhetorical components--audience, ethos, logos, and even then, in interesting and problematic ways--but by the technological and social systems that make possible and shape discourse online: interfaces, proferred levels of pseudonymity, moderation, and other processes.

The point of this assignment is to force students to step into the position of web designers, or, as we might also call them, dialogue designers. The design and governance procedures of websites help to shape the conversations and discourses that happen there in substantial ways, and what I hope to see reflected in students' work is an awareness of rhetoricity of interfaces and governing procedures.

*"Flame war" is a slang term for a vicious internet fight, usually between anonymous or pseudonymous writers; some critics of online communication argue that it is the inevitable result of every online discussion. I disagree.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Ideally, students would have access to the internet and to image-editing software within the classroom so that they can begin work there. However, I believe this assignment is adaptable for classrooms without technology: students are quite capable of brainstorming internet concepts on paper, and I have specified that the images they produce can be produced through physical means (hand-drawn, in other words) if the digital means are not available to them. The point of this assignment is to force students to step into the position of web designers, or, as I would argue they could be called, dialogue designers. The design and governance procedures of websites help to shape the conversations and discourses that happen there in substantial ways, and what I hope to see reflected in students' work is an awareness of rhetoricity of interfaces and governing procedures.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Mid-Semester

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

These are the instructions for the students; I think they give a good description of the assignment.

For this project, you will form groups of 3-4 people. Choose either a specific website or a particular type of website to design for. (So you could choose the New York Times, or Cracked, or BagNewsNotes, or UT's website, Obama's campaign website, or a more general type like a political blog, a gossip website, or a gaming forum. If you choose a "type," it's a good idea to find examples of that type of site.)

You will brainstorm the needs and problems of people who converse with each other on your website or type of website (need-finding). Based on those needs and problems, you will brainstorm many possible solutions in the form of different commenting systems. A "commenting system" includes all of the technologies, interfaces, policies, rules, guidelines, and moderation procedures that govern, support, shape, and otherwise make discussion possible. So you might need to talk about technologies separately from procedures/rules in the beginning of your brainstorming process. After you've come up with many options, you'll decide together which option (or combination of options) you want to pursue.

Something to keep in mind: by calling it a "commenting system," I'm already narrowing down the field. Commenting, after all, traditionally means comments by public audience members responding directly to single pieces of media that are posted on the site. But it doesn't have to look like that. Feel free to break the boundaries of the genre, to cross over into discussion forum or mailing list or wiki territory. There are many different ways of having a conversation. The only requirements are that a public audience must be able to converse with each other. That's it. Depending on the goals of your website and the kind of conversation you want to inspire, there are many different ways to accomplish this.

Creativity is greatly encouraged. Don't feel like you have to stick to "tried and true" methods. Experimentation is where all the great ideas come from.

This project has two required components:

1. One visual representation of the website with the commenting system clearly shown. If there would be more than one interface involved in the commenting system (for instance, if users had their own profiles), you are encouraged to mock-up that webpage as well for extra credit. Digital representations are preferred (because it's a digital environment), but physical art is also accepted. Examples of programs you could use include Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, MS Paint, MS Word, Frontpage, Publisher, GoogleSites, iLife (Mac), Gomockingbird.com, Ning, etc.

(If you are familiar with programs for creating illustrations, mock-ups, or actual websites and would like to give a short overview of the basics of that program for creating a visual representation of a website, you are welcome to do so! This is one way you could work on going beyond the course requirements.)

(If you want to put in some extra work and build a live website, that is also acceptable.)

2. A 3-5 page write-up describing the system.

- What is the purpose of the website, and what kind of conversation are you trying to generate on the website? You might go so far as to explain what the purpose of conversation on this website as you see it.

- How does does your system work? How do you imagine people will use it?

- How does it address specific problems people have or might have with the current system or with other systems?

- How might your system go wrong or be misused? Is there any way to ameliorate these problems? Do keep in mind that some negative side effects are expected and inevitable in any design.

- You are encouraged to use the rhetorical tools we have discussed in order to explain your system. Things like audience and ethos will probably be particularly important. You may also cite or discuss writers that we have read in class in order to back up your decisions.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This project comprises the entire third unit of my course. We spend about three weeks on it, giving the students time to brainstorm their projects in class and reading articles about debates in online spaces, moderation procedures, deliberative democracy, and social software design. We had already covered debates about anonymity and pseudonymity in the first unit, but some of those readings might be useful to other instructors. (For instance: the move of some websites to require commenters to sign in to Facebook in order to comment.) Some of the readings I've used are:

Dibbell, Julian. "A Rape in Cyberspace."

This article from the early 90s is great for a lot of reasons, but I've used it in this unit for its sustained description of a debate within an online community. It deals with such questions as: Who should resolve an online debate? The community at large via democratic vote or consensus? A moderator or other official? Or is an online community an inappropriate place for deliberation? These are questions that the students will have to decide about the websites that they design.

Shirky, Clay. “Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software.” The Best Software

Writing I. Ed. Joel Spolsky. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2005. Print.

Aside from a useful metaphor for the social web (the computer is a door to the social world, not a device-box for the individual, Shirky tells us), this article argues that designing for a social group is different from designing for individuals. I relate this to rhetorical ideas of audience. How might an audience evaluate a system differently if it perceives itself as a group instead of as individuals? This article also attributes designers' reluctance to design for groups to a "horror of censorship," which relates to the political issues raised in the Dibbell article.

Instructions For Students:

Creativity is greatly encouraged. Don't feel like you have to stick to "tried and true" methods. Experimentation is where all the great ideas come from.

This project has two required components:

(If you want to put in some extra work and build a live website, that is also acceptable.)

2. A 3-5 page write-up describing the system.

- How does does your system work? How do you imagine people will use it?

- How does it address specific problems people have or might have with the current system or with other systems?

- How might your system go wrong or be misused? Is there any way to ameliorate these problems? Do keep in mind that some negative side effects are expected and inevitable in any design.

Evaluation Suggestions:

In my course, I use the evidence-based portfolio system called the Learning Record. Using this system, it's easy for students to present their own contribution to the project and to get credit for going above and beyond expectations. Because mine is a rhetoric course, I focus on the extent to which students connect their design decisions to rhetorical rationales: does their design fit the purposes of the space as they conceived it? This rhetorical focus makes it possible to equally reward those students who are using MS Paint to create rudimentary images as well as those students who show off their pre-existing coding skills by building actual working websites. The Learning Record requires students to go "significantly beyond" the course requirements in order to earn an A, so students who spend time building such a website, or those who put in the time to learn Photoshop for the first time, or those who do extra research on the rhetorical reasoning of actual web designers to augment their design rationale, can all have their efforts pay off.

For those using more traditional assessment systems, I might recommend having students do a quick write-up at the end of the project describing their own contribution and creating a pie-chart estimating the distribution of work among the group. This gives the instructor a chance to compensate for an especially hard-working or recalcitrant group member.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I was astounded by my students' projects this past semester. I only required three pages of collaborative writing and a single image, but every one of my students' groups, without exception, produced multiple images and incredibly thorough design rationales. Although I give students the option to redesign the commenting system of an existing website, every group chose to design an original website with specific rhetorical goals.

Let me give you a sense of the projects my students produced. One group produced a wide-ranging, utopian website that strove to stimulate public discourse by organizing discussions into "galaxies" of common topics (individual stories were "planets" and "stars"). It featured both synchronous and asynchronous communication and had robust moderation procedures. Another group went in the opposite direction: their website, "Belligerency," rewarded flaming, trolling, and other bad behavior with a complicated point system. I had to admire the rhetorical savviness of this profit-driven project, for the students clearly understood how particular kinds of conversation can feed back into website profits via ad sales. A third group had users communicating mainly through images, drawing on trends seen in websites like tumblr, Pinterest, and Canvas. A fourth group organized debates into columns of "for" and "against"; this strategy stimulated an interesting discussion amongst their peers about the relative merits of an unlimited but messy debate versus a constrained but organized one.

My last group contained a student with some coding expertise, and they produced an actual working website, with full log-in and comment functionality. They also created a static image in Photoshop to represent the front page of their website (see the attached image): on this gossip website, called The Grapevine, stories with many "likes" are featured in green grapes and those with many "dislikes" are featured in red grapes.

For some ridiculous reason, I only allotted one 90 minutes class for these five groups to present their projects, which left almost no time for discussion. Next time, we'll spread them out over two days.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course