DWRL Lesson Plans - Remediation

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Homework Assignment

Course Unit

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Course Unit

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

In addition to the goals above, students were to:

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

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

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

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

1. samples of student-authored multimedia projects:

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

2. KeepVid website (best run on Safari),

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

4. Internet Archives,

5. Creative Commons for songs,

6. Disability song list,

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

(beneficial, though not required):

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

9. our class PBworks wiki Homework page

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Dr. Rodrigue's Digital Writing Resource Page

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Adapted from Justin Hodgson’s Multimedia Research-Argument Creation

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Multimodal Argument Project Prompt:

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

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

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

That said, here are some concrete guidelines.

Minimum Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length requirement:

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

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

Accessibility requirement:

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

Please write:

1. Your topic;

2. Your controversy;

3. The pop culture source you will remediate

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

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

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

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

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

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

Several students were anxious about multimedia composition.

Several others were excited about this change of pace.

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

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

Additional Resources:

Recommendations from Justin Hodgson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Practicing Visual Invention

Eatman — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:44:15 +0000

Author:

Megan Eatman

Image Credit:

Via SubmitInfographics.com

Brief Assignment Overview:

This in-class assignment asks students to construct a visual version of a written or spoken argument. By asking students to first translate an existing argument into a visual form, the assignment eases students into processes of visual invention to prepare them for a more substantive multimodal composition.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Arrangement

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This exercise introduces students to the process of multimodal composition, asking them to begin thinking about how images can persuade a particular audience.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Ideal:

A projector and media console for the instructor
Computers for each student
Photoshop

This exercise could also be adapted to use pens and paper rather than Photoshop.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Students will read through a brief argument about an issue with which they are already familiar. I like to use opinion pieces from the Daily Texan, the University of Texas student newspaper, because they are short, simple, and do not require students to have a great deal of background knowledge. Students read through the piece, then, in small groups, use Photoshop to build a visual version of the argument. Depending on the piece, the visualization might be in the form of an infographic, a printed PSA, or a collection of related images. Groups then share their pieces with the class and discuss the choices they made.

While I was initially reluctant to ask students to translate an argument from one medium to another, I think that this activity, particularly early in a multimodal composition unit, helps students begin to understand how arguing in other media works differently than arguing in text. Asking them to think in images without having to generate an argument independently can both show the limits of translation and offer an opportunity to practice visual invention. Additionally, students have the opportunity to experiment collaboratively with Photoshop.

Prompt for Students

Read through the article and then, in groups, use Photoshop to produce a visual version of the author’s argument. This argument may contain a small amount of text, but should rely primarily on images, and should target the same audience (UT students) as the original argument. Be prepared to share what you have made and talk about your choices.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This activity is designed for students who are already familiar with rhetorical analysis of alphabetic texts and, to some degree, visual and multimodal texts. Students should be able to describe how a written argument persuades its audience so that they can translate it more effectively. Additionally, it would be helpful if students had a brief introduction to Photoshop before beginning this exercise. The instructor could do a hands-on introduction for some or all of the previous class.

Instructions For Students:

In addition to the prompt above, I ask students to take turns "driving," or actually making the Photoshop edits, so that each student has time for hands-on practice.

Evaluation Suggestions:

For a course that has classwork grades, this exercise could be given a completion grade. Since the exercise is supposed to provide a safe space for experimenting with visual invention, I would not advise giving letter grades.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise could be adapted for a classroom without technology if students were given pens or markers and paper and asked to translate an argument into a poster. Students have fewer options in this version (since they cannot alter images the way they could in Photoshop), but they would still have the opportunity to think in images.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 309S, Critical Reading and Persuasive Writing, teaches students how to analyze and write arguments, but it also introduces students to rhetoric as a civic art, one that prepares them to write to and for specific publics. My version of this course asks students to look at arguments within and about online communities. The course is designed for students who have credit for the department's introductory Rhetoric and Writing course, but who still need or want a lower-division rhetoric and writing course.

Tags:

Photoshop

Transforming Video with Popcorn Maker

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

Author:

Beck Wise

Image Credit:

Image: Joakim Wahlander

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Organization

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Hardware

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

Web access

Software

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Web video

Remix

Play

Shifting Focus from Content to Medium

Laura Thain — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 02:05:07 +0000

Author:

Laura Thain

Image Credit:

Blancomoleon

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using various records of the Hindenburg disaster, this assignment encourages students to engage with medium over content, especially in terms of literary studies.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Arrangement

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment encourages students to think beyond their preconceptions of what "medium" is and view all things as mediated--especially text.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Instructors will need to assign an orienting theoretical piece on medium and assemble an applicable archive of media for students to analyze. I used the first chapter of McLuhan's Understanding Media ("The Medium is the Message").

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Assign the students a piece of media theory that you think well supplements their primary text reading in a literature class or your chosen archive of materials in a rhetoric class. Some potential candidates include Raymond Williams, Marshall McLuhan, or Bolter and Grusin. You may also ask your students to watch a lecture such as this one in order to gain some grounding for talking about media. We spent a full class period discussing McLuhan's argument before engaging in this activity.

I then assembled an archive of media artifacts around our primary text, War of the Worlds. I asked the students to approach this archive mostly through affect, which I defined as "the way media objects make us feel."

I began by handing out a transcript of Herbert Morrison's famous radio broadcast account of the Hindenburg disaster. I asked the students to read this transcript to themselves and circle words or phrases that made them feel a certain way. Then, I asked them to account for their experience in terms of the medium in which they experienced it. Next, I played an audio file of Morrison's radio broadcast and asked them again to recount their reaction, again accounting for medium. Finally, I asked them to watch a YouTube video that superimposed a Universal news reel of the explosion over the audio of the broadcast. Students were generally most moved by either the radio broadcast or the YouTube video and discussed why.

I then explained that Orson Wells wanted to capture the "spirit" of the Hindenburg broadcast (1937) in his own adaptation of War of the Worlds (1938). I played a ten-minute portion of the radio broadcast and asked them to relate the two radio pieces to each other, again, paying attention to how the medium of radio attempted to make its audience feel a certain way.

By this point, the students generally agreed that radio, rather than "lacking" the visual, capitalized on conveying information chiefly through an aural medium. We talked a little bit about McLuhan's view of "hot" vs. "cold" media, and I then asked them to think about how text itself also function as a medium.

We then read a selection from Book II, Chapter 4 ("The Death of the Curate") in War of the Worlds as a class. I asked them to each read a paragraph of the text as dramatically as they felt comfortable doing. Again, I asked them how the text as a medium tries to inspire suspense in the audience.

Finally, we watched an analagous clip from Steven Spielberg's 2005 War of the Worlds, in which the Martian alien, like the passage from the book, is probing the basement while the protagonist hides in fear. I asked them how the visual medium attempts to create suspense in the same plot arch. After students practiced analyzing the two very different methods, I reiterated that that content of the two pieces was somewhat irrelevent to their analysis--the medium was what mattered.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Make detailed notes on the orienting piece of media theory you assign your students and spend time working through that piece with them. Our class spent an entire day on "The Medium is the Message" and read it in terms of our current text (War of the Worlds) before engaging in detailed analysis of other media.

Instructions For Students:

Students need to read and discuss a secondary media text in addition to primary course materials for this lesson.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

I teach a ninety-minute class period of Literature and Popular culture, which is a varient of Literature Across the Disciplines (E314J). The course seeks to explore the intersections of literature and popular culture from the point of view of mass readership and other forms of mass media. The course requires students to consider mediation through the lens of culture, history, and media theory as they engage in close reading and analysis.

Google Images and Book Covers - Tracking Cultural Change

Ptacek — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:37:08 +0000

Author:

Jake Ptacek

Image Credit:

Screen shot of Lolita book covers retrieved with Google image search

Brief Assignment Overview:

Images on book covers, blurbs or reviews on dust jackets, and publishers’ summaries all provide constructed argumentation about the text within that is designed to provoke an emotional and analytic response. This lesson plan is designed to get students thinking about the ways in which cover images provide valuable evidence in the way in which a text (in this case, Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita) is marketed and interpreted over time.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Audience

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Visualization

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

I created this lesson for a networked classroom where each student could have internet access, though a classroom without could request that students print out their images the night before, or profitably use a projector as the groups present.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

First Day/Week

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Students are often presented with paratextual apparati that contributes to determining their response to a work of literature. Images on book covers, blurbs or reviews on dust jackets, and publishers’ summaries all provide constructed argumentation about the text within that is designed to provoke an emotional and analytic response. This lesson plan is designed to get students thinking about the ways in which cover images provide valuable evidence in the way in which a text (in this case, Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita) is marketed and interpreted over time. I found that this in turn could contribute to a discussion of a text as a historical document.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before this class I had given a brief lecture on the history of the composition and publication of Lolita, and we looked at and analyzed the original French cover together, asking questions that were quite similar to the ones in the student prompt.

I had my students log into their computers and head to Google Images. I broke my students up into two- or three-person teams as I have 22 students in this class, but this is of course optional. (NB: Depending on the text, you may wish to enable the “safe search” function on your computers—searching Lolita brought up some occasionally questionable material.)

I handed out prompts to each group (see below in student instructions).

After 20-25 minutes, we came back together and we took a tour through the classroom, where each group gave a brief presentation based on their prompt for the rest of the class.

I did this in one 45-minute class, but the assignment could easily be expanded or transformed into a take-home exercise as needed. In the future I think I will try to make this a two-day exercise. I’d like to have the students upload their images to a class wiki, so that we could easily put them into chronological order, which would allow us to clearly and easily see how the images change (or remain static) over time.

Instructions For Students:

Your goal in this exercise is to think about how a cover image for the novel Lolita constructs a reader's response to the novel. What kinds of things does this image make us think? What does it say about the novel at that historical moment? To do so, you will use Google Images to find a striking cover image for the novel and analyze the image.

Once you’ve logged into your computers, head to Google Images
When you’ve arrived at Google Images you and your partner should search for some cover images used on the novel Lolita. Try some different searches—adding different key words (cover vs book) or countries (America vs Australia) will often provide you with different content.
Discover when and where your image was created—is it a Turkish edition from 1959? A Russian edition from the 1990’s? An American edition from the 2000’s? What type of image is it—a photograph? A drawing? A painting? Is it an identifiable piece of art (a famous painting or photograph) or does it look like it was commissioned for that edition?
With your partner, think about and brainstorm some answers to the following questions: What are the first words that come into your mind when you see this image? What does it make you think of? If you hadn’t read any of the novel, what would this image make you think the book was about? Now that you’ve read (some of ) the novel, what kind of relationship(s) does this image have to the text? Who seems to be portrayed? From whose viewpoint are we looking? Does this image spark any ideas about the cultural construction of the book? What kinds of people would make this book, and what kinds of people would read it? These questions are only a starting place. Please feel free to explore and think about more issues raised by your image.

Be prepared to enlighten the rest of the class about the image you’ve chosen (when and where it’s from, and a brief summary of your thinking about part 4) for about 3-5 minutes.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I did not formally evaluate this assignment except as part of daily class participation

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This was an easy and even fun way to get a conversation started about how paratexts can affect the ways that we read, and also helped us to talk about how different cultural and historical moments look at texts differently. Students who are sometimes reluctant to traditionally close-read in class can often surprise themselves with a sophisticated reading of a visual text, and keeping the exercise group-oriented and low stakes allows them to demonstrate their skills with little pressure.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

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:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Peer Review

Revision

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Presentations

No Classroom Technology Required

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:

Writing Images as a Means to Writing with Images

Bohmann — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:08:08 +0000

Author:

Axel Bohmann

Image Credit:

M.C. Escher, Drawing Hands

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students work in the visual medium to explore dimensions of associative image logic they can use in their persuasive written compositions. Ideally, the outcome will be a guiding image which helps arrange and focus their composition.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimodal

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is geared towards getting students to think about metaphor, imagery and associative logic in crafting their persuasive compositions. Ideally, the outcome will be a guiding image which helps arrange and focus their composition.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Every student should have access to a computer with Photoshop installed. Ideally, access should extend beyond the alotted classroom time (i.e. there should be an open computer lab available to students), but this is not strictly necessary.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In my 306 class, one option for the final short writing assignment of the semester is for students to briefly describe a guiding image they can use to make their case in the last major written assignment, a persuasive text arguing a position on a chosen controversy to an audience of their choosing. Ideally, this or a similar written assignment should be completed before conducting the exercise described here. At least, students should come to class with an image in mind that they can explore. Also, especially in a 50-minute class, it will be helpful if students have already had an introduction to Photoshop. Since the product of the assignment is not meant to be presented or published, copyright issues need not absolutely be discussed, but the assignment can definitely be turned into an occasion to discuss copyright, fair use and creative commons.

In the first part of the assignment, students spend time searching the web for digital pictures in line with the image they have selected to use for their writing. For instance, one of my student described the Internet as a nightclub and identified Google as the bouncer. This student would likely enter "bouncer" as a search term. Of course, very different images (actual photos, cartoons, memes with text, different color choices, etc.) will come up. This fact is not a problem but should be seen as a first steps in helping students refine their use of images: it exposes them to different connections and contexts in which their image can be used and may open up new ways of thinking about that image. The amount of choices can be a drawback, as students may feel overwhelmed and unsure about making a decision. Therefore you should give them some time to play around during the search process and also emphasize that this is a process-oriented exercise. It doesn't matter what the final product looks like as long as the exercise opens up new perspectives on image logic for them.

Next, have students import their picture into Photoshop and manipulate it to support the claim they want to make. Again, low-end, trashy-looking experiments are encouraged. Taking the example above, it may start with stuff as simple as imposing the Google logo onto the bouncer's jacket or re-naming the nightclub "www," etc. As students continue image-editing, you should encourage them to explore new dimensions of the image. In addition to the bouncer, students could include a line of people queueing to get in. What do these people look like? Do they look at the bouncer, and he at them? Do they talk to each other? etc.

As students progress, they are likely to run into a dead end where they don't know how to continue, and they will also have technical difficulties with Photoshop. You should definitely make yourself available for questions and also get those students who know Photoshop better than others to help their peers. Towards the end of the class period, or at the beginning of your next class, you can make some room for students to present their images. I would suggest making this voluntary. My experience is that students are quite eager to show their media products.

The exercise should conclude with a written reflection homework in which students describe where they were going with their image before and how working in Photoshop has changed and elaborated their image logic, and how they plan to use their chosen image in their persuasive paper. Alternatively, if you want to put more emphasis on multimedia writing, you can ask students to continue working on their Photoshop project outside of class and turn the product into a graded assignment. Just make sure every student has appropriate access to a computer with Photoshop outside of class.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

You should familiarize yourself with Photoshop enough to answer basic student questions. I don't think it's necessary that you are an expert by any standard, but if you have never worked with the program the exercise might turn into chaos. Also, don't be afraid to ask students to help their classmates (and you) with any questions that might come up.

Depending on the focus of the class, the extent of previous exposure sutdents have had to Photoshop and the time you want to dedicate to the assignment, students' images may comprise a product (and graded assignment) of their own. In that case, you should plan for 2-3 class days dedicated to the project.

Instructions For Students:

Finding Images:

Search the web for picture files of the image(s) you have chosen to work with
Take time to browse through the different search results and notice the different kind of images that come up

How are they different?
What aspects of your chosen image do they highlight?
Do they bring any new aspects to light you might work with?

After about 10 minutes, you should choose one image with which you will work for the rest of the class period

Manipulating Images:

Import you image into Photoshop
Get excited, manipulate:

superimpose/blend in other images
rotate, distort dimensions, duplicate
change colors
Photoshop does allow you to include text, but try to work without it as much as you can

Reflection:

Write a brief (maximum 1 page, double-spaced) reflection essay answering the following questions:

What were the dimensions of your image you highlighted before the Photoshop exercise?
Did working in Photoshop change any of these, or bring them into a different focus? Did you discover new aspects of the image you can utilize for essay 3?
How do you plan to use your image in essay 3? Will it guide your entire discussion, work as an example of one specific aspect of the discussion? Will it work best to appeal to reason, logic, or emotion?

Evaluation Suggestions:

If you do this exercise the way it is outlined above, I would strongly suggest keeping the stakes low and not giving a grade on the Photoshop project itself. You may decide to grade the written reflection, if homework assignments make up part of your class's grades. I think the exercise can work great if you are using the learning record, as it emphasizes process and reflection.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 306 Rhetoric and Writing: This is an introductory writing class with a mostly freshman student population. The assignment can easily be tweaked to fit any class with a persuasive, inventive writing assignment.

Tags:

Drawing Logos

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

Author:

Laura Thain

Image Credit:

Flatrock

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Organization

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

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

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

I.Hard Evidence

facts and statistics (claim paired with quantitative evidence)

personal testimony/experience

II. Soft Evidence

reason (claim paired with qualitative evidence)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bride wars.jpg

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

Instructions For Students:

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

Course Type:

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 most useful for analytical writing, although it might also be useful in a discussion on critical writing when teaching students how to counter a logos appeal by means of definition, evidence, quality, or policy.

Tags:

Podcast/Paper: Having Students Do the Same Assignment in 2 Media

detweiler — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:04:27 +0000

Author:

Eric Detweiler

Image Credit:

Compiled from images on Wikimedia Commons

Brief Assignment Overview:

I have my students complete their first major assignment in two forms: (1) An individual 3-page paper and (2) a 5-6 minute group podcast. In both, they describe a text and situate it in historical context.

Type of Assignment:

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Course Unit

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To get students to think about the ways in which presentational form/medium effects their inventional and organizational processes, as well as what counts as rhetorically effective.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Recording devices. If at least one student in each podcast group has a personal computer with a built-in microphone, that's fine. If that's not the case, or if you want to go hi-fi, USB microphones can step quality up a little bit. Access to some sort of editing software: Apple's GarageBand or Audacity are common options, and the latter can be downloaded for free online.

Audio Hijack Pro is also another useful software if students want to use clips from the text they're discussing in their podcast. The website snipmp3.com can also be used to grab audio from YouTube videos if Audio Hijack Pro isn't affordable/available.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In my RHE 309K course, Rhetoric of Irony, students examine, analyze, and argue about the rhetorical and ethical implications of irony in political and popular discourse. Their first assignment is to choose a historical (before the year 2000) ironic text and describe the text, its context, and its use of irony to their classmates.

My course includes a lot of writing, of course, and I want to get students thinking critically about that writing from the start of the class. In order to do that, I wanted to supplement the paper version of this first assignment with something in another medium and/or mode. Because I have worked with podcasts and audio strikes me as relatively straightforward (in a sense, a podcast can be little more than a recorded speech, writing's other half in the history of rhetoric and rhetoric instruction). The podcast allows students to invent and organize their material in a different way than the paper, and with structured reflective writing and conversation can help them think about the particularities and peculiarities of written and aural/oral discourse. I've found it can open up productive conversations about the difficulties and tropes of academic writing. For instance, students often have an easier time inventing material for the podcast than for the paper (I do require a first draft of the paper that's due one week before the podcast and final paper draft). Even though a 5-6 minute podcast and a 3-page paper can accomodate about the same number of words, students frequently feel like they've have to make copious cuts to fit everything into the podcast and stretching to find enough material for the paper.

In short, this assignment allows students to think about the constraints and affordances of both spoken and written compositions, as well as how they might adapt rhetorically to both forms/media/modes (these aren't synonyms here, of course, but all potential frames for discussing these assignments). It can also be a useful method of invention and helping students think about the patterns and obstacles that crop up in their academic writing processes.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

There are a variety of ways to approach the podcast assignment. I didn't spend much time teaching my students how to actually make podcasts. I basically showed them what GarageBand, Audacity, and Audio Hijack Pro looked like on our classroom computers, showed them how to drag audio files into the first two and how to sync the latter up with other applications. I focused more on showing students how to search Audacity's robust wiki and how to look up GarageBand tutorials on YouTube, etc. Learning to learn these technologies for themselves, in other words, was a big part of the assignment. I also provided them 15-20 minutes of in-class time to work as a group a few times, which gave them a chance to play with the technologies while I was on hand to offer troubleshooting advice and general tips.

As an instructor, you might want to have some knowledge of the technologies, then, though being an amateur along with your students can be a productive learning experience. If you don't have a computer classroom with those programs, I imagine the shorter introduction described above would be best, leaving the onus on students to experiment with them outside of class. If you do, you could certainly conduct a more in-depth, participatory in-class tutorial.

If even having students download Audacity seems too daunting, this assignment could feasibly be completed by having students record a script using Windows' pre-installed and very basic Audio Recorder; all current Apples come equipped with GarageBand.

Instructions For Students:

Since the meta-assignment comprises two parts (the group podcast and the individual paper), both assignment prompts are included below. The podcast comes first.

Unit 1 Podcast

Podcast: An audio program, often brief, that’s similar to a radio show but intended for digital download rather than live play. We have already spent some time addressing the important role situational factors play in creating a kairos for what counts as/is recognized as effective “irony.

We have already spent some time addressing the important role situational factors play in creating a kairos for what counts as/is recognized as effective “irony.” For instance, much of the ironic political critique of 1970s Saturday Night Live skits might seem dull or weird without a deep understanding of how Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were seen and thought of at the time, as well as what political contexts they were a part of. Without knowledge of Jon Stewart’s role on The Daily Show, the kairos of his Crossfire appearance would be much harder to understand.

General

Your first major assignment, then, is to create a group podcast in which your group situates an ironic text in its original context. Exploring, in other words, the situational variables that made up its kairos. For our purposes, the text must have been originally released before January 1, 2000 (in part because that’s a neat dividing line, in part because—as we’ll see later this semester—9/11 brought about some important shifts in many Americans’ attitudes toward irony). Your podcast should include your text itself, as well as relevant events, people, etc. that had some influence on the contexts out of which the text emerged. For instance, what cultures was the author a part of, and how might they have influenced her or his ironic rhetorical choices? How was the text originally distributed (British newspaper, 1960s Japanese television, FM radio, etc.), and how might the context of that material form shape the text? Who, if relevant, was in political power? Were any military or social conflicts going on in the background? Was your text responding to a specific previous text, or to a general cultural and/or political atmosphere? In short, your podcast should help your audience better understand your text and its kairos. Don’t give context for context’s sake, but bring to your listeners’ minds key contextual details relevant to your text’s rhetorical point(s) and the broader historical situation in which those points were being made in order to foster a better understanding of your text in its context.

You will work in either pairs or trios. All members must agree on the chosen text. That choice is yours, not mine, as is how you divide the workload—as long as you do so in an equitable manner and all group members’ voices appear at least once in the final podcast. Keep in mind this collaborative project’s potential relevance to your individual Learning Record.

Specifics

Your podcast is due on the wiki by the beginning of class Mon., Feb. 18. Upload it as an .mp3, .aac, .or .wav file. Podcasts must be 5-6 minutes long. We will listen to all groups’ podcasts in class that day. The time limit is strict, and you should make use of that time in a rhetorically effective—in a kairotic—manner. In addition to the release of your text itself, your podcast must introduce and set up at least three additional contextual variables: events, people, wars, other texts, private or public squabbles, or responses to your text. You should verbally cite at least two sources in your podcast. Source requirements are covered in more detail in the corresponding paper assignment. Your primary rhetorical goals are to inform and to entertain. Make a podcast that will hold your classmates’ and my attention. My feedback on the timeline will be given in written form, with each group member receiving the same write-up.

Paper 1

General

In addition to the group podcast, you are responsible for writing an individual paper in which you describe the context out of which your text arose, the significance and ironic message of the text itself, and how that specific message responded to/interacted with your text’s kairos. Keep in mind your primary purpose is—as with the podcast—to give your readers a better understanding of your text by situating it, not to offer context for context’s sake. Always make sure you explain the relevance of that context in terms of your text.

You should try to avoid taking a position on whether your text’s message is “good” or “bad.” Try to stick primarily to describing and summarizing text and context rather than evaluating. If your text was rhetorically ineffective or responded poorly to its context, let that point be made via exposition (for instance, that it’s faded into history or has a powerful legacy) rather than direct argument. Let me know if I can clarify here.

Though you can draw on your group’s conversations, brainstorming, etc. in writing your paper, the actual process of writing should be undertaken individually. If you have questions about the boundaries of collaboration and plagiarism, check the course strands or with me. Basically, your paper should have different sentences, paragraphs, and overall arrangement than your other group members’, though the basic content could be largely the same.

Specifics

Your paper must have at least four sources. Two of those sources must be scholarly; two must be broader historical or primary sources. We’ll discuss these distinctions in class on Jan. 30. If you aren’t confident in this area and want to get a head start, however, feel free to talk with me in advance. Easy Writer also has advice here. Your paper may share one scholarly and one historical source with your other group members’ papers. The other scholarly and historical source must be unique to your paper.

Paper 1 should be at least 1000 words including the works-cited page, heading, title, etc. That should make the body of the paper around 3 pages. The paper should be properly formatted according to MLA guidelines, which we’ll discuss as this unit unfolds. A full draft of the paper

(1.1) is due in the corresponding wiki folder on Mon., Feb. 11. Paper 1.1 will be peer reviewed in class on that day. A substantially revised version (1.2) is due in the corresponding wiki folder by the beginning of class on Mon., Feb. 18.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use The Learning Record to assess my classes, so students get qualitative feedback from me on both the podcast and the paper. I offer marginal comments on the first draft of the paper. In response to my comments and a peer review, students set three revision goals--each including what the goal is, why they've set it as a goal based on peer review/my comments/personal reflection, and how they plan to carry it out--for writing/revising their second draft (the ".2" in the prompt above). I approve those goals in advance of the revisions, then focus my comments on them in assessing the second draft.

My commentary on the podcast, which focuses primarily on invention, organization, and audience awareness, is the same for all members of each group and is about a paragraph in length.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I wasn't sure how this approach would go over this semester, which was the first time I assigned both podcast and paper. Students seemed enthusiastic about the podcast. In addition to being more "fun" than a traditional paper, it seems the unorthodox and novel nature of podcasts for school purposes led them to feel more freedom in inventing and organizing. They were, in other words, much less prone to podcaster's block than writer's block. I require the paper to be more conventional in terms of college writing for a rhetoric course, but the podcast gave them ample material to conventionalize for the paper.

Additional Resources:

The Scholar Electric on Incorporating Audio Assignments: http://www.ryantrauman.net/scholarelectric/2012/11/13/212/

Audacity's wiki: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Audacity_Wiki_Home_Page

The Learning Record: http://www.learningrecord.org/

Course Type:

No Classroom Technology Required

Course Description:

What is irony? It’s a rhetorical device that has been called “infinite absolute negativity” and “the key to the tightest bonds of friendship.” Jane Austen uses it to poke fun at Victorian social norms, Stephen Colbert to mock American politics, television shows like South Park to critique—well, just about everything. Irony’s complex history is part of the reason its definition is so hard to pin down. Working towards an understanding and definition of the term will thus be one of the aims of this course.

Irony’s presence in individual rhetorical exchanges can be equally hard to identify, however. Consider the times you've been reading something online—say a friend's Facebook status—and found yourself asking, "Can this person possibly be serious?" This course, then, will also examine how irony functions practically in political and popular discourse. The effective use of irony requires both the speaker and listener to share a mutual understanding not only of the position being ironically stated, but the other party’s unstated beliefs and the actual critical message under the surface. Traditional rhetorical variables—speaker, audience, purpose—are all present, but layered in a manner that requires especially acute rhetorical awareness. This course will thus necessitate that students assume and practice a rigorous rhetorical consciousness as they engage with irony as both a concept and a complex rhetorical device, constructing and critiquing ironic arguments as they consider the historical, political, and ethical implications of irony’s deployment from Socrates to Swift to sitcoms.

Tags:

Analyzing Ethos Using Twitter and Storify

Cate Blouke — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:43:38 +0000

Author:

Cate Blouke

Image Credit:

Storify Twitter Mash-up by Cate Blouke

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using the multimedia curation program, Storify, students compose a short writing assignment analyzing an "author's" ethos based on his or her Twitter feed. This demonstrates the ways in which ethos is cultivated over time and in a variety of different ways.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotation

Organization

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Ethos, visual analysis, digital literacy,

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Students only need a computer with Internet access and to sign up for a free Storify account.

While a media console with projector would be helpful to demonstrate the online programs in class, this is not strictly necessary for students to complete the assignment.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment is designed to encourage students to think about the ways in which "ethos" is cultivated over time and in a variety of sometimes subtle, sometimes overt ways. Instead of analyzing the ethos presented by an author, journalist, or other professional writer in a long-form piece of writing, students examine the ways in which ethos emerges from the short-form, long-term writing of a person's Twitter feed.

This helps students to recognize that ethos is not something that is "only" cultivated by politicians or authors, but something that we all present in one way or anther - particularly in online environments. As such, this may be another avenue for initiating a conversation about online identity and the ways in which we present ourselves on in the Internet.

Storify offers a unique platform for this short writing assignment as it allows students to literally pull pieces of multimedia into a single platform and comment on each piece of evidence. This allows for a more visually interesting analysis of very short pieces of writing and for a visual analysis of the person's profile image or twitpics.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Familiarize yourself with the Storify platform and demonstrate how to use it. I would also encourage showing the students an example, and I've included a student example in the "Additional Resources" section below.

Instructions For Students:

In this assignment, you'll be analyzing the ethos of a stand up comedian based on his or her Twitter feed. You'll compose your analysis using Storify and pull evidence for your assessment directly into the Storify piece.

Essentially, this assignment asks that you make an argument about what kind of comedian this person is, basing your argument on their presentation of ethos.

The following are the kinds of questions you'll want to consider, though you will need to find ways to synthesize your answers into a coherent narrative. These are meant as brainstorming questions and are typed in no particular order - so for your narrative, it will be up to you to order your answers to these questions in a manner that flows/coheres.

What kind of message does his or her profile picture send?
What is he doing in the picture? (looking at the camera? smiling? laughing? holding anything?)
What is he wearing in the picture?
How does your comedian address his audience (as in is he nice? mean? aggressive? stand-offish? jovial?)?
What kinds of jokes does he make? (insults? snarky comments? word-play?)
What subjects does he most often joke about?
How does he address his audience/followers?
Are Tweets written to/directly addressing his audience or are they just observations thrown out to the Twitterverse?
Does he insult people?
Does he respond to his followers' Tweets?
Does he "re-Tweet" his followers Tweets?
How does he seem to use Twitter primarily (for promotion or to Tweet jokes)?
Who is his audience and how big is his following? (You may want to browse through his followers or make a case for who his audience might be based on what he tweets about)
thinking back to the first reading for the course - is this comedian a "negative exemplar" or a "spokesperson"
What attitudes/values do his Tweets reflect?
Do you have a sense of his political beliefs?
What aspects of society/life does he critique?
How does he describe himself in his tag line?
Does he Tweet about personal things or major events?
Does he Tweet about celebrities?
Does he Tweet about current events?
Given the things he Tweets about, do you think he has the credibility or authority to do so? Why or why not?
Can you identify some ways in which your comedian builds goodwill or demonstrates that he is "trustworthy?"
Why would you want to listen to this comedian?

Directions for turning in a Storify piece:

1. Create a wiki page in your student folder titled "lastname-date-RS3-Storify"

2. On the page, provide a link to the piece on Storify or insert the embed code onto the page

3. (Optional) Post a link to your project on the class blog

Explicit instructions on how to post your link:

1. make sure your project is "published" before you try to share the link

2. make a page in your wiki folder titled: "lastname-date-RS3"

3. on your published Storify project, there are options to "share," "email," and "embed" - click on the "embed" link and copy the code

4. on your wiki page (when you're in the "edit" screen), click on the "insert" drop-down menu in the formatting toolbar

5. select "HTML/JavaScript" and paste the embed code into the pop-up screen that comes up, then hit "next," and then agree to "insert plugin"

6. save the changes to the wiki page, then test the link

Evaluation Suggestions:

I created a standard rubric and then offered comments in paragraph form. I posted my feedback to the student's wiki page (where they submitted the assignment). There was no grade given, since I was evaluating based on the Learning Record.

[ ] Makes a clear assertion about the comedian’s ethos

[ ] Makes an assertion about the comedian’s audience/followers

[ ] Addresses the content/type of comedian’s tweets

[ ] Identifies (some of) the comedian’s values represented in tweets

[ ] Offers visual analysis of profile picture

[ ] Offers explanation and analysis of tweets (doesn't just let them “speak for themselves”)

[ ] Tweets are framed/introduced effectively (not just dropped in between analyses)

[ ] Project is effectively organized and information synthesized (conceptually vs. chronologically)

[ ] Sufficiently robust assessment (meets length/thoroughness expectations)

[ ] Writing relatively free of grammatical error

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students seemed to enjoy the exercise, though several of them encountered problems with the technological aspects. It's important to point out to them the various toolbars/functions of the Storify interface and to make your own expectations clear in terms of how you want the information presented/overall goal of the assignment.

Additional Resources:

A student example of this assignment, analyzing Ralphie May's Twitter feed.

My gratitude to Megan Varelmann Gianfagna for her lesson plan on Tracing Memes in Storify, which served as inspiration for this assignment.

Course Type: