DWRL Lesson Plans - Synthesis

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Writing Process

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

Instructions For Students:

1. Watch the following comedy clip.

2. Take notes on what is being said.

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

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

Repeat with three different clips, time allowing.

Homework:

1. Find your own clip.

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

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

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Performance

Bridging Summary and Analysis with Standup Clips

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

Author:

Aubrey Plourde

Image Credit:

Image Credit: Cory Schmitz

Brief Assignment Overview:

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Writing Process

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

Instructions For Students:

1. Watch the following comedy clip.

2. Take notes on what is being said.

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

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

Repeat with three different clips, time allowing.

Homework:

1. Find your own clip.

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

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

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Course Type:

Course Description:

Tags:

http://www.studiomatthews.com/works/six-steps-to-sustainable-development

Performance

A Structured Approach to Teaching the OED as a Close Reading Tool

regina.mills — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:21:00 +0000

Author:

Regina Marie Mills

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using a structured worksheet, students explore a word of interest from one of the course readings through the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online. The worksheet asks them to consider how the definition(s) of the word can help inform their textual analysis/close reading of a text.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Oxford English Dictionary (OED)

Textual Analysis

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Using a university database, computer literacy

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Computer/Laptop, course readings so far, OED worksheet, access to university database with OED online

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

My students were focusing on writing close reading based entirely in the text anot not contextual resources. So to show them the ways in which exploring a single word can lead to new interpretations or ideas about a text, I created this exercise using the OED online. My goal for the exercise was to give students an introduction to using UT's library page and navigating to databases, in addition to give them an outside tool that could help them do their Essay 1 close reading. I told them that the word they exmained for the exercise could be used for their larger essay.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

You may want to make hard copies of the worksheet so that students can write their answers down and use the computer just for the search process. You may also upload a soft copy of the worksheet to a class management site (ex. Blackboard, Canvas, PBworks wiki) and give the students the option to type in their responses. They can then either print the completed worksheet, E-mail it to the instructor, or upload it to the class management site (ex. Discussion Board). I also prepared an "exemplar" for them where I completed the worksheet just as the students would. It helped them to see the length of response I expected and also how my own process (which was surprisingly fruitful as prepartion for class discussion on the reading) led to new and improved readings of the original text.

Instructions For Students:

1. Make sure you have read at least one reading in class that students can use to pick their word from.

2. Show students to steps required to navigate your university's databases website in order to get to OED online.

3. Briefly showcase the search options and also the "Cite" button which provides MLA citation for the students (they love this).

4. Either take the chance to go through your exemplar together, with you explaining the questions and why you gave the responses or give students time to read through the exemplar, and then allow time for students to ask clarifying questions about the assignment.

5. Students then go to their computers/laptops and given the time you allow (at least 30 minutes though 45 minutes is probably a better time period), have them complete the worksheet, either in hard or soft copy (see "Instructor Preparation" below).

6. Students turn in the worksheet for instructor feedback.

You can also do Steps 1-4 as preparation for assigning this as homework. This has the benefit of giving students more time to explore; on the other hand, it does not allow the instructor to help students out as needed in the process.

The blank worksheet is copied below in its entirety:

Close Reading Strategies: OED Exercise

Directions: use the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) website as accessible through lib.utexas.edu to explore the etymology and multiple meanings of a word in the passage(s) you are considering for Essay 1, or any word from Douglass, DuBois, Washington, if you do not have your heart set on a passage yet. Look at the example of “propaganda” provided to be sure you complete this in proper detail. You may write on the hard copy or on the soft copy of the class website.

Go to http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ and then click on the “Databases” tab of the scoUT box. Click on the letter “O” and click on the link that read “OED (Oxford English Dictionary).”

Use the search box and type in the word you’ve chosen. Note if there is more than one entry.

Click on the entry (or entries) and read through them. Makes notes about key information, such as (but not limited to):

Etymology (origins of the word; how it has been used)

Difference between different parts of speech (is it both a noun and verb? If so, how does the word used differently as a noun or a verb?)

How many definitions? How similar or different are the definitions from each other?

Are there any “compounds” listed in the entry? If so, what does this say about the primary use of the word?

Overall, what are the thoughts you have about the word? How does this information tie into how the author might (or might not) be using the word? Is the word being used in an archaic (old, out-of-fashion) way or in multiple ways are the same time?

Make sure to consider how the word fits into the context of the entire sentence, into the context of the entire passage, and even into the context of the entire work. Write those thoughts here.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I graded this as participation, though if this a homework assignment, I would also give it a small grade. Or, you could make this an informal assessment. No matter what grade you do or do not ascribe to it, I think it is very important to give students feedback.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I had planned a lot less time for this assignment initially but since I had made my schedule flexible for that day, I was able to adjust and add more time. I think this was appreciated by the students, who were able to complete most of the worksheet. In addition, a number of students ended up using the OED in their Essay 1's (a major writing assignment - a 4-page close reading of one text) and told me that they had been using it in other contexts. Because we did this exercise in class, I could offer commentary on their writing assignments about words I suggest they OED (we started using it as a verb) and I think that I may include OED definitions of words in future notes for students. I will definitely do this assignment again.

Additional Resources:

Below is the exemplar I created for my class, using the word "propaganda" from WEB Du Bois's "Of Booker T Washington and Others":

Go to http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ and then click on the “Databases” tab of the scoUT box. Click on the letter “O” and click on the link that read “OED (Oxford English Dictionary).”

Use the search box and type in the word you’ve chosen. Note if there is more than one entry.

Propaganda is both a noun and a verb, so I will make sure to check both links (I opened them as 2 separate tabs)

Click on the entry (or entries) and read through them. Makes notes about key information, such as (but not limited to):

Etymology (origins of the word; how it has been used)

The noun version actually originated in the church as a body that missionized groups. It wasn’t until the late 18^th century that the word took on a broader, more secular meaning as “an organization, scheme, or movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine, practice, etc.” (def. #2)

Difference between different parts of speech (is it both a noun and verb? If so, how does the word used differently as a noun or a verb?)

The verb version is rare and has the same meaning as most recent definitions of propaganda (i.e. to persuade or influence using propaganda). The noun is how DuBois uses it. But as noted above, the history of this word is quite interesting and though he probably means it in the more recent way, the church valences may still be there.

How many definitions? How similar or different are the definitions from each other?

After the church-related one, the third is fairly similar to the 2^nd one, except that they tend to emphasize the “biased and misleading” aspect of the information. There are only 3 definitions (not including the compounds).

Are there any “compounds” listed in the entry? If so, what does this say about the primary use of the word?

Yes, most of these are the tools of propaganda (like propaganda leaflet, propaganda movement, etc.)

Overall, what are the thoughts you have about the word? How does this information tie into how the author might (or might not) be using the word? Is the word being used in an archaic (old, out-of-fashion) way or in multiple ways are the same time?

Looking at this word, it made me think about it in a larger sense. I kept thinking about DuBois talking to the audience about Washington’s speeches and texts, just the print material, but I realize that DuBois is likely also talking about Washington’s “scheme” – maybe not in a nefarious way, but he is noticing that Washington’s ideas are disseminated in many ways beyond the text, by the Tuskegee machine, and by an organization that is represented by Washington but that encompasses many more people and organizations. Indeed, until I looked at this OED, I felt like propaganda was prettily singular but I can see how it connects to other aspects of the text outside of my own chosen passage.

Make sure to consider how the word fits into the context of the entire sentence, into the context of the entire passage, and even into the context of the entire work. Write those thoughts here.

I think that “propaganda” can be tied to DuBois’ invocation of the word “cult” on the second page of the text (CR 55). The cult is more related to a movement or organization and looking at this OED definition, I see propaganda as a more organized movement. In addition, I think it adds to the idea that Washington is spreading misinformation (“dangerous half-truth” on CR 60). The OED definition helped me make a connection within

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This exercise was used in a lower-division literature course focused on African American literature and culture, Black Public Intellectuals (course-listed with African American Studies). Students are range from first-years to seniors. My class has 22 students.

Tags:

Using Prezi for Outlining Papers

Plourde — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:53:58 +0000

Author:

Aubrey Plourde

Image Credit:

Aubri Plourde

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students will synthesize their own rhetorical analysis with background research on their selected controversies using the visual-spatial format mimicked by Prezi's software.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotated Bibliography

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This assignment is a precursor to Essay 2, Rhetorical Analysis. At this point, they have gathered data on the contexts of their controversy, made observations and intepretive claims about their chosen text, and articulated their own opinions. This outlining process is meant to help students who have a particularly hard time with organization or who are strongly visual learners.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Each student needs a computer, but they could also bring in laptops for the same activity in a standard classroom. Each student needs to have an free account with Prezi.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Before class, students were asked to pull out their notes from each source and to write down their thoughts in list-form. I asked students to create Prezi accounts by inviting them with a link.

Students read through their notes, labeling each with a major idea or point of argument as they go. They can have as many labels as they need, but they should be alert to group notes under the same label. For example, a student writing about the US's involvement with Mexico's drug culture might have separate labels for "Military Involvement," "Police Corruption," and "Imports."

Once this task is complete (about fifteen minutes with the size of the paper these students were drafting), ask students were list each of their major categories (these will also signpost topic sentences later).

As a group, log into Prezi and chose basic layouts. The students generally like choosing visually-pleasing platforms. Ask them to spread out the categories they’ve come up with over the space so that each label takes up its own visual area.

Next, ask students to group their notes--which in this case include quotations from sources, their own commentary on their chosen texts, and any synthesis or transition statements--around each of the categories/points of argument. This can take a while if students do not have their notes in digital form, so it may help to ask that they bring in Word documents with their notes typed up. Basically, they will copy/paste their notes around each of the clustered headings.

When students finish, they end up with wide mind-map. Ask them to spend some time resizing. Which categories are most important? Which seem to be floating out there with only one note or so? This is a way for them to visualize the strongest points of their argument, to cut pieces that might seem interesting but aren't pulling their weight, or to recognize where further research could be done at home.

For the rest of class, I asked students then to zoom out of Prezi and to add large numbers next to each category and subcategory. That’s their outline, in visual form. Some of them will probably want to animate the Prezi so that they can see how they will jump from idea to idea, but I will allow mine to keep it two-dimensional, if they choose.

Once they review each of the steps to their analysis (including context and controversy), students should able to see which transition statements topic sentences, and so on would connect each of their points.

The first time I did this exercise, since I wasn't interested in using Prezi for presentation purposes but rather as a freer-form mind-map, I just had students do this labeling visually. But when we finished, I thought I probably should have asked them not to just label the sections with numbers, but actually to then add the presentation steps into the prezi and just gone ahead with presentation. Sort of a writing-workshop in digital form.

Those that prefer to then reverse-outline from the Prezi can do so in Word; those who are okay with only the visual guide can use it while they write their first drafts.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Make sure you are familiar with Prezi's interface, including the zoom in/zoom out functions.

It would also help to have done this exercize personally.

Instructions For Students:

1. Read through every line of your notes. As you do this, label the topic or category of each one. You will probably end up with multiple labels; this is a good thing!

2. Once you've read through all of your notes, including your own analyses, list each of your labels/categories/topics on a separate sheet of paper.

3. Sign in to your Prezi account and choose a new template. You may choose one that thematically matches your analysis or one you just find pretty/elegant/cool-looking.

4. Create new text boxes for each of your labels, spacing them out accross the canvas. Try to make them the same size.

5. Going back to your notes, copy/paste them into the categories you labeled. You should see your notes arranged visually next to their topics. Guess what will become your paragraphs?

6. Spend some time resizing your topics and your notes. Make the more important topics or points larger. Which categories are the most important? Which seem to be floating out there with only one note or so? (This might be an indication that you should do more research).

7. Look through all of your topics, and try to determine an order for them. What kind of logic connects each of these ideas? Do certain clusters of topics/notes have to come before others?

8. Label each cluster of data/analysis with a number. This is your outline. Now that you can see all of your notes at once, you should be able to determine the best order in which to present them.

9. If you want, animate the outline so that Prezi zooms in on each cluster individually, in order. If you'd rather just have the visual, go for it. You may reverse-outline into a more standard form if you prefer, or you may write your first draft using this guide.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I like asking students to screen-shot their Prezi and hand it in with their assignment, but I grade this only on participation.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

It's important to ask students to sign up for Prezi and perhaps even to watch the introductory video before this class; otherwise, you'll end up spending half the class teaching the software.

Course Type:

Course Description:

Tags:

Annotated Bibliographies with Canvas Discussion Board

lazhu — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:37:48 +0000

Author:

Lily Zhu

Image Credit:

From a business site!

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment introduces annotated bibliographies to the students as preparation for a longer homework assignment, and their first paper. In using a public forum, students will see that even annotated bibliographies containing the same sources are flexible products influenced by individual projects.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotated Bibliography

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

This in-class activity is meant to help with research and collecting reliable sources. The students in my particular course had an independent annotated bibliography due at the end of that week, and their first paper due the following week.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Projector
Internet
A computer for every student (though this is not required should the instructor decide to use only his/her own computer and project it for the students)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This is a two-part activity; half is completed in-class and the other half is a homework assignment due by the next class day.

Homework assignment: Posted to Canvas Discussion Board: “Annotated Bibliography”

The assignment below is a modified version of Purdue OWL's description of annotated bibliographies. (You can upload a file [PDF, Word, etc.] to this discussion board rather than typing directly into the comment boxes since formatting tends to be difficult on Canvas)

Write an annotated bibliography that includes 4-5 sources. Your bibliography must be MLA style (see Easy Writer or Purdue OWL for review). Each annotation must be 100-150 words and include the following:

1. A phrase or brief sentence presenting the credibility/background of the source author (example: Holmes, an eminent scholar in insert relevant field here, discusses …)

2. A very brief summary of the central idea of the source. This should be no more than half of your entire annotation. Make sure you can distinguish whether this is an information article that merely collects and summarizes other people's arguments - or whether it is an opinion article.

3. An assessment of how this source is useful and relevant to your research project. What are the source’s strengths and weaknesses?

(I also provided an example of an annotated bibliography in this space)

In-Class Practice:

(This is a thread I started under the “Annotated bibliography” discussion board. Students will be able to access it at home so that they will not only have the sample I provided them in the homework prompt, but the products of their group work. I want them to have multiple models and strategies that they can use for their individual annotated bibliographies.)

(Students are split into groups of 3-4. All groups are given the same set of articles to annotate, but each group must determine which parts of the sources to summarize and what the final bibliography will focus on.)

Write an annotated bibliography according to the directions listed in the “Annotated Bibliography” post on Canvas

a) http://kotaku.com/5910857/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is (opinion article)

b) http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (information article)

c) http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract (information article)

Before you begin working on your annotations, read all 3 sources and decide what a general focus could be - one that ties all 3 sources together.

You should think about whether one source interacts particularly well with another. How does (c) fit into (a)'s argument? What about (b)? Make sure you consider bias and credibility too.

Post your completed responses to this thread.

(At the end of the class – once all of the groups have posted their responses – look through the bibliographies together. Discuss how, even when given the exact same articles, students end up with varying annotations simply because they saw different connections between the sources and because they focused their bibliographies on different topics.)

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Find a set of articles for the students that will produce rich annotated bibliographies and generate discussion afterwards.

Instructions For Students:

See assignment description

Evaluation Suggestions:

Completion and discussion based.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This assignment can take a surprising amount of time, especially if you plan on debriefing and discussing the actual controversies within the articles.

Course Type:

Using Comment Walls to Practice Rebuttal

Sloan — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:11:14 +0000

Author:

Casey Sloan

Image Credit:

Pixabay

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment asks students to think through the rhetorical practice of contributing to a discussion on a website's comment wall. After finding a video on YouTube, a blog entry, or an opinion article on an online news source, students will read through the comments section, locate effective and ineffective comments, and ultimately draft a possible contribution to the wall based on their understanding of any manifested disagreements. This exercise will highlight the importance of refutation, concession and rebuttal.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rebuttal

Stasis

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

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

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this lession in an introductory rhetoric course.

Tags:

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

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

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

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

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

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

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Cultural Context

Historical Context

Performance

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

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

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Intermediate Writing Course

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Ethos and Online Dating 2.0 - Incorporating Visuals

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

Author:

Cate Blouke

Image Credit:

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

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

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

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Written Profile:

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

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

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

The Potential Bachelors:

Bachelors.jpg

Image Credits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE 315 - Introduction to Visual Rhetoric

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

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

Tags:

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

No Classroom Technology Required

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

Intermediate Writing Course