DWRL Lesson Plans - Class Discussion

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Performance

Structure and Form

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Video

Media Requirements:

First Day Introduction to Rhetoric Prezi

Required Materials:

Media console/ projector, Prezi

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

Walking through this presentation with students should take up a full class session. I have included some relevant notes/ writing prompts for each slide below

Slide 1: Before showing the video, make sure all of your students know the basic plot of Nolan's movie. Summarize and give context if necessary. (A thorough understanding of the film is not required for a reading of the speeches). Play Alfred's speech for students through once. Ask them to take detailed notes during a second playthrough, paying close attention to Alfred's argument. What is Alfred trying to get Bruce to do/feel/believe/think? How is he making his argument? What are his argumentative tactics? Play the video a second time and give students a few minutes to write a paragraph defining Alfred's argument and detailing how his argument is made.

Slide 2: This slide includes a few important points about Alfred's rhetorical strategies. Use this moment to discuss the importance of audience (Alfred's relatinship with Bruce impacts the way the two communicate). You can also talk about Alfred's use of the anecdote as evidence and his appeal to Bruce's (and the viewing audience's) emotions.

Slide 3: Alfred's argumentative strategies can lead into a discussion about the definition of rhetoric. Before showing this slide, ask students to write down their current definition of rhetoric. Have volunteers share their ideas and discuss. This slide shows my current understanding of rhetoric and presents two discussion questions on crucial aspects of the concept (communication as an "art" with intentional stylistic choices and the ethical dimensions of communication/ argumentation).

Slide 4: I used this slide to spell out the major goals of my course. If you download the Prezi, you can insert your own class objectives.

Slide 5: Another speech from Nolan's movie. Repeat writing prompts from Slide 1

Slide 6: Student introductions

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Download the Prezi and insert your own course goals on slide 4. View the videos and take your own notes on how each rhetor constructs his argument.

Instructions For Students:

Before the presentation, ask students to take out pen and paper for the writing prompts throughout the Prezi.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 309K is a rhetoric course at the University of Texas at Austin that focuses on reserach and writing skills, rhetorical analysis and the study of persuasion. My particular course teaches rhetorical concepts through superhero fictions and culture.

Tags:

Introductory Exercise

Prezi

Multimedia Presentation

Identifying Reasons and Evidence with Friends

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

Author:

Sarah Riddick

Image Credit:

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

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Video

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

1. A media console/projector

2. A computer

3. A whiteboard or chalkboard

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Introducing Rhetorical Analysis with Contemporary Advertisements

sariddick — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 23:01:21 +0000

Author:

Sarah Riddick

Image Credit:

Mozart, Mike. "Smellcome to Manhood." JeepersMedia. Flickr. 2 Oct 2014. Web. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeepersmedia/12462069883/sizes/m/>.

Brief Assignment Overview:

The aim of this lesson is to provide students with an accessible and engaging introduction to rhetorical analysis. Students will view four brief texts—three thirty-second videos and one print advertisement—and try to identify the audience, the speaker, and the argument contained in each.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Summary

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Introduce rhetorical analysis to students
Offer a broad illustration of the scope of rhetoric and rhetorical analysis
Familiarize students with initial components of rhetorical analysis (audience, speaker, argument)
Help students feel comfortable offering their own analyses

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Media console with overhead projector
Class computer with internet connection
Preferable, but not essential: personal computers for brief individual research activity.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

This lesson is intended to provide a light, engaging, and accessible introduction to rhetorical analysis. Students will survey several contemporary advertisements that vary in a number of ways yet share some broad themes. The order of the texts is intended to subtly help the students progress from basic to more nuanced analyses.

The first moments of this class are open to suit the needs of the instructor. If this is the first day that students will be performing rhetorical analysis, it may be helpful to provide a brief overview of what is to come.

To begin the analytical portion of the class, play the first text—an Old Spice commercial from the 2010 "Smell Like a Man, Man" campaign. The commercial is both fun and funny, thus students should respond well to it. Moreover, its fast pace and quirky tone will likely get students laughing, which will hopefully loosen them up for analysis.

Once you have played the video, ask the following questions:

Who is the speaker?

Who is the audience?

What is the situation?

What is the argument?

What does the text want you to feel?

What does the text want you to believe?

What does the text want you to do?

How is the text making that argument?

Be sure to draw out detailed responses from the students. Play the video again, as needed. One reason this ad is great for an initial analysis is because it has two different speakers (i.e., the spokesman and the company), two different audiences (i.e., implicit and explicit), and plenty of components that students can draw on to support their answers to the argument questions.

Next, play the second and third videos. Each of these are 2008 advertisements from the Corn Refiner Association's "Sweet Surprise" campaign about high fructose corn syrup. Ask students the same series of questions, and encourage them to pay even closer attention to the details that help create this argument.

Once you feel that your students have adequately analyzed the argument in these two texts, have students go to the website featured at the end of the videos. If students don't have computers, do this together as a class. By this point, hopefully students will have mentioned that the text wants you to go to this website, so this can be a way of getting them to further test the text. Once there, have students try to identify any bias on the website and ask them to list specific examples. This is meant to encourage students to closely examine sources and to consider how word choice and other stylistic choices shape an argument.

If time permits, have students look at one more text—a 2014 print ad from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. In the ad, one woman remarks about new public transportation changes and another woman responds, "Can't we just talk about shoes?" There are several broad parallels between this text and the former texts, so students should feel comfortable by now analyzing this form of visual rhetoric.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Given the brevity of both these texts and the follow-up questions, it would be a good idea to thoroughly familiarize yourself with each text before presenting them to the class. With this being an introduction to rhetorical analysis, students may feel shy about offering responses, so being prepared with many different ways to prompt their analyses can be helpful.

Instructions For Students:

For the group analysis portion of the class:

Answer the following the questions. Cite evidence to support your response.

Who is the speaker?

Who is the audience?

What is the situation?

What is the argument?

What does the text want you to feel?

What does the text want you to believe?

What does the text want you to do?

How is the text making that argument?

For the individual research portion of the class:

Go to http://www.sweetsurprise.com
Can you identify any bias?
Cite specific examples to support your response.

Evaluation Suggestions:

There is no evaluative component to this activity.

Course Type:

Course Description:

This lesson plan was designed for "Rhetoric and Writing", an introductory course.

Tags:

Teaching Credibility with Twitter

Schultz — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:48:25 +0000

Author:

Patrick Shulz

Image Credit:

Twitter

Brief Assignment Overview:

Introducing the concept of credibility by analyzing tweets.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Ethos

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Twitter

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This in-class exercise/discussion gets students to think about author credibility. It familiarizes them with concepts and terminology they will need 1) when researching and writing papers and 2) for rhetorical analysis.This lesson plan is based on a paper studying the credibility of Twitter users ("Tweeting is believing?", available online: http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/155374/tweet_credibility_cscw2012.pdf). In this study, participants rate the credibility of tweets such as the following:

First step: To start things off, students rate the credibility of these tweets (or bring your own). They then come up with criteria that influenced their ratings.

In the study, among the most important indicators of credibility are:
1) "verified author topic expertise", "author often tweets on topic",
2) "personal photo as user image", "credible user name"
3) "non-standard grammar/punctuation".
4) "is a RT [retweet] from someone you trust"

The students will come up with similar criteria. To illustrate, teachers can then show made-up tweets such as:

@SillyKitty95
There is life on Mars.
v.
@NASA
There is life on Mars.
v.
@SillyKitty95
RT @NASA: There is life on Mars.
v.
@NASA
There is life on Mars ;).
v.
@NASA
Their's life on Mars.

For each example, students discuss which feature affects the tweet's credibility in what way.
Second step: The point, obviously, is then to point out how these criteria apply to TV news, newspaper editorials, books, research articles, and other publications that students work with every day. Since a lot of students work with newspaper editorials in RHE 306, I try to make it explicit for that genre: What is the equivalent to a credible user name? How do we assess "verified author topic expertise" in this context? Can we find out whether the author often "tweets" about this topic? What is the newspaper equivalent to a retweet? A short discussion of differences (edited content v. social media) could/should/might follow.
As a third step, students should try to apply these ideas to their own writing. Some, such as "non-standard grammar", will be obvious. But what are other ways of improving credibility? They might discuss how to signal author expertise (e.g. by citing external research), how to present a "personal photo" in writing (e.g. discussing personal experience and background) and how the use of non-standard grammar/punctuation will affect their credibility.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Read the paper. Bring some tweets to class, made-up or real. Any part of the paper may be used in class: "Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on the first page."

Instructions For Students:

See above.

Evaluation Suggestions:

No evaluation.

Course Type:

Course Description:

RHE 306. Rhetoric and Writing
An introductory writing course that includes instruction in practical reasoning and the principles of rhetoric.

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:

Introducing Ideology with HSBC Advertisements

Cate Blouke — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 02:16:11 +0000

Author:

Cate Blouke

Image Credit:

HSBC advertisement

Brief Assignment Overview:

This in-class activity uses the popular HSBC ad campaign (a tryptich of the same image with different value labels) to introduce students to visual rhetoric and ideology. After discussing the ads, students create their own version.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

No Classroom Technology Required

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Visualization

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

A computer-enabled classroom will allow for the full activity, in which students create their own version of the ad campaign. This could easily be adapted to an activity without technology.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

A relatively straightforward exercise, this in-class activity serves as a fruitful introduction to talk about commonplaces, ideology, and visual rhetoric. The ads themselves address the issue of values through their captions, such as "The more you look at the world the more you realize that people value the same things but in different ways."

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

If adapting for use wihtout technology, you might make up some handouts with three unlabeled images and ask students to come up with labels. Similarly, if you don't want to take up the full class period, you could pre-select images to provide students.

Instructions For Students:

As your reading from Picturing Texts discussed, we learn how to se the world in particular ways. As the authors argue, "we construct our realities as we learn to see."

While this has certainly been a theme throughout the course, today's exercise addresses how the way that we see/read texts tends to reflect our own values or ideology. Ho we interpret an image can sometimes say more about us than the image itself.

The international banking firm, HSBC, has an ad campaign that reflects this multi-faceted approach to people and reality.

The triptych above labels the same image with three very different value judgments, illustrating quite explicitly how the same object can retain radically different meanings depending on the viewer.

One of the goals of this course (and an essential element of visual analysis) is for you to learn to consider multiple readings of the same image. As such, and as a handy segue into our unit on advertising, for today's exercise you'll create your own version of the HSBC ads.

With a partner (or two), find an image/object that you can label with at least three different meanings - being careful to use an image that is licensed for adaptive reuse. You can find these images by either using the google advanced image search functions or the filters in a Flickr search (both of which I will demonstrate in class). We'll be talking more about Fair Use and Creative Commons as we move into our final unit, so this is good practice to get you started.

After finding an appropriate image, using either photoshop or an image editing platform of your choice, compile the three images into a tryptich and label them with your different value readings (just as in the HSBC ads).

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students had a great time with this exercise and came up with some nice examples. During the discussion, we also talked about design and parallellism.

Course Type:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Course Description:

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:

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

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

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

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

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

TX Political Stars are Big and Bright: Identifying Audiences

Rhiannon Goad — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:51:09 +0000

Author:

Rhiannon Goad

Image Credit:

Know Your Meme

Brief Assignment Overview:

Getting students to think in more specific terms about audience, without generalizing, is challenging. Using political ads, work with students to identify audiences and think of themselves critically as audience members.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

First, play Rick Perry’s infamous Strong ad. You know, the one where he says, “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” That one. Before showing the ad, quickly remind students that the ad premiered as Rick Perry was losing traction for GOP voters in the Republican primary. Then, watch the ad and discuss who this ad was meant to encourage and why. Ask students, “What does this ad tell us about the state of Rick Perry’s campaign? Who is he reaching out for?”

Then, we watch two recent ads for TX governor: one for Greg Abbott and another for Wendy Davis. I ask the students, “As a student at UT-Austin, do you think either ad is meant to attract you? Why or why not?” Discuss what demographics each ad might appeal to and why.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

You’ll want to preload ads and watch through pesky commercials before class. You might want to prepare a handout with questions.

Instructions For Students:

Answer the following questions after each video:

Who’s this ad meant for? How do you know?
Does this ad demonstrate good knowledge of audience?
Who isn’t this ad meant for?
How do you know?
Might this ad backfire? Meaning, might this ad drive more voters away than it attracts?

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:

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

Mid-Semester

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:

http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/sugar-daddy-website-has-coeds-rationalizing...

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.

Tags:

Rhetorical Analysis of "Sugar Dating" Ads and Audience(s)

Wiedner — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:59:46 +0000

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students work on argumentation techniques, rhetorical fallacies, and other concepts via reading a heavily-biased article from the New York Post discussing the relatively new but quickly growing phenomenon known as "sugar dating," which consists of web sites that pair older men (sugar daddies) who are willing to pay money for the company of young girls ("sugar babies"). The amount that any potential sugar daddy can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

While sugar dating sites seem to be happy to recruit young girls of all stripes, they are clearly most interested in attracting students, as evidenced in part by the fact that membership fees are waived for any potential sugar baby who registers with a .edu email address. The banner ad above is illustrative of most common underlying technique found on these sites. That is appealing to the fact that the typical undergraduate student is cash-strapped, and that being a sugar baby is an easy way to solve the problem. The titillating subject matter and the fact that half of the classroom are part of the demographic being so narrowly marketed towards caught everyone's attention from the get-go.

After they finish reading the article, displaying and bouncing through one of the sites on a projetor is great in a classroom that is equipped to do so, but it is by no means necessary.

The class is divided into two groups who assemble their respective arguments as to the propriety of selling such a product using the rhetorical appeals employed and the audience to which they are marketing (primary and otherwise); a loosely-moderated class debate/discussion ensues.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Social Media

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Increasing Classroom Participation, Building Rapport Between Students, Building Rapport Between Instructor and Individual Students, Building Rapport Between Instructor and Class as a Whole

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Required Materials:

Nothing other than copies of the article distributed by the instructor at the beginning of class.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

The instructor distributes copies of an article taken from the web site of what is generally regarded as a reputable source for news. The class has no access to the article beforehand. The instructor asks the class if any of them are familiar with “Sugar Dating;” calling on student(s) with raised hands to explain what sugar dating generally refers to. The instructor then elaborates on the definition provided, paraphrasing points that might have been lost in the student’s explanation, adding any aspects of the concept that were not mentioned in the process. (5 minutes)

Students read the article individually. (5-10 minutes) phenomenon

The class then divides into two equally-sized groups, and discuss positive and negative aspects of the concept of sugar dating in general, along with the article’s presentation of the concept. One group is identified as the “pro” group, with the other identified as the “con.” However, the instructor does not articulate a specific question upon which they are taking sides. The two groups each work to flush out and organize what they believe to be their most salient points. (10-15 minutes)

An open discussion in a point/counterpoint format is the conducted, with the instructor keeping the discussion from straying to far afield, while casually interjecting to emphasize and elaborate upon the concepts that are relevant to rhetoric and/or law as they arise during the discussion. It is important that the instructor is as unobtrusive as possible throughout the ensuing discussing, to the extent that the collective “personality” of a particular class will allow. (30 minutes for a class meeting twice a week)

The instructor wraps up the debate and the class by highlighting some of the most important substantive points and the most effective argumentation techniques from each side of the discussion. Students are informed that there is a discussion prompt related to the day’s discussion; each student must submit one original posting, along with at least one response to another student’s original posting before the next class meeting. (5-10 minutes)

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

To prepare for the class, the instructor should spend time analyzing the specific article to be distributed to the class, composing a rough outline of considerations such as (1) the arguments (and counterarguments) most likely to be made by students, (2) the rhetorical concepts the instructor is most interested in covering, (3) questions that the class discussion might not touch upon.

The instructor should also do their due diligence in researching the subject in general. Visiting the actual sugar dating web sites is especially important. Students will have varying degrees of knowledge on the subject. Given the fact that these sites specifically target female college students, there is a strong likelihood that at least a couple of students will be well-versed on the subject; the instructor does not want to be learning about nuances of the sugar dating process, etc. from one of their students.

Instructions For Students:

As indicated above, instructions to be given to students are minimal (intentionally so). They're instructed to take about 10 minutes reading the article being contemporaneously distributed, with particular attention to tone, word choice, authorial bias, context, and visual rhetoric. They are then divided into two groups with opposing viewpoints, and are instructed to construct the most persuasive argument that they can, taking rough notes (to be submitted at the end of class) outlining the same.

They're reminded to consider likely arguments from the other side, and the best way to address/respond to them. Students then partake in a debate wherein the instructor guides them back on track if they are getting off-topic, overly emotional, or missing each other entirely (from a stasis theory standpoint).

At the end of the class, the students are given instructions to make a substanive blog posting responding to an instructor-provided prompt; the will seek to continue aspect(s) of the in-class discussion. Along with one original blog posting, students are instructed to post at least one response to the original posting of a classmate.

There is not any reading students are instructed to do in preparation for the class.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The article’s author has a clear bias from the title onward, so I ask for a show of hands as to who agrees with the author’s…unflattering…representation of sugar dating and their advertisement and recruitment techniques. To my surprise, about 18 of my 22 students said that they agreed with the author. To keep the group numbers equal, I (somewhat lightheartedly) pointed out that the pinnacle of achievement for any rhetorician is to be able to effectively argue a point with which they wholly disagree. As my class is entitled “Rhetoric of Law,” I pointed out that this skill is of particular importance to attorneys, given that they take an oath to be “zealous advocates” for their clients in court, even if those clients are individuals whom they might find repugnant on a personal level. I then split the class roughly in half, based only upon where they happened to be sitting (or standing) at that moment, and then moving individual students towards one of two camps in order to arrive at numerical parity. I did not give consideration as to what side any particular student chose during our initial show of hands.

This lesson plan is well-suited for developing familiarity between students, increasing student participation, and establishing rapport between the instructor and his students- both individually and as a class. For these reasons, the lesson plan might be particularly useful at the beginning of the semester, or later on if class participation begins lagging.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course