DWRL Lesson Plans - Eric Detweiler

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

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

Author:

Image Credit:

Compiled from images on Wikimedia Commons

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Course Unit

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

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

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

Unit 1 Podcast

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

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

General

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

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

Specifics

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

Paper 1

General

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

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

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

Specifics

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

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

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

Additional Resources:

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

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

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

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

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

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

Tags:

Creating Visual Models of Rhetorical Concepts with Adobe Illustrator

detweiler — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:53:10 +0000

Author:

Eric Detweiler

Image Credit:

adapted from Avital Ronell's Stupidity

Brief Assignment Overview:

I’ve often found that writing about rhetorical concepts and theories only takes students so far. This assignment allows students to create concrete visual representations of concepts and theories in order to approach and think through them in a different manner.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Invention

Visual Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Literary Criticism

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To help students consider how rhetoric and particular rhetorical concepts function in another medium. A way to move conceptualization, at least momentarily, out of the written word and into a more visual medium designed to complement/supplement/interrupt students implicit or unthought assumptions about rhetorical concepts and theories. Also to familiarize students with the interface of one of Adobe’s increasingly ubiquitous design and production softwares.

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

Student computers with Adobe Illustrator installed. (Alternatives: more basic image creation programs like Microsoft Paint, or drawing utensils and paper.)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In the course, I assigned a number of theoretical readings about how irony functions (selections from Soren Kierkegaard, Wayne Booth, and Stanley Fish, among others). The second paper of the semester requires students to apply one of those readings’ theories to a piece of ironic discourse. One student’s paper incorporated and drew heavily on a visual model of irony from Booth’s A Rhetoric of Irony. Having the model at his disposal really seemed to help the student grasp and challenge Booth’s concept of irony as it applied to the assignment at hand. For subsequent iterations of the class, then, I decided to have students mock up their own visual models of irony. I give some advance notice, telling students a class period in advance that they’ll be responsible for creating a Booth-esque model of irony, and ask them to bring a hand-drawn or lo-fi digital mock-up to our next class meeting. I spend little time offering any sort of tutorial on Adobe Illustrator (which I chose for its breadth and relative popularity), as there are a great number of good ones online. Having students search for and locate useful web tutorials can itself be a good sub-lesson. On the day of the actual assignment, I show them where to find the program on their computers and let them have at it for roughly an hour. I mostly circulate, troubleshooting particular issues and questions as they arise. Students are required to turn their models in with their final versions of the paper assignment referenced above—roughly a week after the in-class Illustrator workshop. We revisit these models at the end of the semester as a way of thinking how students’ concept of irony has changed or gotten more complicated as the course has progressed.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Familiarize yourself with Illustrator (or whatever program you plan to use). You don’t need to know it thoroughly, as the models need not be more than shapes, arrows, and labels. I prefer to over-prepare when it comes to technology, however. Adobe has some tutorials available on their site. Also, notify your students a day in advance, as mentioned above. Learning the software is a useful and substantial challenge, and it’s easier if they’ve done some of the conceptual work of drafting the model in advance. That way they can practice “illustrating” with something concrete.

Instructions For Students:

The day before the assignment: We’ve discussed and applied Booth’s model of irony in class. To help you approach irony in a different medium than writing, you’re going to be responsible for crafting your own visual model of irony. You can use Booth’s as a starting point, but should not just copy it. Try to think of this in relation to your second paper: Even if you’re using Booth as your theorist, in what ways does the text you’re analyzing complicate or twist his model? If you’re using Stanley Fish as your theorist, how might what he sees as the “foundation” of irony differ from what serves as the foundation for Booth’s model. Bring a rough sketch (hand-drawn or computer-generated is fine) with you to our next class meeting. Next time, you’ll be using Adobe Illustrator, which is installed on the lab computers, to flesh out your models. If you are familiar with Illustrator, you can use it to mock up your rough draft. You will have an hour to work on it next time, however, so leave yourself something to do, and potentially be prepared to help out your classmates.

Day of: [after showing students where to locate Illustrator] You have an hour to work on these today. There are plenty of tutorials online, so feel free to search for them, or ask me or one of your classmates who’s familiar with Illustrator, if you need help. Your models are due with your final draft of paper 2. Save them as jpgs, gifs, or pngs and upload them to the appropriate folder on our course wiki [I prefer digital to hard copies in most cases]. If you need additional time, remember that PAR 102 [another computer lab with Illustrator] is available to you. Have at it.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use The Learning Record, so this assignment isn’t evaluated in and of itself. If you wanted to grade it in isolation, the cogency and aptness of the model is certainly a consideration, as is the facility the student demonstrates with Illustrator. Balancing between those two would depend on your pedagogical purposes. In my case, I let students reflect on their model in conjunction with their papers, thinking about what approaching irony visually added to how they wrote about it and vice versa. I expect students will prefer one over the other to varying degrees for various reasons, and I’d rather put the focus on reflection than on the specific object they create, especially since we return to the models as a point of discussion much later in the course.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I’ve been a bit disingenuous in using the past tense above, as I will actually be piloting this assignment in a couple of weeks. Feel free to contact me for after-the-fact details.

Additional Resources:

The Adobe tutorials also linked to above: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?l=-1&o=desc&cat=212&event=producthome&s=5&exc=17
Google or another search engine

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE 309K: A writing course focused on stuying and practicing methods of rhetorical analysis within the contexts of disputed issues of academic, political, or cultural significance. My particular course was entitled "Rhetoric of Irony" and looked specifically at the ways irony and its satellite concepts function in political and popular discourse.

Tags:

Revising/Drafting/Editing With Wikis

detweiler — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:19:32 +0000

Author:

Eric Detweiler

Image Credit:

Eric Detweiler

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students engage with and revise each other's texts using a wiki platform. Allows students to consider the various ways of composing a summary of a single text.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Software

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

For my RHE 306 (introductory composition) course, I created a course wiki to which students posted numerous in-class activities and homework assignments. I find wiki particularly advantageous for group activities, as students can create pages that all group members can edit/revise/view/etc. (which GoogleDocs can also allow, but in a different manner). A wiki can thus be a useful space for foregrounding the collaborative nature of writing. Also worth noting is the “page history” feature of PBWorks, the wiki platform I use, which can allow both students and you, the instructor, to see how a particular page developed.

This lesson plan provides a way for students to think carefully about the rhetorical choices they make when summarizing a text by collaborating on the creation of a trio of wiki pages. The lesson plan is also designed to help students learn the difference between drafting, revising, and editing—three stages of the writing process we have already discussed as this lesson plan unfolds.

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

Computers with internet access, preferably one per student; a course wiki (as mentioned above, I use PBWorks).

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

I divide students into groups of 3.* Each group is assigned one chapter from the RHE 306 first-year forum book, and each member of that group is responsible for composing a “research summary” (RS) of their assigned chapter. (RSs are one-page summaries of a source’s argument, and are ideally free from the summarizer’s opinion about that argument.) I have students compose their RSs as Word documents, then copy and paste them into the body of a wiki page. I also ask them to choose a distinct color for their wiki-page summaries. Below is a screenshot of a student’s RS. The student has turned it blue using the bottom-left button in the formatting toolbars above the text window.

Once each student's research summary (RS) is drafted and uploaded, I assign her/his RS to another group member to revise—for instance, if Jaime, Harold, and Terry are a group, Jaime is assigned to revise Terry’s RS, Harold is to revise Jaime’s, and Terry to revise Harold’s. I ask each student to make her/his revisions in a different color than the original draft of the RS.

Finally, I reassign the revised RS to the third group member, who is charged with editing (i.e., Terry drafts, Jaime revises Terry’s draft, and Harold edits the revised draft).

Since deletions obviously don’t have a color, I also have students record any removed phrases, words, punctuation, etc., at the bottom of the page.

The timing on this whole process can differ—you can assign it as homework and have each stage due on a different day, or you can have the revision and editing stages take place during a class meeting.

After the editing work is done, I have the original drafter look at her/his revised and edited RS. I then let the groups have internal discussions about how they made the choices they did at each stage: Why did Harold choose to quote different lines than Jaime during his drafting process? What led Terry to cut the first line of Harold’s second paragraph? If you want something tangible, you can have students write out their reflections: Where did their group members original drafts differ? What rhetorical choices did their group members make that led to these differences? What differences in opinion were revealed in what group members chose to revise about each other’s RSs, and did any revisions seem especially effective? Etc. Broadly speaking, I like these questions to get students thinking about writing—even summary—as a rhetorical process rather than a fill-in-the-blanks sort of task.

*If the total number of students in the class isn't divisible by three, I'll create groups of four, but each group member will only engage with two other group members' summaries as revisor/editor.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

At this point in the semester, my students are already familiar with the wiki and the process for creating wiki pages. We have also discussed the differences between drafting, revising, and editing, which I roughly define as the following:

Drafting: The creation of new written material—getting words on the page for the first time, similar to invention.
Revising: Working with the words you’ve already composed (moving paragraphs or sentences around, rewriting phrases for clarity, deleting extraneous sentences/paragraphs/pages), which can include some new writing (scrapping and recomposing your introduction, or adding a new sentence at the end of a paragraph to better establish that paragraph’s purpose).
Editing: Cleaning up/polishing your grammar, spelling, citation, etc. (removing commas, adding in-text citations, changing “th” to “the”).

We will have also already covered methods of forwarding a source’s argument, particularly the relative merits of summary, paraphrase, and direct quotation.

Instructions For Students:

Relatively similar to the full instructions above--mostly, assign the students the chapter summary as homework in advance, have them post it to the wiki before class begins the day of the activity, and put them into (ideally) groups of three. From there, instruct them to revise one of there group member's summaries using a particular color of text, the edit the third group member's summary with yet another particular color. At the end, have them discuss why they made the specific revision and editorial choices they did and discuss what they found particularly effective about the group's summaries.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I generally grade this assignment on a pass/fail basis—as long as the student completed all three stages, they get credit.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students do occasionally find the process tedious, especially by the editing stage. As an alternative, the original drafts could be shorter. Really, one paragraph of drafted material could be enough given how extensive this activity can become.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

Rhetoric 306 is a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhancestudents' ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debateand to advocate positions effectively. Students work in this course willhelp them advance the critical writing and reading needed to succeed in coursesfor their major and university degree.

Tags:

Teaching the Enthymeme with Restaurants

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

Author:

Eric Detweiler

Image Credit:

Screenshot of Torchy's Tacos Website

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

Wait for this to occur.

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

Evaluation Suggestions:

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

Additional Resources:

Explanation of enthymeme via Silva Rhetoricae

Urbanspoon website (for Austin)

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE 306 - Rhetoric & Writing is a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance your ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate your own position effectively. Your work in this course will help you advance the critical writing and reading skills you will need to succeed in courses for your major and university degree.

Tags: