DWRL Lesson Plans - Matt King

Twitter in the Classroom: Observations and Analysis

King — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:10:45 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

My class used Twitter for a few general purposes and then for two specific assignments. For our general goals, we used Twitter to share resources among one another and to familiarize ourselves with various conversations that are important to people in the digital humanities. By following one another, we were able to tweet helpful links, questions about class, reminders and advice about assignments, etc. By following people participating in the sorts of conversations we were interested in (conversations about digital technologies, rhetoric, and writing), we found out how these conversations develop on Twitter and the internet generally.

For the two assignments, we practiced rhetorical analysis by analyzing various Twitter feeds and then used our own Twitter streams as a space for sharing Learning Record observations.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Course Unit

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Audience

Invention

Rhetorical Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pre-Writing

Research

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Open Access Software

Social Media

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Research, rhetorical analysis, invention, delivery, reflection, Learning Record observations

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Internet access on any connected device, inside or outside the classroom. Various Twitter clients could be helpful and are available for free (see, for example, Tweetdeck and Yorufukurou).

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

My general overview for using Twitter can be found on my wiki. The rhetorical analysis assignment is available below (in the instructions for students section). You are welcome to use and modify these assignments as you see fit, although I would recommend creating your own handouts or webpages and adapting the descriptions to your own needs.

For the Learning Record observations, no specific assignment description was offered students. The Learning Record is a portfolio-based assessment model, and this system asks students to make observations about their development over the course of the semester. We used Twitter as a platform for sharing and keeping track of these observations so that students could learn from and be inspired by one another. You can find out more about the Learning Record on the LR website.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I spent 30-45 minutes in one class period introducing students to Twitter, helping them create accounts and follow one another, and having them begin tweeting, searching, and exploring. I offered this overview of Twitter for them to consult during and after this introduction (you are welcome to borrow this material, but it might need to be updated as time goes on). It would help to have your own Twitter account set up before class and to be familiar with how it works generally. If you would like students to follow particular people and conversations on Twitter, it could take a few weeks or months of your own personal Twitter use to find the people you find most relevant for your class interests and goals. This assignment assumes that rhetorical analysis has already been introduced to the students. If this is the first rhetorical analysis assignment, it would help to spend at least half a class period explaining the expectations and terms for analysis.

Instructions For Students:

Rhetorical analysis is a practice that helps us think through how a particular text is persuasive and who it would persuade. A successful rhetorical analysis takes into consideration at least three things: the main argument/goal of the text, the rhetorical strategies that the author employs to make the text persuasive, and the audience for the text. In addition to identifying the main argument/goal and the rhetorical strategies, we also want to analyze whether or not they would be effective for particular audiences.

This weekend, your assignment is to write a rhetorical analysis of tweets from a particular tweeter. You should write and submit this assignment as a new page on our course wiki. You should name this page "Twitter Rhetorical Analysis - [last name]", and you should file this page in our "Rhetorical Analyses" folder. Your final product should be 350-500 words long, and it should be completed before class on Tuesday, February 9.

To start, pick one of the people you follow on Twitter (for the sake of objectivity and everyone's comfort, do not choose someone from our class). This person can be someone you were asked to follow for this class or someone else (a friend, a celebrity, etc.). We want to look at several tweets from this person, so it should be someone who tweets fairly regularly. As you look at this person's tweets and write your rhetorical analysis, you should go through the following steps.

1. Invention - Remember, for rhetoricians, invention is about finding what is out there rather than making something up. After you have picked someone from Twitter to analyze, you will need to read through their tweets to find out what they talk about on Twitter. You should look through at least 50 tweets, and you can do so by going to their Twitter page. For example, if you were focusing on Steven Johnson (whose article about Twitter we read), you would go to http://twitter.com/stevenbjohnson. You can get to a tweeter's page by going to your list of people you are following and then clicking on their name.

As you look through this person's tweets (again, at least 50 of them), take notes on what they tweet. Does this person use their tweets to share personal information such as where they are or what they are doing? To make jokes? To participate in conversations? To share links? Anything else? Once you have a general sense for what the person tweets, identify these uses more specifically. If the person shares personal information, what sort of information do they share about themselves? If they have conversations with other people on Twitter, who are those conversations with and what are they about? If they post links, what are these articles/websites/blogposts/etc. about?

Once you have a clear sense for what this person does on Twitter, think about how they are presenting this information. In other words, we want to identify what rhetorical strategies the person uses to help accomplish their goals. Rhetorical strategies can refer to any number of things, including the way an author structures their argument, the way they establish themselves as authorities, the values and emotions to which an author appeals, and the specific language they use to present their argument. Of course, most people on Twitter are not making arguments; instead, their main goal is likely to share information about themselves with friends, to share interesting links with other people, to make jokes, to have a short conversation with someone about something, etc. Nonetheless, we can still talk about a tweeter's rhetorical strategies. That is, we can still talk about the ways that they use language, the way that they appeal to particular values or emotions in their audience, the ways that they establish themselves as trustworthy or authoritative, etc. Try to answer the following questions regarding the tweets that you read: What is the author's tone in these tweets? Does the author use different tones in different situations? How so? Does the author appeal to any particular values or emotions in their tweets? For example, does the author use their tweets in political ways? If so, how? Does the author use their tweets to try to make their readers laugh/cry/get excited about something/think about something/take action in a particular situation/etc.? If so, how? Does the author do anything else that appeals to specific values or encourages specific emotions in the audience? There are many other questions we could ask, but this should give us a decent start. Feel free to take note of anything else that helps us identify how this tweeter is trying to achieve their goals on Twitter.

2. Analysis - At this point, you should have a good sense for what this particular tweeter says and does on Twitter, what their goals are for using it, and how they go about achieving those goals. Now we want to analyze this information to get a sense for who would likely find these particular tweets interesting, useful, funny, or meaningful in any other way. Don't worry about identifying specific audience members. Instead, focus on the type of person who might be interested in these tweets. It might be helpful to think of the community to which various audience members might belong. Try to be as specific as possible as you identify possible audiences and communities. It is not incredibly helpful to say that a particular tweeter appeals to a "general" audience. It would be much more specific to say that a particular tweeter appeals to educators and friends. It would be even more specific to say that a particular tweeter appeals to people who teach college writing. Part of the challenge here is to figure out the range of audiences that would likely be interested in these tweets. Some people will appeal to a broad range of audiences; some people will appeal to a smaller audience. The goal of your analysis is to demonstrate the range of audiences that would likely follow this person based on what they tweet and how they do it.

Let's consider a few hypothetical situations. Imagine Celebrity X, an actor who mainly uses twitter to post personal stories about other celebrities. These tweets would likely appeal to people interested in Hollywood gossip, but they might not appeal to a fan of Celebrity X who wanted to know more about her daily activities. Imagine Celebrity Y, a comedian who uses twitter to post obscene jokes and random thoughts but also to help promote their favorite charity. Some people might follow this person because they enjoyed the jokes; some people might follow this person not because they enjoy the random thoughts but because these random thoughts are eccentric and allow you to make fun of Celebrity Y; some people might follow this person because they are interested in the charity; some people might not follow this person even though they want to support the charity because they find the jokes offensive. Finally, imagine important Academic W, a significant figure in new media studies who only uses Twitter to post links to her blog posts. Some people might follow this person to keep up with new blog posts; some academics interested in new media studies might not follow this person because she only blogs about video games and they are interested in something else. In other words, just because someone is famous does not mean that all of their fans would follow them on Twitter. Just because someone is an academic in a particular field does not mean that everyone in that field would follow them on Twitter. The audience for a particular tweeter depends on how that tweeter uses Twitter.

So, the goal of this analysis is to think about the ways that certain uses of Twitter will appeal to different people. Again, we want to be as specific as possible, and we want to be able to demonstrate what sorts of audiences would be interested in what a particular tweeter posts and why these audiences would be interested.

3. Arrangement - At this point, you should have a clear sense for what you want to include in your rhetorical analysis. All of this information might be in your head, or you might have notes that you have written as you gathered information and analyzed it. The next step is to think about how you want to organize this information into a coherent and well-structured analysis paper. There are multiple ways to do this, so you will have to decide which organizing principle you will use. Do you want to organize your paragraph around different audiences? Around different ways that your person uses Twitter? Some other way? Regardless, you should organize your analysis so that it is easy for your reader to get a sense for the main conclusions of your analysis and how the different parts of your analysis fit together.

4. Style - You will also need to consider how you translate all of these ideas into a particular style in your paper. Like in our research summaries, we want our analyses to be objective. We are not taking sides here; we are not making claims about whether or not someone is interesting or whether we like them. Instead, we are analyzing - as objectively as possible - what they tweet in order to describe who would likely follow them. Another important consideration here is quotes. As you perform your analysis, it will be important to provide specific examples from the tweets you are examining. When you quote a tweet, include the date and time it was posted in parentheses. On Twitter, if you click on the date and time underneath a particular tweet, you will be directed to a page that is specific to this tweet. It would help to offer a link to this Tweet in your parenthetical citation. Here's an example: earlier this week, I posted a tweet that asked everyone, regarding the Rhetorical Peaks handout, to "please bring a hard copy with you to class" (Feb. 3, 2010; 3:02 pm).

Once you have finished your rhetorical analysis, save your page. Let me know if you have any questions about the assignment. We will discuss this assignment in class next Tuesday, and I will also offer you feedback that you can use to help you revise your paper.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Since I was using the Learning Record in this course, no specific grades were given on any aspect of our Twitter use. For the rhetorical analysis assignment, it would be easy to grade it as you would any short analysis assignment.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students responded well to the rhetorical analysis assignment. It was helpful to consider how a rhetorical orientation could be embodied in 140 character chunks, in links, and in a network of followers. The assignment gave students a different perspective on cultural figures and academics.

As for the Learning Record observations, students were somewhat hesitant to engage and share their observations (but not more so than other classes that have used the Learning Record but didn't share their observations on Twitter). The main challenge here is helping students be more comfortable with the observation process generally and then making them comfortable with sharing these with one another. To work toward these ends, I would want to spend more time in class discussing observations and allowing students to post on Twitter at that time.

Additional Resources:

ProfHacker has a number of posts on using Twitter in the classroom.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

While digital technologies make available a range of tools that shape our physical interactions with the world in new ways, they also offer us new metaphors, new ways of talking about these interactions, and new ways of organizing ideas. To use a favorite term of twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke, these technologies make available new possibilities for identification. In the 2.0 world, we not only find new ways to identify and form communities with others; we also experience a shift in the process of self-identification and in the ways we define ourselves.

This class will explore a range of digital technologies and writing environments as well as the discourses surrounding them to give students a more thorough understanding of the ways that they have already begun to establish virtual identities and of new possibilities for digital identity formation. By exploring and participating in these technologies and discourses, we will hope to achieve the following course goals:

- Continue to develop rhetoric skills related to summary, analysis, and argumentation;

- Gain fluency in digital technologies and examine the ways that these tools shift our understandings of rhetoric and writing;

- Identify and participate in conversations surrounding writing in digital environments.

Tags:

Procedural Rhetoric: Analyzing Video Games

King — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:16:43 +0000

Author:

Matt King

Image Credit:

September 12th. A game making an argument about our response to terrorism.

Brief Assignment Overview:

This activity asks students to practice rhetorical analysis with reference to Ian Bogost's understanding of "procedural rhetoric." This mode of rhetoric focuses on the ways that procedures, processes, logics, and rules can be expressive and persuasive. Video games offer particularly rich embodiments of procedural rhetoric. Analyzing the procedures and logics embedded within video games allows students to practice a new mode of rhetorical analysis on texts that many students are familiar with but that rarely become objects of study in academic settings.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Open Access Software

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rhetorical analysis, introduction to procedural rhetoric

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Students can access many games online. For these games, students would need access to the internet on machines that support Flash animations. If the activity were done outside of class, it could incorporate any gaming systems to which students have access.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Today, you will be playing a video game and analyzing its procedural rhetoric. As you play the game, you should keep the following questions in mind:

- What are the rules of the system?

- What is the significance of these rules (over other rules)?

- What claims about the world do these rules make?

- How do I respond to those claims?

[note to instructors: these questions come from Bogost]

Once you have finished the game or played it enough to understand its rules, write out your responses to these questions.

[note to instructors: it will be up to you to guide students to the game and to let them know where to write their responses]

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The first step in preparation for this activity would involve some reading. Ian Bogost develops the concept of procedural rhetoric in his book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. The preface and the first chapter of the book are particularly helpful, and sample copies of these can be found here. Instructors would need to understand procedural rhetoric well enough to discuss it with students. The selections from Bogost are generally accessible enough that students could read them as well.

The next preparatory step would be deciding which game to have students play. There are a number of games online that students can play in 10-30 minutes. Theoretically, this activity could be done with any game, although I like to have students play games that are in some way "serious" or "political" or otherwise rhetorically charged. Here are some games I've used:

- Passage. This game makes an argument about life, relationships, and achievement.

- Every Day the Same Dream. This game makes a different sort of argument about life, relationships, and achievement, focusing on the routine of office work.

- September 12th. This games makes an argument about our response to terrorism.

- Hey Baby Game. This game puts the player in the role of a woman who is continuously confronted by men hitting on her. You get to shoot them.

- Lose/Lose. You and your students shouldn't actually play this game because it deletes files on your computer, but your students can watch the video to understand the procedural rhetoric of the game.

- Rhetorical Peaks. Created by the DWRL, this game presents students with a murder mystery and ultimately asks them to reflect on their own analytic and argumentative procedures.

In addition to reading Bogost and selecting a game, you might consider setting up a page for this activity on a class site/forum/wiki if you are using one. You can find the in-class activities I did with my students here and here.

All preparation before class will probably take 1-3 hours. In class, you will probably need to spend at least 10-15 minutes introducing procedural rhetoric to students and setting up the activity. Depending on the game (and perhaps allowing students to play a game multiple times), game play will take 10-30 minutes. I like to give students 10-15 minutes to write up their responses to the activity. Class discussion about the activity could last 10-30 minutes. So, the activity could be completed in 45 minutes but could also take upwards of 90 minutes.

Instructions For Students:

Today, you will be playing a video game and analyzing its procedural rhetoric. As you play the game, you should keep the following questions in mind:

- What are the rules of the system?

- What is the significance of these rules (over other rules)?

- What claims about the world do these rules make?

- How do I respond to those claims?

[note to instructors: these questions come from Bogost]

Once you have finished the game or played it enough to understand its rules, write out your responses to these questions.

[note to instructors: it will be up to you to guide students to the game and to let them know where to write their responses]

Evaluation Suggestions:

I have only used this activity in class as a way of helping students practice rhetorical analysis. Evaluation was based only on completion.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My Writing in Digital Environments class had already played Rhetorical Peaks and discussed video games more generally, so they were not surprised to be analyzing games in class. Most students enjoyed the activity and were excited to realize and think through the ways that games can make arguments. Students who were already gamers were the main ones somewhat disappointed by the activity; they were less inclined to find these short and "serious" games enjoyable.

Additional Resources:

It could be helpful to refer to Ian Bogost's site for more of his writings and some of the games he has designed. The DWRL's own Rhetorical Peaks takes a different approach to the question of procedural rhetoric by asking students to reflect on their own analytical and argumentative procedures.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

While digital technologies make available a range of tools that shape our physical interactions with the world in new ways, they also offer us new metaphors, new ways of talking about these interactions, and new ways of organizing ideas. To use a favorite term of twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke, these technologies make available new possibilities for identification. In the 2.0 world, we not only find new ways to identify and form communities with others; we also experience a shift in the process of self-identification and in the ways we define ourselves.

- Continue to develop rhetoric skills related to summary, analysis, and argumentation;
- Gain fluency in digital technologies and examine the ways that these tools shift our understandings of rhetoric and writing;
- Identify and participate in conversations surrounding writing in digital environments.

Tags:

Using Inform7 to Make Procedural Arguments

King — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:03:01 +0000

Author:

Matt King

Image Credit:

Screen shot of Inform7 interface by Matt King

Brief Assignment Overview:

My students had been studying communities of their choice all semester. For the last unit, I asked them to contribute their perspective on their communities in two ways: first, in a more traditional editorial-length argument, and then through an interactive, procedural text using Inform7. This software is commonly used for interactive fiction. It allows the author to set up different rooms/spaces with various people and objects. The author in turn defines the parameters and rules through which a "reader" can engage with these people and objects. Following Ian Bogost's understanding of procedural rhetoric, creating a system like this allows students to make arguments about their communities through the rules of the system.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Audience

Enthymemes

Procedural Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Invention, delivery, procedural authorship

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Inform7 is the main software, and you can download various versions of it here. (The DWRL has Inform in the applications folder.) This is the main software for creating the interactive text. You might also want students to have access to interpreters, software that can read Inform files and allow people to "play" a text but not change the code. Zoom worked well for me.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

You can find the full assignment on my instructor site.

This assignment will include three components: an editorial style argument about your community, the code for an Inform7 procedural argument, and a reflection/comparison section. Your purpose in the first part (2-2.5 pages) is to advocate for a position that you take toward your community. Your argument can take a number of forms, but it should take into account the knowledge and understanding you have gained from studying this community all semester long. The third section of your paper (2-4 pages) will allow you to reflect on your procedural argument and compare the similarities and differences between the two approaches to argumentation. You are welcome to draw on your research and incorporate outside texts in any way that helps you advance your argument.

Specifics

Part One

You should conceive of this section of the paper as an editorial for The Daily Texan. (If you would rather have a different publication in mind as you consider your argument and your audience, perhaps one that you feel is more appropriate for your community, you should identify a specific alternative and inform me before submitting your peer review draft of Paper 3.) There are no specific requirements in terms of arrangement, style, rhetorical appeals, or incorporating sources, but you should draw substantially on the understanding of your community that you have been developing throughout the semester. In other words, this isn’t an opportunity for you to simply share your opinion about the community; rather, it is an opportunity to address some aspect of the conversation around your community and to contribute a perspective that members of the community will find relevant, thoughtful, and well supported. We will discuss different approaches to argumentation and persuasion in class, and you should chose an approach appropriate for your given audience. This section should be 2-2.5 pages.

Part Two

Your work in Inform7 will result in code that can be played as an interactive text. In your paper, after you complete Part One, move to the next page and paste the code for your procedural argument. Your interactive text should be inspired by your community in some way. You might incorporate people, places, social practices, or objects relevant to your community; you might use the text as an opportunity to comment on the community positively or negatively; you might use the text as a means for revealing some aspect of the community’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. There is not a specific length requirement for Part Two, but the code should work and it should be playable.

Part Three

This 2-4 page section should address four prompts: 1) Explain how your procedural argument draws on your community. What did you use as inspiration? 2) Explain how you engage Bogost’s notion of procedurality and how your project embodies a procedural rhetoric. 3) Explain how you incorporated feedback that you received during the testing phase. 4) Compare the similarities and differences between your arguments in Parts One and Two and between the two approaches to argumentation generally.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I introduced students to the notion of procedural rhetoric through Ian Bogost's article "The Rhetoric of Video Games." The next challenge was to introduce them to the software, and here's where things can get tricky. Inform7 can be a difficult and frustrating environment to work in, since you have to follow it's particular coding language. While this language will be familiar to students (it's in English and involves basic sentence patterns; for example, to create a room, the code would be "DWRL Lab is a room"), Inform can be very particular about some things, especially verbs. So, the challenge is figuring out what exact code you have to use to get the result you want. Some students picked this up quickly, but some did not. To help students prepare, I set up a help page with links to resources, videos, manuals (both the Writing with Inform and The Recipe Book manuals), and examples. While I generally encouraged students to figure out the software on their own, I tried to help them trouble-shoot any specific challenges they faced, and I helped them share what they were doing and even the code they created as much as possible.

Instructions For Students:

You can find the full assignment on my instructor site.

Specifics

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Evaluation Suggestions:

Grading

You will submit three versions of this paper: a peer review draft, 3.1, and 3.2. The peer review draft is mandatory, but it will not be graded. The next two submissions will be graded according to the following criteria. (As you read the criteria, keep the following in mind: “argument” will refer to Part One, and “reflection” will refer to Part Three. For Part Two, you will receive credit for making a good faith effort, although an exceedingly limited or extensive effort can lower or raise your grade.)

“C” paper:

Fulfills the assignment, though there may be some flaws or limitations in terms of general conception, persuasiveness, or thoroughness of your argument and reflection. Is written in a mostly clear and readable style, though the style may have minor flaws (in terms of grammatical correctness, clarity, or appropriateness) that do not significantly impede readability.

“B” paper:

Fulfills the assignment well, with few flaws or limitations. Presents an insightful and persuasive argument and a thorough reflection. Is written in a clear, effective, and appropriate style, with few to no errors.

“A” paper:

Fulfills the assignment with distinction. Presents a detailed, nuanced, and sophisticated argument and reflection. Is written in a style that is vivid, voiced, and distinctive, with few to no errors.

“D” paper:

Makes a good-faith effort but falls short of the assignment. Lacks a clear or adequately developed argument or reflection. Style is significantly flawed (in terms of grammatical correctness, clarity, or appropriateness) in ways that impede readability. Fails to meet the length requirement; or is not properly formatted.

“F” paper:

Fails to address the assignment, or, severely violates basic norms of civility or decency.

Additional Resources:

This assignment was modeled on a similar assignment designed by Jim Brown. You can find his original assignment description on his website.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

For twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke, the act of persuasion was bound up with identification, that is, with our capacity to identify with one another's attitudes and orientations toward the world and to negotiate this sharing through symbols. Our processes of and possibilities for identification are made available and constrained to some extent by the various communities that shape and inform our attitudes and orientations. From this perspective, our understanding of the available means of persuasion in any given situation can benefit from careful attention to the communities invested in it. The attitudes and orientations circulating in particular communities call forth certain modes of argument and lines of reasoning, and our awareness of these possible channels of identification better prepares us to engage and respond to specific contexts and audiences. This class aims to introduce students to rhetoric as an art of civic discourse by attending to various communities that help constitute the public sphere.

Tags:

Inform7

Procedural rhetoric

Procedural authorship

Argumentation