DWRL Lesson Plans - Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Generating Consensus on Textual Interpretation Through Circulating Critique

OyP — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:28:09 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This exercise has groups of three students answer questions about an assigned reading; read and revise other groups' answers; consider other groups' revisions of their first answer; and revise their first answer--all in preparation for class discussion.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Rigorous and accurate reading is at the heart of this exercise: it is designed to argue to students that not all readings are correct and some are better than others. The goals are to get students to read closely and to use textual evidence to support their answers. Having each group critique (or agree with) each other's answers raises the stakes enough to make the students try in earnest; putting the students in groups of three reduces the fear of offending that often prevents productive peer review. Discussion is used to bring the students into concurrence and a sense of certainty, two things often lacking in humanistic discussion, which I believe often leaves undergraduate students feeling like texts mean anything at all, which is to say nothing.

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Required Materials:

An assigned reading and loose-leaf paper

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The exercise has students break up into groups of three (a magic number for discussion purposes). The groups answer three questions about the reading (see "Instructions for Students"), writing down their answers on paper. Each group passes the paper to the next group. This group considers the other group's answers: any one they agree with in its entirety they place a check mark next to. If they think something needs changing, they revise the original sentence in a space provided on the sheet. If they think the answer is wrong, they place an X next to the answer and, in the provided space, explain why they think the answer is incorrect. Then they hand the sheet to the next group and repeat the process. Each group criticizes the original answers, but they can also see other groups’ work. This generates consensus or disagreement. At the end of the exercise, the groups pass back the sheets until they get back their original answers. They then consider the other groups’ responses: Did they get check marks? Were there revisions? Did they get X’s? They then have a chance to revise their original answers. Now they are prepared for discussion: I ask one student the first question. Heads nod in all directions and hands start to go up; there is consensus and even side-taking, because each person now has a strong idea of their own answers. The discussion after this exercise was the best I have witnessed in my short experience as a teacher.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

The success I experienced was likely due to asking the right questions. We were reading John Ruskin’s “Of the Pathetic Fallacy,” which suits itself well to three very straightforward questions: 1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin? 2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?) 3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?) There are better and worse answers to these questions, perhaps even right and wrong answers, and that is key, because it gives the students a stake in their responses. Select a text and write questions that students feel they can answer with some degree of correctness and comprehensiveness.

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for Students:

Part I. In your group, answer the three questions after discussing it with one another. Record your answers in the space below and then hand the sheet to the group on your right.

1. In your own words, what is the Pathetic Fallacy for Ruskin?

2. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy a Fallacy? (What is fallacious about it?)

3. Why is the Pathetic Fallacy Pathetic? (What is pathetic about it?)

Part II. Read the answers from the other group. Are they different than yours? If you agree with one of their answers and believe its entirely comprehensive, please place a check mark in the left margin next to the answer. If you think its missing or wrong about something, rewrite their sentence in the space below, indicating which sentence you're rewriting by numbering it accordingly. If you think the sentence is incorrect, please place an X in the left margin next to the sentence and explain below why you think the sentence is incorrect. Once you're finished, pass the sheet to the right and repeat Part II for the original group's answers.

Evaluation Suggestions:

If you evaluate what students are saying as they discuss, you can know whom to ask to get discussion started on the strongest possible foot. Evaluation is written into this assignment, since each group is evaluating the answers of the others to complete each pass. I believe this is why making small groups works well, since individuals are often more shy to criticize than groups. This exercise generates some team spirit. Since I use the exercise to generate classroom discussion, I don’t give it a grade.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This exercise, although very simple, holds several advantages. When it came time for discussion, I asked a student I’d been listening in on to answer the first question, "What is the Pathetic Fallacy?” Her response was concise and strong; I was satisfied. But two other students added nuances in Ruskin's text they found when critiquing other groups' answers. The first question took care of the second. Then I asked the third question (to a different student), and again the student provided a superior answer, which also tied in a previous comment from a different student. I think we all left class feeling like we were sure what Ruskin means by the “Pathetic Fallacy,” why he thinks it is a fallacy, and why he believes we pity a person making it. To emerge from discussion with clarity like this is very rare in my experience.

Additional Resources:

Another advantage of this exercise is that it requires very few resources.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

E314J: Psychology and Literature::

This course explores key literary and psychological works in which the two fields become deeply indebted to one another. The course is designed with both English majors and non-English majors in mind. The skills it focuses on help students succeed in upper-division courses in many majors across campus, including English. These skills include close analytic reading and critical writing, as well as methods for understanding texts in their formal, historical, and cultural dimensions.

Tags:

Using Photoshop to Create Persona-Avatars for Class Blog

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:00:32 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson uses Photoshop to manipulate creative commons images found on the Internet into an avatar which represents the persona or ethos from which the student will write on a course blog.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Creative Commons

Multimedia

Software

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Allow students to develop a sense of self on the class blog; an ethos-creation project which facilitates better (because more committed) class conversation.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Adobe Photoshop

Google Images

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

First, I deploy a little litmus test and ask the students, “Who has used photoshop before?” A couple hands go up. I ask of these, “Who knows how to use the selection tool and how to select layers?” Most hands lower, but about four or five stay up. I distribute these students evenly amongst the class. The beauty of this lesson (as with many which involve teaching students how to use a new program) is that it depends upon peer instruction.

I give a short (fifteen minute) lesson to start class. I discuss creative commons, point towards the GoogleImage filter “labeled for reuse” and the condition “modification,” and show the students some online resources to find images (such as, http://archive.org/). Then I show them how to save the image to the desktop, bring it into Photoshop, rasterize if necessary, select what they want, and delete the rest.

I tell the Photoshop-familiar students that in addition to creating their own avatars they must also address their peers’ problems and help them learn the Photoshop basics. I say that I hereby deputize you to act as mini-instructors for the day, and then I encourage the other students to make use of their peers’ knowledge, not to let these deputies “do it” for them but rather make the deputy show you how to do it yourself. After

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I recommend that the instructor have some familiarity with Photoshop before attempting this assignment. Best way to do that is to make an avatar of your own; once you get selecting, rasterizing, and sizing (and maybe some theme manipulation), you’re good to go! You’ll also need a course blog. You can check mine out here: http://texastalksvideogames.wordpress.com

Instructions For Students:

Today's assignment is to create a ‘gravatar’ for your profile. Think of this image as your calling card on the blog. (If you'd prefer not to make a gravatar--since it links up to your email and shows up anywhere you post to the internet while signed into that email--make an avatar image, but don't upload it to your profile. You should still complete the second part of the assignment.) You'll need to use Photoshop to combine at least two images, resize the image, and upload it on your profile.

Next, write a post and tell us, in about one hundred words, why you selected and made your avatar as you did. Title the post with your username, and upload an image of your avatar in the body.

Click here if you'd like some more pointers on selecting images in photoshop.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I grade this assignment on the basis of completion. I require all students to upload the image in a post which explains its significance to them.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My class is composed of juniors and seniors and were very responsible about helping one another with the new technology. I myself learned some things about Photoshop as concerns arose (such as why you need to rasterize certain images to manipulate them). The students stayed on task and really got into making persona for themselves. The class I use this for is about the rhetoric of video games, so my students are probably predisposed to like the idea of creating an avatar, but the lesson should port well to any class with computers in the classroom, which uses a blog and is interested in digital rhetoric.

Additional Resources:

Computers in the classroom; Adobe Photoshop (CS4, CS5); should also work with opensource photoshop programs

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE309K, The Rhetoric of Video Games investigates how video games make arguments. For instance, does BioWare’s 2010 Mass Effect 2 argue that as long as cultures remain distinct, constant warfare is a law of nature? Does the game then suggest that a more peaceful world can come only through the assimilation of all cultures into one? Or does the game argue, conversely, that a multicultural nation’s greatest resource is its capacity for tactical alliances between identity groups, and that the assimilation of one culture by another therefore weakens the union? As these questions indicate, even commercial video games make serious arguments about the world in which they are produced, exchanged, and played. In this course, we use the skills of rhetorical analysis to investigate how and what video games argue. We will pay special attention to procedural rhetoric in games and analyze how games model economies, geopolitics, war, even interpersonal relationships. In order to better understand the effects as well as premises of games’ arguments, we research the critical controversies about video games, and we consider the audiences games address. Finally, students use the skills developed over the course of the semester to conceive of and propose persuasive games of their own.

Tags:

Using Mind-Maps to Make Modular Arguments, MASS EFFECT Style

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:28:36 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson is best used in conjunction with “Using Mass Effect 1 to teach critical situations," which can be found under that title on this site. One of the primary purposes of the Mass Effect lesson is to get students to think about how persuasive essays are “modular:” decisions a rhetor makes early on in an argument afford other rhetorical options later but at the same time take some options out of play. This lesson plan uses NovaMind Pro to help students create modular arguments of their own.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Presentations

Software

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

To develop in students an understanding of persuasive speech and writing as rhetorical decision making.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

NovaMind Pro. (Note that Mac and PC versions of this software differ significantly. The concurrence seems to be that the Mac version is more user-friendly.)

Other mind-mapping technologies should work as well.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In preparation for the class, students read three persuasive essays. The student’s task is to read each essay and break it down into its rhetorical steps: i.e. the author starts by doing x, then she makes y claim, then she makes z claim, and concludes with w. The class begins with discussion of the steps, until we’re all settled on how each argument proceeds. Then the instructor brings up a NovaMind map that visualizes each argument as its own “arm.” While it would be possible to have students make their own maps of the arguments, I recommend completing this preparation work for the students, to save time. You may ask students to make changes to the map depending on what came out of our discussion of the articles. You should also devote a little time to familiarizing the students with the software.

The instructor asks the students to get into small groups and then collaborate to combine the three arms of the map. They should do so by, 1) finding nodes in each arm that are similar, 2) taking the arm that follows from such a node and attaching it to the similar node on another arm. These steps are intended to be performed recursively, and while it is not necessary to end up with one big argument, arms should lead off of arms that lead of off other arms. (See instructor preparation below on how to facilitate the rather complex cognitive work this lesson requires.)

I ask students to think about what they come up with as a sort of “potential” argument. It could be navigated, from beginning to end, in a linear fashion. I ask students to traverse the map, making decisions at “crossroads” nodes that put you on a new track, which in turn brings further options “down the line.” Depending on decisions you make, the persuasive purpose of the argument may change.

In my class, students present a mind-mapped modular version of their persuasive essays as their final presentation. Instead of giving a persuasive speech, they tell us what options were available for them as they wrote their final essay, and why they chose to go one way as opposed to another.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This is a heavy preparation lesson because the instructor must first make a map that contains lots of possible connection points. When students pull up the main map, they can click over to the connection points map, which I color code to emphasize possible connections. I do this because NovaMind can be a bit cumbersome to work with, and I want my students thinking about rhetorical decisions rather than how to untangle one arm from another (a common occurrence, once maps get bigger. I recommend using the auto-arrange feature liberally: “Command =” in the Mac version.)

Instructions For Students:

Instructions for reading homework:

Read the following each of the following articles.
After reading each, make a bullet-point list that enumerates each “step” in the article:

How does the author start? What does the author claim next? What’s the following move, etc.? How does the article conclude?

3. Bring your list with you to class. You’ll use it to construct a mind map in class.

Instructions for in-class NovaMind exercise:

Use the possible connections point map to find nodes that are similar on two different arms. Notice that arms are color-coded to emphasize similarity, but do not feel constrained to connect where suggested only. I recommend that you start by filling out one of the original argument arms, and then developing other arms if you have time.
Connect arms from similar nodes, wherever possible. Select the node from the connection points map from which the arm you want to connect begins. Push Command/Control C. Then select the node on the modular argument map, from which you want to attach the copied arm. Push Command/Control V.
If the arms get tangled, push Command/Control = sign. Remember that you can always push undo if something undesired occurs. Be patient and deliberate.
Follow argument paths and eliminate redundancies while preserving the greatest possible number of options.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I use this assignment to prepare my students for their final presentations. I encouraged experimentation and thus wanted to create a low-stakes environment; so I didn't grade the in-class exercise.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students seemed to really enjoy making larger argument structures, but I found one class doesn't provide enough time to get to the second part of the assignment, in which you step back and consider how you might traverse the map from start to finish. I'd recommend you use two classes for this lesson, and I'd also recommend you provide the starting materials for the students. The materials I provide below could be improved upon: as one of my students pointed out, the exercise works best if you break the articles down into the rhetorical decisions that went behind the progression of each argument. In the materials below, I do the much easier task of listing the steps in each argument. There's a fine but real distinction there

Additional Resources:

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE306, a course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance students’ ability to analyze the various positions held in any public debate and to advocate their own position effectively. Students’ work in this course will help them advance the critical writing and reading skills they will need to succeed in courses for their major and university degree.

Tags:

Using MASS EFFECT 1 to Teach “Critical Situations”

OyP — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:14:50 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

unknown

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan uses the interactive video game Mass Effect 1 (BioWare, 2007 for XBOX 360) to teach students about making situated speech acts that effectively address a certain audience in a particular rhetorical situation.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

I use Mass Effect as a rhetorical modeling technology that affords for students to “play” in and with rhetorical situations in order to expand students’ understanding of the following notions:

“rhetorical situation”
“rhetorical purpose”
“rhetorical appeal”
“intended audience”
“stakeholder”

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

X-Box 360 linked up to the over-head projector

Mass Effect 1

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

The situation is that you, the gamer, are playing as Commander Shepard, captain of the starship Normandy. You have just been assigned a mission by Milky Way’s “United Nations” to save the galaxy from an evil master-mind species of Borg-like computer-assimilators. Shepard is considered by some of the galaxy’s denizens to be a savior who will bring peace to a warring galaxy, yet Shepard is considered by others to be a no-good, power-grubbing, monomaniac. Mass Effect 1 leaves developing Shepard’s character up to the gamer. Will you play to forge a coalition between alien species or will you play to better the position of the human species on the galitco-political stage?

In the scene I have the students play, Shepard has just been given full command over the Normandy and s/he (the character’s gender is player selectable) is about to give a speech to the crew to rally them behind her/him. The Normandy’s crew is unlike that of any other human-military vessel, since it is composed of both humans and aliens. Shepard’s crew is highly distrustful of one another and of Shepard. The purpose of Shepard’s speech is thus to build trust among the crew by getting them fired up about their mission. You the gamer get to choose Shepherd’s rhetorical decisions, while the character/avatar Shepard “decides” how to articulate your rhetorical decisions.

See this YouTube video for further illustration.

I have one student play through the scenario in class. As she or he is playing, I ask the other students to observe 1) the crew’s reaction to each rhetorical decision, and 2) the way in which Shepard translates the player’s rhetorical stimuli into actual language. I also ask them to consider why might the game award certain rhetorical decisions with “paragon” points and others with “renegade” points. Then, I have another student play through the same scenario, and ask the observing students the same questions. Finally, I lead a discussion where we discuss the different choices the game affords and the rhetorical consequences of each decision.

My purpose, ultimately, is to get the students to see how Shepard’s rhetorical decisions are afforded by the rhetorical situation. As a modeling technology, Mass Effect 1 puts the gamer into a rhetorical situation through the character/avatar Shepard. By allowing the gamer to experiment with the different sorts of appeals Shepard uses to get the audience to believe his or her claims, while simultaneously providing a perspective from which the gamer can judge the consequences of Shepard’s rhetorical decisions, Mass Effect 1 positions the gamer at once “inside” and “outside” the game. Rhetorical modeling technologies like Mass Effect are thus particularly useful pedagogical tools because they afford positions from which students can both “play” and “observe”—two fundamental ingredients of effective learning.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I’ve played the game up to the relevant scene and saved it just before this scene several times. Use saves 22-24 (at 1hour 42min into the game) to run this lesson. If you’re careful not to save the game over any of these saved games, you can use the same load point each time you play through the scenario. I saved it several times just in case you accidentally save over one of the games (since in Mass Effect, you can’t go back but only start over).

The scene itself lasts about one and half minutes, so you should be able to play it through several times before moving on to questions and discussion.In order to start the scene, walk Shepard's character into the starship Normandy. To select rhetorical options, push and hold the left thumbstick in the direction of the option, and push A.

I use this plan on the day the students turn in their final "short assignment" essay. At this point in the semester, the students tend to be a little burned-out and maintaining their interest can be difficult. I frame this plan as a sort of "reward" for their hard work: since we are playing and talking about a video game, students consider this a "fun" day, which has the added advantage of getting them to think about rhetoric in a low-pressure environment. The lesson plan thus requires no pre-class preparation, but you could append a homework assignment (see questions below).

Instructions For Students:

Take notes while you watch. After you’ve watched several play-throughs, answer the following questions:

1) When does the game give you a chance to make decisions? In other words, at what points in Shepard’s speech does the game offer you decisions?

2) What decisions can you make? (Try to make a list as you watch).

3) How does Shepard articulate the option you choose? In other words, how does what Shepard says differ from what you ask her to say? (Use direct quotations to answer this question).

4) How does Shepard’s overall speech change depending on the paths you take?

a) First, think about where Shepard invents her ethos in the speech. How does this ethos change depending on the decisions you make? Be specific.

b) Now think about where Shepard appeals to her crews values (that is, where does Shepard try to evoke an emotion from her audience. How does this pathos change depending on the decisions you make? Be specific.

c) Finally, think about where Shepard reasons with her audience. Can you change this logos by making different rhetorical decisions? If so, where does this happen?

5) Is there one decision that changes the speech more drastically than others? If so, how does that decision change the speech: does it send it in a new “direction”? does it change its purpose? does it make Shepard seem like a different sort of person?

a) Why should that decision change the speech more drastically than others?

6) How does the crew react differently depending on the sorts of speeches you give?

7) Why do you think some speech-paths earn “paragon” points, while others earn “renegade” points?

a) What implicit criteria is being used to judge your decisions?

Evaluation Suggestions:

Because I intend this lesson to offer a low-stake opportunity for students to re-learn some of the concepts I introduced earlier in the semester, I grade this assignment as complete/incomplete.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I was thrilled with my students responses to the game. I had several different students play through the same scene, choosing different rhetorical options each time. Depeding on how you play, the camera shoots to different sections of Shepard's audience (who also react differently depending on what Shepard says. In one shot, for instance, an alien species either crosses his arms and turns away from his human crew-mates or uncrosses his arms and turns towards them depending on whether Shepard emphasizes the superiority of humans to other species or humans' willingness to cooperate with other species). Students wanted to discover every possible audience reaction, and they were helping each other to select options we hadn't yet tried. (Students would say, "oh! try that one, because that will bring up all those other options, and we've only tried one so far). This way of thinking led into a wonderful discussion about how persuasive essays are "modular," so that decisions you make early on in the paper afford other rhetorical options later on at the same time that they take some options out of play. I wouldn't have been able to explain this complex concept had not the students been playing around with the way rhetorical decisions lead on to others.

I might have used this lesson plan earlier in the semester to introduce the notion of "critical situations," or to teach the concepts of "ethos." Next time, I also intend to incorporate this plan into an assignment series that will take up more than one day. I think the pedagogical value of the lesson would have been more fully realized had I required the students to transfer their interactive/visual experience onto paper, either by having them systematically answer the questions above, or by completing a correlated writing assignment. (For instance, you might have students mind-map their own Essays 3 by translating them into "Mass Effect-style" rhetorical prompts: what rhetorical tactics were available to you in the first paragraph? which did you choose? which further rhetorical options were opened up by that decision? and so on).

Additional Resources:

Once you've put the disc into the XBox, be careful not to disturb the console (in particular, do NOT move the console from vertical to horizontal, or vice versa, while the disc is running, as this will gouge and ruin the disc). I recommend laying the console down flat to play the game; otherwise, the disc might make a distracting rattle while it runs.

My other plan, "Using Mind-Maps to Make Modular Arguments, MASS EFFECT Style," pairs nicely with this exercise.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

RHE306, A course in argumentation that situates rhetoric as an art of civic discourse. It is designed to enhance students’ ability to analyze the various positionsheld in any public debate and to advocate their own position effectively. Students’ work in this course will help them advance the critical writing and reading skills they will need to succeed in courses for their major and university degree.

Tags:

Procedural Enthymeme with Inform7

OyP — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:30:58 +0000

Author:

Chris Ortiz y Prentice

Image Credit:

Screenshot of Inform7 Interface

Brief Assignment Overview:

Even though we use enthymemes in our everyday speech, teaching the concept presents difficulties. By making enthymemes in the interactive fiction design system Inform7, students develop a deep understanding of implied reasoning. They also learn procedural reasoning, or how the authorship of rules that constrain action might also make claims.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Open Access Software

Software

Video Games

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Teach procedural rhetoric and implied reasoning.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

The Inform system has several versions: 6 is very good. 7 is the most recent release. Inform is available for free download.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

Like any software that offers a large and complex array of capacities, Inform 7 takes time to learn. On the other hand, you can begin using the software to good effect without a complete proficiency with its affordances.

This lesson will be most succesful when it serves as a major course assignment. The hardest part is teaching Inform: there are several user-friendly tutorials, screencasts, and manuals on the Inform website. Learning this software can be assigned as homework and can also be brought into the classroom. It is important to set minimum requirements in order to reduce student anxiety. E.g. Create a place. Create four different descriptions for when the user looks north, west, east, and south. Create an object. Create an event when the user interacts with the object. To achieve these tasks, the students will learn enough about the Inform interace to start creating procedural enthymemes.

A procedural enthymeme describes a set of rules that, in constraining an interactor's actions, makes an implicit claim. The user must reason out what this claim is in order to correctly manipulate the system. Procedural enthymemes are conscipicuous in video games. (Example: An avatar can only enter a house through the door, and not through the window, implying that a person does not enter a stranger's house through the window, unless they are a ne'er-do-well). It may be helpful to teach language-based enthymemes before moving on to the more complex idea of procedural reasoning: "We'd better knock, in case someone's home. We don't want them calling the cops."

In Inform, students author procedural enthymemes every time they create an object's capacities for interaction. Excluding certain capacities requires the user to reason:

Input: Go to car. Output: The car looks shiny and new. Input: Enter car. Ouput: The car is not yours. Input: Break window. Output: There are people nearby.

The final part of this assignment has students articulate the implied reasoning in the procedural affordances they've created.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Take some time to create interactive objects in Inform before you have your students do so.

Instructions For Students:

These instructions will differ depending on how you approach this lesson. One option:

Day 1

1) Articulate the implicit reasoning that links the following premises and conclusions. (Enthymeme's provided by instructor.)

2) Write five enthymemes of your own.

Homework:

1) Create a place in Inform.

2) Create a command to view in four directions.

3) Create a description of what the user sees in each direction.

Day 2

1) In Inform, create four objects.

2) Create a command that interacts with each object.

Homework:

1) What actions did you make available to the user with regard to each object?

2) By excluding all other actions, what do you imply about this object/your world? (It might be useful to have the students make fantasy-worlds, since the defamiliarization will make more visible the significance of providing such and such affordances .)

Day 3

1) Interact in each other's Inform "worlds."

2) Locate procedural enthymemes.

(Instructor leads class discussion.)

Evaluation Suggestions:

This assignment might be evaluated in any number of ways. Learning Record users will want to ask students to observe what they made, why, how they understand enthymemes and procedural enthymemes, etc. Letter or percentage-based graders may measure complexity of affordances, ability to articulate the implicit premise or conclusion, creativity of object-capacitiy or Inform "world."

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

This assignment would be appropriate in advanced computers and composition courses. Courses on the rhetoric of video games are espeically well-suited for this lesson.

Tags: