DWRL Lesson Plans - Advanced Writing Course

Full Assignment Description:

For this activity, have students bring in a draft of their proposed thesis statement. After a short introduction about what you expect from their thesis statements (which could vary widely, depending on what type of class you’re teaching), provide questions for students to answer about their peers’ claims.

Give students 2 minutes to provide feedback to each thesis statement, as you keep time and facilitate their rotation around the room.

When they’ve made a complete rotation, each student should have a document full of suggestions about how to improve their existing thesis statements.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instruct students to bring working drafts of their thesis statements to class on the day of the exercise.

Make sure you have a stopwatch or some other timing device handy.

Some instructors may prefer to use an audible signal, like a bell or an alarm, but there's really no other prep involved.

Instructions For Students:

Write your thesis statement in a Word document and save it to your computer as LastNameTHESIS. It may help your readers if you make the thesis statement stand out in some way (larger font, highlighting, bold, etc).

Once everyone is finished writing and saving their thesis statements in the document, you will stand up and move one computer to the right (or clockwise, if computers are in a circular format).

Sit down and read the thesis statement in front of you.

Below the thesis statement, give feedback to the author of the thesis statement about the effectiveness of his or her claim.

Try to respond by rewriting the thesis statement for clarity and specificity. Consider the following templates:

Tell more about WHY the author's claim is persuasive by adding a "because" statement.
Foreground something you really like about the thesis statement by expanding on it. Offer additional significance.
Foreground something that is unclear by making the thesis statement more specific. Replace vague words and phrases with clearer ones.

If you are unable to rewrite the thesis statement, offer narrative feedback, telling the author:

Why you agree with their thesis statement
What you like about their thesis statement
What you wish you knew more about their thesis statement
What confuses you about their thesis statement
What you wonder about their thesis statement
What their thesis statement makes you think of

Hit save after you've left your feedback.

Remember that you will only have two minutes to read and respond to each thesis statement, so think quickly and succinctly. I will signal you when it's time to rotate again.

Also, upon subsequent rotations, remember to return to the author's original thesis statement, leaving all peer feedback intact for the author.

We will repeat this process until you arrive back at your original document, which should be full of ideas for revision!

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Exercises in Style

Boruszak — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:10:54 +0000

Author:

Jeffrey Boruszak

Image Credit:

Claude Strassart-Springer, from the book "Alphabet" by Raymond Queneau (image from Wikimedia Commons)

Brief Assignment Overview:

Teach revisions and the infinite possibilities of rewriting the same paragraph with this exercise, adopted from Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style.

Type of Assignment:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Remix

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment is meant to be a fun activity that allows students to exercise their creative muscles, while simultaneously demonstrating the possibilities of revising style for different audiences. The lesson plan in adopted from Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style (first published in English 1958). In this book, Queneau writes a single (2 page) short story, in which a narrator sees an argument on a bus, and then later recognizes one of the men on the street due to his strange hat. Queaneu then rewrites the story 99 different ways--for example, he rewrites the book as a sonnet, in slang, using exclamation points in every sentence, and even grouping words by the number of letters they contain.

I use this assignment immediately after students submit the first draft of their second essay, giving students the opportunity to either complete it in class, or work on it for credit over the next week. Students select what they believe to be their weakest paragraph from the essay they just submitted. How they evaluate the term "weakest" is up to them--all I ask is that it is a paragraph that they would genuinely like to rework and to which they would like to pay closer attention. After having students answer questions about why they would like to revise that paragraph, I turn them loose on revisions. Typically I provide a copy of Exercises in Style for reference, but some sample exercises I suggest are:

Translate the paragraph to another language, and then back to English (either on your own or through Google Translate)
Rewrite the paragraph as a tweet with 140 character limit (include mentions and hashtags if possible)
Create lists of parts of speech, and place each word under the correct category
Record yourself reading the paragraph outloud, and set it to music or remix it
Rewrite the paragraph as an internet meme

After rewriting the paragraph five times, students are asked to respond to a few questions reflecting on the process, before revising the paragraph for the next draft. The reflective questions ask them to consider their own writing voices and styles. The assignment is graded as complete/incomplete--students that actively participate in the assignment and satisfactorily meet the requirements get credit for attending class, those that do not meet the requirements are marked absent for the day.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I suggest skimming Exercises in Style in order to familiarize yourself with some potential options with students. PDFs of the first few story permutations are easily found through Google, and most University libraries should have a copy (the most recent edition is published by New Directions, and translated by Barbara Wright). Creating your own list of suggested processes is useful as well--students might be paralyzed by the "anything goes" aspect of the assignment, and creating a list of suggestions helps them get started.

Instructions For Students:

Reflect carefully on the essay that you just submitted, and choose the paragraph that you believe was the weakest in the essay. In a few sentences, describe the specific reasons you felt this paragraph needed improvement. Did it not have enough quotes? Too many quotes? Was it too long or short? Did it feel repetitive? Out of place in the essay? Did you just plain run out of time to revise it?

Experiment with your paragraph by rewriting it five times in entirely different styles. You might choose a model for your style (a favorite book, movie, song, etc.). Rewrite it as a poem. As a speech. Or you might choose a constraint a la Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style. This is your chance to be creative and stretch your wings. The sky is the limit on this assignment.

Once you have rewritten the paragraph in five different ways, reread them all. Which was your favorite, and why? Was it just the style that made the paragraph your favorite? Or did you substantively change your paragraph's content as well? Now, answer the hardest question of all: Why don't you always write in this style? Is it the demands of the formal academic context? Or had you just not considered it at all? Do you think this style can be assimilated to your own voice when writing papers?

Now that you've had a little fun, and really atomized how the paragraph is put together, revise it in a way that you would like it to appear in your revised. And remember: sometimes the only way to improve a draft is by playing around and experimenting with it.

In order to be considered complete, the following must be submitted in a single document:

The original paragraph from your essay
A reflection on why or how it needs improvement (minimum 1 paragraph)
FIVE rewrites, with an indication of the rewrite's style
A reflection on the experiment process, answering the questions in the third paragraph of the assignment instructions
A fully revised paragraph for the next essay

If you rewrite a paragraph in a non-text format, include links to the material, or email it to me separately.

Evaluation Suggestions:

The key to this assignment is effort, so I suggest a simple complete/incomplete grading rubric. Numerical or letter grades might discourage students' creativity or invention--the use of which are not always highlighted in introductory composition classrooms, but which are critical for high levels of writing.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This was an especially successful assignment in my class. Students responded positively, and they especially enjoyed the ability to follow their own interests. Some asked me about whether or not they could use curse words--I encouraged it as long as it was relevant to the style of their rewrite. The assignment was completed by all students within a 75 minute class period (with computers available in the room).

Additional Resources:

The Wikipedia article on Exercises in Style, which includes a list of all styles used in the book.

Course Type:

Tags:

Words in Motion: Kairos and Kinetic Typography

Amy Tuttle — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:51:24 +0000

Author:

Amy Tuttle

Image Credit:

PowerPoint Spice

Brief Assignment Overview:

Kinetic typography is an animation technique that allows writers to mix text and motion. Students will take part of a speech or a piece of dialogue and animate it, carefully considering how they might visually enforce and/or subvert the text's underlying themes.

Type of Assignment:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Microsoft PowerPoint

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

In film and live performance, the use of time allows a writer/designer to show the reader/viewer/audience precisely what s/he wishes when s/he wishes. Kinetic typography is fundamentally different from static typography on a page, and those differences are explored in this project. In order to understand and appreciate the implications of using time as an available means of persuasion, students will create a kinetic type animation using PowerPoint, to accompany a quote of their choice.

Students are to find a brief quote to animate. The quote can be selected from poetry, music, stage, or screenplay, but the best quotes are often the ones that offer a range of emotions. Students will visually represent their selected text by expressing the content with typographic elements sequenced over a span of time. Students will carefully consider relationships between the spoken word and the visible and dynamic word, attending to variables like, typeface, typesize, weight, color, texture, focus, orientation, entrance, performance, exit, sequence, speed, pacing, transition, transformation, timing, tone, emotion, feeling, atmosphere, and interpretation.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Traditionally, shorter quotes work better for beginning animators. So, instructors may choose to provide a fixed list of quotes from which students may select their text for this project.

This lesson plan would work well in tandem with lessons related to visual rhetorics in which students build visual analysis skills by examining the visual features of texts.

Instructions For Students:

Having seen the examples in class, you will complete a short piece of kinetic typography. Choose a favorite quote and animate it using Microsoft PowerPoint. You may want to start by learning how to use PowerPoint's animation features. YouTube features a number of tutorials like this one that you may find useful.

Next, pick a quote. Write it down. Begin brainstorming what you might do with it. Think of ways to visualize the content of the quote using only text and shapes. Think about how the timing and/or motion of the elements might function rhetorically, or work together with the quote's content. Questions to keep in mind as you work: How difficult will this be? Will it add much to the final product (compared to the amount of work it will take)?

Then, get to animating! Try to take the quote apart so that the kinetic typography offers us a kind of visual analysis, showing something that wasn’t immediately obvious about the quote.

Course Type:

Peer-to-Peer Review

Cowan — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:10:19 +0000

Author:

Jake Cowan

Image Credit:

Nic McPhee

Brief Assignment Overview:

When revising a paper, a second pair of eyes is always useful. But who says those have to be human eyes? By utilizing a range of peer review technologies, your students get to play teacher for each other — and for themselves.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

No Classroom Technology Required

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotation

Peer Review

Revision

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Multimedia

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

This plan lasts for multiple class periods and uses a number of different, though readily accessible, technologies. At different points, the students will need to: (1) Bring hardcopy versions of a paper they’ve written into class; (2) Have at-home access to virtual classroom technology like Canvas or Blackboard; (3) Have a set-up a personal account for a class-associated blog. While none of the particular lesson plans require classroom technology, students will need to have regular access to the Internet to fully participate.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

There are a lot of reasons that peer review can be helpful, for students and for their instructor both, not least of which is the way that peer review can shift responsibility for stronger, sharper writing from a vertical and hierarchical model to a more horizontal and democratic one. This set of assignments allows students to not only participate in and benefit from peer review exercises, but begin to think critically about the value and process of social revision while increasing their skill set with digital technology. What follows are instructions for peer review for three different papers, which could be written back-to-back or spread across an entire semester. By no means do the papers need to be of any particular genre (research, advocacy, etc.) or any specific length or even have any particular relationship to one another; rather, what matters for the purposes of this plan is that the writing would benefit from peer review, whether that be in terms of grammar or rhetoric or what have you.

The first peer review exercise is the most traditional: Students should bring in their finished papers the day the essays are due (or perhaps just before). In self-selected pairs or trios, students should pass the papers around, in the margins attempting to answer whatever specific goals the instructor might set, for brief face-to-face discussion at the end of class. These might include:

Correcting any/all mechanical errors
Summarizing the basic argument in 3–4 sentences
Noting the strongest/weakest passage and articulating why it is so strong/weak

In the second exercise, students will utilize the peer review functionality of some virtual classroom software — say, Canvas or Blackboard — to read through and comment on the papers of a couple of their classmates, this time grouped randomly. Such software offer a range of different markup tools, including line-by-line annotations and multicolor highlighters, that suggest a number of inventive possibilities: Perhaps all spelling errors can be highlighted blue and all run-ons red; or, if the students have completed a typical rhetorical analysis, whatever sections deal with pathos might be in green and those with ethos in yellow. The instructor might even encourage students to explore possibilities only afforded by digital technology, such as using reaction gifs at points in the marginalia.
For the final exercise, students will upload an abbreviated version of their paper to a class-associated blog; once every essay is online, students will leave their feedback as comments on (at least two) individual posts. To maintain anonymity while still being able to tell who is who, you might want to allow students to use their initials in place of their actual names — or have a little more fun with it and allow students to create their own username. Leaving specific feedback will no doubt be more difficult at this stage, so the comments will likely be general if left to their own impulses, but for the purposes of experimentation students might be encouraged to devise their own way to note particularly jarring typos or specific points of interest.

Once the whole set of exercises have been explored, the class should discuss the benefits and failures of each type of technology, in effect reviewing their own peer reviewing: Which did they find easiest to use? Which was most helpful?

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Aside from carefully considering and directly stating the peer review goals for each assignment, instructors should themselves be able to help students should they have any questions on how to use the technology — and trust me, they will. Hence it is useful to spend some time in class walking through the functionality of a virtual classroom or how to post a paper directly to a blog. As such, the instructor should have the blog as ready as possible well before the time those papers will be due, so that students have an idea of how their work will look online.

Instructions For Students:

Peer review is most productive when students have explicit goals and questions to strive for and answer. What students should look for and comment on depends, of course, on the type of assignment and the person of the instructor; it might be interesting, however, if the same goals are set for each type of review, so that students have a fuller sense of how the differing technologies affect their ability to read and review, to comment and correct. They might note how the anonymity of a blog sometimes encourages less tactful criticism and fewer line edits — which raises the point that students, when doing peer review, should always be mindful of their classmates’ feelings and respectful of differing opinions or skill levels.

Evaluation Suggestions:

It can be somewhat of a headache to evaluate someone else ability to evaluate, so I would suggest grading on participation or including the peer review as part of a paper’s final grade.

Course Type:

Course Description:

This assignment was originally designed for a class on the rhetoric of the digital divide, and the various peer reviews were spread across an entire semester.

Fostering a Feminist Classroom Climate

Wise — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:35:40 +0000

Author:

Beck Wise

Image Credit:

Beck Wise.

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this icebreaking activity, students think-pair-share on the question "What makes a class a success?" This gives them the opportunity to meet a new classmate and contribute to setting the classroom tone for the semester ahead.

Type of Assignment:

No Classroom Technology Required

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The primary goal of this assignment is to open the class, both literally -- it's a Day One icebreaker -- and figuratively, by disrupting the traditional power structures of the classroom, inviting student voices in developing a class structure and code of behaviour, and privileging multiple perspectives.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

For students:

Pen
Paper (or instructor can provide index cards)

For instructors:

Watch / stopwatch / phone / kitchen timer / perfect internal clock or ability to count at a steady pace (some way of policing time)
For optional extension of activity, instructors will need to display text to the class on a white- or blackboard, document camera, projector or similar.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

This activity adapts Cathy Davidson's think-pair-share classroom flipping exercise into an icebreaker that introduces students to certain principles of feminist pedagogy and helps to set the tone for a feminist classroom. Students are asked to think individually about a question -- here, "What makes a class a success?", write their answers, then review them with a peer to identify the "best" listed answer. Optionally, the exercise can be extended to a classwide discussion of all the "best" answers provided by pairs.

The activity serves as an effective icebreaker simply because it gives some structure and relevance to the usual first-day let's-all-go-around-and-introduce-ourselves-maybe-with-a-weird-fact exercise.

As enacted in this lesson plan, it also introduces students to the idea that there are multiple values of "success" (and for that matter, "best") and that multiple perspectives are both legitimate and valuable. It encourages students to actively participate in setting the tone and style of the class, and decentres the teacher as a figure of authority -- all core principles of feminist pedagogy.

This activity can also be adapted for use at any point in the semester, for a variety of pedagogical goals -- the think-pair-share process is often useful for kickstarting discussion of texts, for example, simply by asking a different question.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Very little preparation is required on the instructor's end for this activity. I prefer to come to class with index cards to distribute to each student -- they're handy, and saves students rummaging for paper. The largest time commitment would be considering what question you want to ask your students, if you are not following the lesson plan precisely as written here.

When you are ready to begin the assignment, distribute cards and ask students to get out a pen (and paper, if you're not providing cards). Write your question on the board if it's not short and snappy.

Instructions For Students:

Instructor will set a timer for 90 seconds.

Students use those 90 seconds to write down three answers to the question "What makes a class a success?"

The instructor will then reset the timer, and students will have a further 90 seconds to work with a partner to identify the "best" of the six answers written on their two cards (where "best" may mean most important, most compelling, clearest, etc).

This activity may be extended by having each of the pairs share their "best" answer with the whole group (in this scenario, the instructor should write the answers on the board); instructors can then guide students through a discussion of what similarities and differences exist between the answers, or attempt to identify a "best of the best" answer.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Activity is not evaluated.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This is an activity that's proved effective in a lot of contexts in a lot of courses for me, but this was the first time I'd used it to open a class and push on questions of classroom tone, student goals, the commitment of and between instructors and students, and so forth. It was definitely successful here -- students thought deeply about their answers and debated the best of the best hotly. In our classroom, we ultimately identified two answers which seemed to encompass most of the others: one process-driven ("willingness to engage and participate") and one outcome-driven ("changed perspectives or broader horizons").

I then asked students to reflect on these two answers as homework and close their introductory blog posts with a discussion of what we can do to make our class a success by these two measures; our discussion in the next class about those responses led to a commitment to producing the classroom as a safe space for discussion and to particular practices of engagement and reception within the classroom.

Course Type:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This activity was designed for use in "Reading Literature in Context: Feminist Speculative Fictions", an intermediate literature course.

Tags:

Critical pedagogy

Ice breaker

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

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

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

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

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

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

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Cultural Context

Historical Context

Performance

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Research

Synthesis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

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

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

Course Type:

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

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

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

Author:

James B. Wiedner

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

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

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

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

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

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Social Media

Visualization

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

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

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

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

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

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

Instructions For Students:

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

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

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

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

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

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

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

Course Type:

http://poetry.rapgenius.com/F-scott-fitzgerald-the-great-gatsby-chapter-...

Tags:

Rap Genius Close Reading Exercise

Uzendoski — Sat, 28 Sep 2013 21:52:58 +0000

Author:

Andrew Uzendoski

Image Credit:

2013 Genius Media Group

Brief Assignment Overview:

This close reading assignment uses “Rap Genius”, an Internet annotation website, to connect each student with multiple audiences while also creating a forum where the entire class can pool their knowledge together in order to better analyze and understand the work of a specific author.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotation

Style

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Web Design

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

A computer for each small group, ideally for each student in the group. A media consolae/projeftor for the small groups to present their completed annotation project.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

In this assignment, students practice their close reading skills in small groups of three or four students. Each group is given a different poem or a short story by the same author. While discussing the text together, they must identify and analyze important passages or lines. After their discussion, they will annotate a copy of their text—a copy which has previously been posted by the teacher on the Rap Genius website—using the analysis they produced in their small group.

When each group has completed their annotation of their text, the class will reconvene as a whole to share their close readings. Each group shares their analysis of the text using their annotated copy on the Rap Genius website. After each group’s presentation, there should be an opportunity for anyone in the class to add an annotation to the poem or short story. Because the same author wrote each text analyzed by the small groups, the students should better be able to use their knowledge of the author’s style, biography or evolution as a writer to expand on the original analysis of the poem or short story.

This assignment provides the students with multiple audiences—the individual members of their small group, the class at large, and the Rap Genius online community. It also encourages the students to learn from each other. The exercise offers multiple points where class participation shapes the analysis of the text, and the diverse readings of different texts by the same author are able to inform each group’s close analysis as well as the larger appreciation of the author’s body of work.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment works best after the fundamentals of close reading have been established in the class. Ideally, the teacher will have first modeled the close reading of a passage from a poem or short story, as then lead a collaborative close reading with the class of another text. Once the teacher is confidant the class can lead their own close readings, he or she can use this assignment as a platform for allowing the students to execute a close reading without the direct guidance of a teacher.

Please note that this assignment requires the instructor to upload each text that the students will analyze to Rap Genius prior to the closer reading exercise. It is easy to post a text; there are detailed instructions on the website and it requires you to paste a copy of the text onto the website. (And if there are any questions, do not hesitate in asking Jeremy Dean, the head of “Education Genius Department” for Rap Genius and a University of Texas alum! His contact info is Jeremy@rapgenius.com)

Instructions For Students:

1. Each group of students (3-4) will be handed a different text, either a poem or short story, written by the same author. (Note: This can either be done at the beginning of class if it is a short text, or before the beginning of class if it is a longer text.)

2. Each group will discuss the text and identify important passages (Usually 6 – 8).

3. Each group will then analyze these passages, providing insight on the style, historical context or thematic value of the passage. Each analysis should be 1 – 4 sentences long. This analysis can either be done on paper or on a computer, but if it is done on a computer it will be easier for the students to copy the analysis and paste it in their annotation.

4. Each student will make an account on Rap Genius (rapgenius.com), which will allow them to annotate texts on the website. An email, a username and a password are all that are needed for an account.

5. Each group will then find their text on the Rap Genius database.

6. Once the text is found, they should add their analysis of each passage as online annotations to the text

a. To add an annotation:

i. Highlight the passage you wish to annotate

ii. An option “Annotate” will appear. Click this button.

iii. Add analysis to the text box.

7. When the group's annotations are complete, all of the small groups should reconvene as a whole class.

8. Each group can now present their analysis of their text, going through each annotation and explaining the importance of each passage.

a. For example:

i. How does each of their annotations analyze the author’s use of rhetorical style?

ii. What are the central symbols or themes present in the selected passage?

iii. What historical context did the group add in their annotation to help the reader better understand the passage?

iv. What biographical details from the Author’s life or career might help deepen our understanding of the passage?

9. After each group finishes the presentation of their analysis, allows other students in the class the opportunity to amend or add to any of the annotations.

Evaluation Suggestions:

This exercise is perhaps best assessed as component of the student’s participation grade. A specific number of annotations should be required form each group (6-8 usually works well). Their presentations should also be clear.

However, the Rap Genius annotation platform could be used in a version of this assignment that is completed by each individual student, and not as a small group exercise. Or the teacher could add an annotation component to a student’s essay on the close reading of a passage; the student could have to submit both a short essay and export a certain number of annotations from his essay onto the Rap Genius website.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students generally reacted well to this assignment, especially to the fact that their final analysis was posted on Rap Genius, available to anyone on the Internet. It was also a good way to incorporate the computer classroom into a English literature class. Furthermore, some students continued to annotate other texts on the Rap Genius website after the exercise was completed, as Rap Genius is continuing to expand their inclusion of literary texts. A few students were especially interested in annotating texts from the extensive list of Rap, Indie Rock and Pop songs on the website.

Course Type:

Course Description:

This assignment is designed for an English Literature course with access to a computer lab. It has been used effectively in Ethnic American literature classes, where it is important to consider both literary style and historical context when close reading passages. The assignment is also good for analyzing poems that are influenced by historical events, where the students can identify in selected passages how authors directly engage political and cultural touchstones from their respective eras. The exercise is also designed for class with 25 or less students.

Tags:

Composing Short Writing Assignments for the Internet: Confronting the Digital Native Myth

Steel — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:13:32 +0000

Author:

Connie M. Steel

Image Credit:

Digital native image found at http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/144-digital_native2...

Brief Assignment Overview:

This peer learning assignment and lesson plan series gives students the opportunity to explore digital composition. It allows students to research container designs for themselves; set up a website or blog; peer-train each other to use the site; develop writing standards for content; and write peer-editing and publishing content. This plan can be adapted equally well to short rhetoric or short literary criticism assignments.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Literary Criticism

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

1) To develop ideas of critical reception in digital formats by asking students to analyze and benchmark websites and blogs

2) To develop standards for on-line writing by having the students generate the writing prompt

3) To access on-line composition technologies by choosing a product capable of meeting their aesthetic goals within their resource limits (i.e. free and within time constraints)

4) To develop research skills by selecting books for review appropriate to the blog theme

5) To develop collaboration and oral argumentation skills through an in-class debate and final selection of aesthetics, technology and writing standards

6) To formulate ideas for logos and arrangement of multiple textual pieces

7) To write a short review essay. (The short reviews become the final product and content for the website).

8) Peer review and copyediting of short essays

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

A computer classroom; or enough laptops that every two students could share

Internet access

Students

An idea for a short writing assignment relevant to course content that would be interesting to potential audiences outside of the class room, such as book reviews on a particular theme, or research summaries on a coherent topic of current interest

Timeline for Optimal Use:

http://womenofsteel.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/34/

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

I designed this series in response to the 'Digital Native' myth. The 'Digital Native' myth goes something like this: today's students grow up surrounded by technology, and therefore, magically know how to use it. But when I surveyed actual students at the beginning of a course "Literature and Artificial Intelligence," I found that the number of students who knew how to compose on the internet was very small. When I showed the aggregated results to the students they noticed immediately a large gender bias in our class--only one of the young women had ever started their own blog. This raised a sort of accessibility issue that we decided to address as a class. Further discussion revealed that instructors tend to set up courseblogs or course websites for students, and then just ask the students to create a login and add the content. Many did not understand the data input side of things well enough to explain it to a peer. The majority of students did not know how or why those containers had been chosen or how to set up a blog of their own, thus indicating a significant barrier to entry for digital composition in spite of access to the relevant hardware. In response to the students' survey results and comments, I expanded the original blog post assignment to include the full range of steps required to get from Step A to Step B in digital composition for the internet. This series was designed for a computer lab classroom (I have done similar things with a series of reservations for a computer lab).

This is a series of in class workshops and take home assignments. The entire class functions together as a collective to produce a single website with a common theme composed of multiple short essays. These are the skeletons of the prompts I used to guide the students through the process of selecting a container, developing standards, writing, editing and publishing content.

TAKE HOME ASSIGNMENT #1—Selecting Texts Prompt

As a take home assignment, I asked students to post three suggestions (each) for texts to review on the website we would build. The idea here was that the texts selected might influence the overall aesthetic choices. The stories needed to fit the course theme of science fiction involving artificial intelligence with the added dimension of a female author as we found a shortage of information about female science fiction writers on the internet. Here’s the discussion board prompt:

“List three stories by giving MLA citations for the copies you find (on Amazon, at the PCL, your local bookstore, etc). If someone else checked them out of the library, recall them now! If we don’t own the book/story, use Inter-Library Loan to request a copy from another university.”

Then we whittled down

WORKSHOP #1—Brainstorming and Benchmarking Writing Standards and Technologies

In order to accomplish the next goal the class was divided into four teams representing different types of decision making steps. Each team is giving a specific task building towards decisions that will effect the writing of the whole class. The instructor should leave some time at the beginning and end of class for discussion and should check in with each team to make sure they understand their job and how their job fits in with the other jobs.

Technology Selection Team: This team consists of students with prior web/blog/wiki experience. It is this teams job to compare notes on the usability of programs they have used and come up with their top recommendations for the class. (Tumbler and Word Press are favorites).

Aesthetics Team: This team's job is to identify sites that do similar types of work and look appealing. What might be the technical challenges of making something similar? They come up with a list of sites and narrow it down to their favorite four to show the class.

Writing Standards Team: This team is given the task of developing standards for content. In this case the students benchmarked the genre elements in a graduate level E3W Review of Books and adapted them to a shorter on-line format. Students should think about word limits (discourage anything longer than 500 words) and types of questions they want answered in the review, and think about things like pictures.

Managing Editor Team: This small team (two students is fine) compiles, polishes, organizes and removes the duplicates from the lists of books in the discussion forum. At the end of class, final decisions are made as to who will read and review which texts. Everybody commits.

HOMEWORK #2—Find and begin reading your story

Prompt: “This past week you were supposed to find and start reading the text you will review for our blog/wiki on Women and Science Fiction. BRING YOUR STORY TO CLASS on X Date! If it is something you are accessing through EEBO or other on-line source PRINT the cover/title page and the way to access it (website/database) onto a sheet or two of paper and bring that to use. Come to class ON-TIME and ready to do some creative workshopping.”

GAP CLASS—Schedule a day for something else while you give students the time to find/buy/read their books.

WORKSHOP #2—Caucusing and Decision Making

First half of class:

1) At the beginning of class students turn their books and book covers over to the General Editing Team. The Gen-Ed Team gets a delegate each from the Tech and Aesthetics teams to come up with two creative ways to organize texts in the on-line exhibit. (Total of four people). They will present these to the rest of the class.

2) The Tech and Aesthetics Teams caucus to figure out which of their favorite aesthetics are ones that are technologically feasible. They will come up with their best two options to show the class.

3) The Writing Standards Team meets with the professor to publish a handout with their content requirements. This will be distributed at the end of class.

Second half of class:

1) Managing Editor Team presents the final list of books.

2) Tech and Aesthetics teams present their recommendations.

3) Voting on container choices.

4) The Writing Standards team explains the content requirements prompt.

5) Final Decisions are posted as a plan on the discussion board (by the professor) for students to refer to at home and in the next workshop.

HOMEWORK #3—Short Content Writing Assignment

Students write their content using the standards developed as their prompt. They are asked to bring their work to class in electronic format (we used Word).

WORKSHOP #3—Peer Review and Content Building

1) Students read and peer review each other’s content. (This could also be a homework assignment).

2) Students copyedit and correct their work.

3) The tech team peer trains everybody to upload their content. People who "get it" first become peer trainers for the person next to them.

4) Uploading and final proof reading.

5) Troubleshooting. More troubleshooting.

FINAL SHOWCASE

Some students may need to take their time with the content upload. Give them the chance to finish their upload and editing during office hours or for homework. The instructor can review the site for typos or you can leave the remaining mistakes. Extra credit opportunities can be offered for students to add bells and whistles to the site, or for submitting an extra writing assignment.

At the beginning of the next class show off the final product and give the students a chance to discuss what they learned. A fun follow-up is to ask everyone to publicize the site by posting it on their social networking accounts (like Facebook, Twitter or their own blogs). Follow up in a later class by reporting the number of hits.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment/lesson plan requires clear communication with the students, and a certain amount of patience with utter chaos. By that I mean, the students did all the things I would normally do for them, like picking the website technology and designing the prompt, and I had to stand back and let them take control. Basically, my main job was to keep the teams communicating, to keep them aware of how their jobs fit into the bigger picture, and to help them figure out how to do things without micromanaging. This meant letting them make and learn from minor productive mistakes. There were a couple of challenges, which are described below.

Instructions For Students:

The series of steps are listed above in the Assignments section. Assignments and content can be flexibly adapted to course themes. The in-class workshops were designed for a 1 hour 15 minute class format. When lesson planning, it is important to include time for explaining tasks clearly to students and for getting their feedback at the end of class sessions. This time could vary quite a bit depending on the size of the class, the experience level of the students, and how well they have bonded as a group. I save this type of series for the end of the semester when students already have experience with writing, editing and conducting peer review. This assignment builds off those skills and teaches them new ones.

Evaluation Suggestions:

GRADING

This is a multi-piece project, so I split the grading into smaller chunks, which could be adapted to a variety of syllabi. This also encouraged class attendance.

1) Homework grade for the discussion post listing book choices (credit/no credit--went into the homework grade built into my syllabus)

2) Quiz grade for bringing books to class so that the general editors for workshop number 2. (Pass/Fail--went into the reading quizzes part of my syllabus)

3) Writing assignment for content, and upload completion—Students were given a letter grade. The writing assignment was worth 10% of the syllabus total.

4) Peer review quiz credit for editing during the third workshop. (Pass/fail quiz grade).

5) A small extra credit bonus was given for the “best peer editing team.” This was awarded to the peer editing pair that had the fewest number of copyediting mistakes in their final blog entries.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

The students chose to make a wordpress site. The following is a representative entry of the work they produced.

Their target audience was potential high school and lower division college instructors looking for science fiction texts for their courses. They decided each entry should include an image; a quote reflecting the author's writing style; a brief gloss of plot, genre, and themes; and an indication of the relative reading difficulty, along with pricing information. Two of the students were radio/television/film majors and the class decided it was OK if they reviewed science fiction films by women directors. Tagging and navigationals levels were added to reflect time periods, genres, theme and popular media. One challenge occurred when it was discoverd that the blog's default is to list entries by the date of upload. This wasn't a useful navigational feature but the students discovered it after they had already committed to their container theme. Another challenge appeared with the image uploads. Some of the book cover images load exactly as they are supposed to and others don't (in spite of a uniform training session). Overall, they did a nice job with the content and peer editing. The feedback from the students was that their overall confidence in trying to build a website or blog on their own had increased with knowing the types of decisionmaking steps to make, and their overall ability to explain what they were doing to a peer increased.

The site has since become the target for trolls. As a consequence there are some random unauthorized entries dating after May in the blog. A blog's flexibility for multiple users is an advantage, but sometimes older static website designs have better security. So, that's something to think about.

Additional Resources:

They needed to read books to complete this assignment.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

This lesson plan was developed for a writing intensive sophomore level course designated as "introduction to the major/introduction to literary methods." The course variant was titled "Literature and Artificial Intelligence." Course content bridged the canons of English and Artificial Intelligence with a selection of science fiction, philosophy, literary criticism and scienctific essays. In the second half of the semester, students were asked to build a website featuring book reviews for relevent science fiction stories by women authors. Their potential audience was instructors in high school and lower division college courses.

Tags:

Student Digital Activism as Rhetorical Advocacy/Analysis

Hoag — Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:05:39 +0000

Author:

Trevor L. Hoag

Image Credit:

Graphic posted on xomariee.wordpress.com

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment challenges students to become digital activists/advocates for a cause of their choosing, and aids them in developing a portfolio of work in the service of that cause.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Close Reading

Textual Analysis

Word Choice

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

This ambitious assignment challenges students to become digital activists/advocates for a cause of their choosing, and aids them in developing a portfolio in the service of that cause. Students begin the class by researching a cause to advocate for such as vegetarianism, marriage equality, or gun rights. Students then produce a series of compelling “media artifacts” for that cause such as social media websites, blog sites or websites, an image or infographic/meme, an “anti-artifact” in the form of information deletion/lockdown, a digital map or timeline, and finally, a collaborative project. Instructors can also ask students to “justify” their artifacts by theoretically analyzing them and by comparing them to other analogous artifacts.

Note: Many other options for artifacts exist such as games, videos, and more.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Not for the faint of heart, instructors who wish to employ this assignment arc must familiarize themselves with a number of different technologies including, for example: Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress, tumblr., Wix, easel.ly, Wordle, quickmeme, Storify, and many other applications. However, instructors should not fear discovering and learning new technologies alongside their students as it encourages a more “horizontal” classroom structure. An instructor who attempts such an assignment will learn much!

Instructions For Students:

In this course on digital writing/humanities, you will become a digital activist in the service of a cause. You will develop a portfolio of work in the service of this cause that you will present at the end of the semester. You are also responsible for theoretically analyzing the “media artifacts” that you create by applying course readings as well as comparing the rhetorical strategies you have employed with other similar (or different) media artifacts.

Step #1: Research a cause to advocate for across the arc of the semester. You have a lot of options, so make sure you care deeply about the cause for which you are advocating. Students in past courses have become digital activists regarding, for instance: body image, disability, cheating in sports, net neutrality, vegetarianism, cyber-bullying, women’s health services, marriage equality, and much more!

Step #2: Once you have an exciting/fulfilling cause to advocate for, you will now begin producing and analyzing “media artifacts” in the service of that cause. In this particular course, you will produce six different types of digital media/humanities writing: a social media website (or sites), a blog site or website, an image or infographic (which can include a series of memes), an “anti-artifact” in which you will delete or lock down information online, a digital map or timeline, and finally, a collaborative project with others in the class. You do not have to have any prior knowledge of the technologies that you employ to develop your artifacts—a big part the assignment is just exploring! So take a look at the following examples, create accounts on whatever sites you think will work best, and go to town!

P.S., It’s a big help to find others in the class who are using similar sites/technologies or advocating for similar causes at any given time. Start collaborating as soon as you can, and you’ll find it eases your classroom tasks immensely!

REMINDER: Every artifact is accompanied by a 1-page theoretical analysis. For example, one might discuss one’s Twitter feed in reference to, say, Denis Campbell’s Egypt Unshackled: Using Social Media to @#:) the System. Likewise, all deletions should engage Viktor Mayer-Schonberger’s Delete: The Virtues of Forgetting in a Digital Age. Analyses are also encouraged to include comparisons/contrastings of rhetorical strategies with other similar artifacts, whether those of student colleagues or “outsiders.”

Artifact A (Social Media—Facebook, Pintrest, Twitter, etc.)

https://www.facebook.com/veggiedc?ref=hl

https://www.facebook.com/NoSpecialTreatmentofReligiousOrganization?ref=hl

http://pinterest.com/pin2891/rhe312/

http://pinterest.com/gendernorms/genders-created-by-society/

https://twitter.com/kidsaresponges

https://twitter.com/ChurchesTax

Artifact B (Blog or Website—tumblr., Wordpress, Blogspot, Jux, Wix, etc.)

http://loverealyou.tumblr.com/

http://lgbtmarriagenow.tumblr.com/

http://fucknoqueerfetishization.wordpress.com/

http://healthstartfoundation.wordpress.com/

https://aforactivism.jux.com/

http://copywritecopy.wix.com/copyrightorwrong

http://getyourkidsoffline.blogspot.com/

Artifact C (Image—easel.ly, quickmeme, Photoshop, Paint, etc.)

http://i.imgur.com/1vX9GVx.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/92675/Drugusage/image.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/94299/Queerfetishization/image.jpg

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t8ws8/

http://www.wordle.net/

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/analytics/manyeyes/

Artifact D (Deletion)

Note: The deletion is in some ways the hardest artifact to produce. Essentially, your goal is to “become-imperceptible” by removing yourself from the Web, or by blocking access to content that’s related to you and/or your cause. You can also find a website or application to analyze that “deletes” something for you. Be creative and try your best! (See also: http://lessonplans.dwrl.utexas.edu/content/becoming-imperceptible-or-how-disappear-completely)

https://duckduckgo.com/

http://suicidemachine.org/

Artifact E (Map or Timeline—Google Maps, Text2MindMap, Storify, Zeega, Tiki-toki, ManyEyes, Wordle, etc.)

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=210792301150685076515.0004d98cf1fb8dcdd07a1&msa=0

http://www.text2mindmap.com/vBL47F

http://storify.com/Dopeandsports/drug-enhancement-in-professional-sports

http://storify.com/ryleegonzalez/queer-fetishization-and-gay-marriage

http://storify.com/dawn1/women-s-sports-uniforms-across-time

http://zeega.com/103969

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/115265/Idiot-Nerd-Girl-Meme/#vars!date=2012-01-04_21:28:09!

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/analytics/manyeyes/

Artifact F (Collaboration)

Note: The collaborative artifact can be approached in a couple different ways. One is to use a familiar technology but in tandem with others. Another is to find a wholly new technology and try it out. It’s up to your group—what matters is that you’re writing and advocating/analyzing with others!

http://i.imgur.com/kCTt3xF.jpg

https://twitter.com/kidsaresponges

Other (Video, Reddit, etc.)

http://vimeo.com/63134670

http://www.reddit.com/r/occupyaustin/

Step #3: Now that you have produced a series of sophisticated media artifacts (that is, various forms of digital media/humanities writing), it’s time to show off your work to your classmates in the form of a presentation. Keep in mind that this presentation isn’t merely show-and-tell, but yet another opportunity to rhetorically advocate for your cause. Aim to persuade!

Note: Your instructor will be extra impressed if you use a presentation platform other than Powerpoint!

Presentation Examples:

http://prezi.com/2w58dqz1nlm0/untitled-prezi/

http://prezi.com/wwjfvklxd8wx/untitled-prezi/

http://prezi.com/uz0fbnnbqb_l/genders-game/

Evaluation Suggestions:

There are many ways to approach evaluating the above assignment(s). The simplest is via “completion” grades, but what “completing” the assignment means may vary widely from instructor to instructor. I would recommend developing a rubric for evaluating each artifact. For instance, one might have a ten-point scale where the following criteria are considered (I use the following rubric myself):

Does the artifact make a clear argument (or series of arguments)?

Does the artifact provide evidence for any claims it makes (e.g., by citing any and all sources)?

Does the artifact respectfully engage an opposition and an audience?

Is any written text on/in the artifact clearly and carefully composed?

Is the artifact accompanied by a theoretical analysis/comparison that is sophisticated (that is, considers/cites either the readings for the course or similar artifacts)?

How well does any analysis grasp the theoretical texts it employs?

Does the artifact employ good design (for instance, color, arrangement, etc.)?

How persuasive is the artifact in terms of rhetorical appeals? Does it contain any fallacies?

Has an “appropriate” amount of effort been exemplified by the student (e.g., number of posts on a social media site, number of pages on a website, and so on)?

Has the artifact been peer-reviewed twice?

Have peer and instructor comments been integrated following peer review?

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This assignment arc has been employed to great success at the University of Texas in a “Writing in Digital Environments” course. The students seemed to really enjoy the work, though were sometimes frustrated by how surprisingly hard it is to get outsiders interested in what they are/were producing. However, whether a particular student project is getting feedback from outsiders is often an opportune moment to discuss kairos. If I would recommend anything, it would be: get students to really think about and research their topics, make sure to show students lots of examples, don’t be afraid to let a student use a technology no one is familiar with, encourage theoretical analysis of artifacts, assign whatever media types you like and don’t be confined by what I’ve listed above, stick closely to a rubric and encourage students to pay close attention to whatever rubric is provided. This will better the life of all involved!

Course Type: