DWRL Lesson Plans - Multimedia Presentation

First Day Introduction to Rhetoric Prezi

Required Materials:

Media console/ projector, Prezi

Timeline for Optimal Use:

First Day/Week

Full Assignment Description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slide 6: Student introductions

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

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

Instructions For Students:

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

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Introductory Exercise

Prezi

Multimedia

Using Storify to Analyze Poetry

Ptacek — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:14:34 +0000

Author:

Jake Ptacek

Image Credit:

Screenshot of Storify page by Jake Ptacek

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students often conceptualize poems as monolithic objects from the past. This lesson plan helps encourage them to visualize and conceptualize the content and influence of a poem in different registers.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Visual Rhetoric

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goal of this exercise is to encourage students to transform their relationship with the words on the page, to see a poem as a living cultural argument rather than a set-in-stone text. It is also designed to encourage students to think about poetry as different kinds of media.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Students will require access to a computer, whether in class or outside of the classroom.

A computer and projector.

A Storify account.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Mid-Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Poems are not simply one-time literary events. Instead, they make arguments about the culture a poet lives and practices her art in as well as arguments about the culture within which the reader lives. In this assignment, students will create a multimedia presentation using Storify to help elucidate a poem's meaning, but also to examine how that poem appears in our contemporary media culture. Storify helps them track appearances of the poem as a whole (or of selected lines) in social media.

This helps students see the present-day influence of a text. It also allows them to provide line-by-line annotation and to think about the poem as a visual or audio media event, rather than simply words on a page. Students may also provide interpretaive material: music from the time period, photographs or videos that reference images, characters, or places in the poem.

Storify provides an excellent platform for this analysis because it allows users to search social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, as well as more conventional sites like Google and Youtube, for materials related to their project. This allows students to create a visually appealing presentation of the poem to their classmates with relative ease.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Familiarize yourself with Storify beforehand; be prepared to set aside some class time to create and navigate accounts for your students.

Instructions For Students:

This project will form the basis of your in-class presentation, so please plan ahead accordingly.

In this project, you will create a visual presentation of the poem you have chosen using Storify. You will type out the entire poem. For each line of the poem, you will find at least two images, quotations, websites, videos, or songs that will help us elucidate or make sense of the poem you have chosen. They may comment directly on the line in question, or offer a representation of a figure, place, image, or theme within that line, or they may have a more oblique relationship to the line in question. However, you must be able to demonstrate the relevance of each component to our understanding of the poem itself. However, you are free to--and encouraged to--be creative and exploratory in your creation of a Storify page.

You will present your post to the rest of the class in our penultimate week in a 6-8 minute presentation.

Evaluation Suggestions:

This assignment is still in the experimental phase, so I have not yet evaluated any student posts. It will be part of their presentation grade, which is determined by both content and professionalism of delivery.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Again, this is still in the experimental phase. Undoubtedly I will need to make the "Student Assignment" directions clearer and more specific.

Additional Resources:

My thanks to Cate Blouke, who first demonstrated the power of Storify to me.

Course Type:

Literary Studies Course

Course Description:

I am currently testing this assignment in my E314L: Reading Poetry course.

What’s so special about poetry? What makes it so popular throughout history? Why do figures as different as Percy Bysshe Shelley and Geoffrey Hill, Aristotle and Heidegger, John Stuart Mill and T. S. Eliot—even Bob Dylan and Morrissey—care so much about it? Why has it always been central to the practice of literary criticism? What does it mean to write a poem, to read one, or even, as Mary Poovey suggested, to live inside one? And what is a poem, even? Is it a matter of form, or function, or technique?

In order to begin answering these questions, we will investigate very different lyric poets and poetry—including, for example, Sappho, nursery rhymes, Shakespeare, John Donne, William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Christina Rossetti, William Butler Yeats, and the Smiths—with an eye to both the similarities and differences in their poetical practices. Each of these poets returns again and again to the lyric form—to express their fears about war, their anxieties about sex, their relationship to nature and to cities, trying to make sense of the world around them.

No prior knowledge of poetry or critical theory is required. As we progress, we’ll develop as a class a set of critical and formal vocabularies to help us make sense of the poetry. We will focus on developing literary analysis and research skills, and to that end we will read both classic and modern pieces of criticism in order to give us conceptual models for our own academic work. We’ll also work on honing our research and writing skills, and use the Oxford English Dictionary to help us make sense of how historical changes in the English language affect poetry and our understanding of it. These skills will prove useful not only to English majors, but to students of many disciplines

Tags:

Close Reading

Visual Analysis

Storify

Poetry

Literature

Prototyping Procedural Rhetoric

Scott Nelson — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:37:04 +0000

Author:

Scott Nelson

Image Credit:

Scott Nelson

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using procedural, verbal, visual and aural rhetoric, students work in teams on a multimedia presentation that outlines a video game prototype and the ways it makes arguments. While this lesson plan was designed for a course centered on video games and the arguments they make, it can be adapted to any 309K topic if the instructor is willing to discuss procedural rhetoric with students. Additionally, the lesson plan outlined here is the "Cadillac" version, in that it uses multimedia to present the procedural arguments students devise. A simpler version with pen and paper can be used instead, where students storyboard a video game and its procedures.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Organization

Technical Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goals for this lesson is to have students think about multiple modes of communication and the affordances and constraints of each mode when arguing. By the end of the lesson, students should leverage verbal, visual, aural, and procedural rhetoric to argue their case for making their video game.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

computers, various multimedia authoring software (e.g., Photoshop, Audactiy, Camtasia, Illustrator, Flash, Game Salad, etc.)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Unit 3 will work toward a concept of a single video game produced by you in groups. You will work in groups to design a game that puts forth an argument about the world. Topics will vary with your interests, but research will be necessary to discover the background of the issue and to be able to mount your own procedural arguments. In addition to why your argument is important and the right course of action to take, you'll need to outline the basic plot of the game (if there is one), the characters (if there are any), and most importantly, how the procedures enacted in the game make the argument you say they do.

This project will proceed through two stages:

Stage 1:

Your group will research and write a classical argument on a topic of your group's choosing (within reason). In writing this paper, you should go beyond public web research and pay attention to classical appeals. This paper should have a real target audience and the argument should be tailored to them. You are encouraged to use supplementary digital media, but it is not required at this stage. Use all available means to you: books in UT's libraries, articles in the private databases, government documents, UT's video game archive, interviews, etc. Your group should keep a working annotated bibliography of the sources you research, and this bibliography can be used as a Learning Record work sample.

Stage 2:

Your group will craft a proposal and presentation for a socially conscious video game development company. Working from your Stage 1 deliverable, you will proceduralize the reasons from your argument into actions taken within a video game. Your group will then present a digital media "pitch" to a development company about why this argument is important and what the game would be like.

Deliverables:

Stage 1:

Your initial argument should be between 1500 to 2200 words. Include any necessary digital media you believe adds to the focus of your paper. Be sure to indicate at the top of your paper who your audience is. All of your citations within the paper should be done in MLA format, and you should include a Works Cited. If you feel some other format beyond a Word document would be better to present this deliverable, run it by me first, and we can work something out.

Stage 2 (group):

1. A digital media presentation given by your group to a philanthropically-minded video game development company. That is, you don't have to sell them on the idea that games can persuade, but you do have to convince them that your argument is important and it can be argued procedurally. The presentation should last approximately 20 minutes (Also, be prepared for about 10 minutes of questions afterward.), and should incorporate some form of digital media. For example, you could create a short film, a machinima using an existing game platform, an animation or animatic using Flash, static image promotional materials using Photoshop, remixed sounds & music, or even a working prototype using Game Salad. Remember that the digital media must be rhetorically constructed. If your group is having trouble coming up with your presentation format, schedule a meeting time with me and I can give you some ideas. I'm not looking for prowess with a particular program. You're encouraged to step outside your comfort zone with regard to digital media production programs, and as such, I'm looking for professionalism, not a professional-quality product.

2. A proposal that explains your game and its argument (with digital media supplements as necessary). We will cover the parts of a proposal in class, and you should use your Stage 1 deliverable as your Background section (with some tweaking). Think of this proposal as a document for board members who couldn't attend your presentation; it ties together all of your digital media artifacts in your presentation for those who couldn't be there. This document is also important for submitting your project to the Journal for Undergraduate Media Projects (see below), as it will contextualize your digital media artifacts.

3. A brief (one paragraph per group member) email to me evaluating your group members' performance throughout the project.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Since this lesson plan is fairly involved and takes up one paper unit, some preparation is necessary. Students will need to be familiar with procedural rhetoric beforehand, and for maximum effect, it would help to go over basic principles of visual and aural rhetoric as well. Matt King has outlined an excellent lesson plan for analyzing the procedural rhetorics of Serious Games, and I implemented a similar lesson plan in a prior unit to accustom students to the procedural rhetoric used by others. It is important that students understand the concept of procedural enthymemes, outlined in Ian Bogost's Persuasive Game: The Expressive Value of Video Games. The first chapter of the book can be found on the MIT press website.

For basic training in multimedia authoring, the Web has a variety of free tutorials to instruct you and your students. I hold three multimedia authoring workshops, each designed as a elementary overview to Photoshop, Audacity, and Camtasia. For Photoshop, I show students You Suck at Photoshop, a tongue-in-cheek tutorial series covering basic layers, masks, cropping, cutting and photomontaging. Audacity's website has a list of tutorials for getting started with the program, and TechSmith provides excellent tutorials for Camtasia, most of which can be accessed through the program's interface on demand.

My aim in having students create multimedia is to get them used to some of these programs' graphical user interfaces, the metaphors of which get repeated across different programs. If you feel this step is too involved, the lesson plan can be implemented using pen and paper is less time (about 1-2 class periods). Creating multimedia artifacts seems to get the students more invested in the project, but the major aims of the lesson plan can be achieved through just having students think about procedural rhetoric and how to create procedural arguments.

Prior to this lesson plan, students wrote a standard classical argument to an audience of their choice. Since I'm having students create multimedia (which is a time-intensive endeavor), each group turned in one paper that was researched and written collaboratively. If you choose to not have them create multimedia, then a possible alternative would be to have students read each others' final arguments in small groups, and then each group chooses one argument to proceduralize.

Instructions For Students:

Unit 3 will work toward a concept of a single video game produced by you in groups.

A philanthropic organization has agreed to meet with you about funding your Serious Game. You are tasked with creating a multimedia presentation for this organization that argues why your game is important for the audience you chose, and how you plan to proceduralize this argument into a video game.

The presentation should last approximately 15-20 minutes, and should incorporate some form of digital media. For example, you could create a short film, a machinima using an existing game platform, static image promotional materials using Photoshop, remixed sounds & music, or even a working prototype. If your group is having trouble coming up with your presentation format, schedule a meeting time with me and I can give you some ideas. Outstanding presentations will be submitted to the Journal for Undergraduate Multimedia Projects, a peer-reviewed online journal.

Pay close attention to the rhetorical choices you make in creating your multimedia artifacts. How does the use of jump cuts in your video juxtapose two ideas? How does the addition of music to a scene argue for a particular interpretation? How do the visual elements of your game cover work together to argue your point?

The most important part of this assignment, however, is the procedures you use to enact your argument. To proceduralize your argument, you'll need to think of both the reasons you have for your thesis being the way to think or what to do, and the assumptions your audience already holds about the topic. Think of the "gap" in a procedural enthymeme, the logical step you have players enact. What will your video game ask the player to do? How can these actions argue either implicitly or explicitly for your thesis?

Note: if you choose the non-multimedia route, I would suggest revising the multimedia paragraphs to outline a deliverable of storyboard sketches and text.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Since I use the Learning Record Online for evaluation, this assignment was not graded. However, the processes students used in participating in this project can be used in their Learning Record assessment. In addition to the various documentation of their process, I require each student to submit an evaluation of their group's work. Both the documentation and their group's assessment can be used in the Learning Record.

Were I to use this in a "traditional" assessment course, I would most likely assign a completion grade. If students focus too much on the product, I believe it could stunt some of their personal growth. For example, if the assignment had an evaluation at the end, some students may be more inclined to stick with what they know and not branch out into using other programs for multimedia authorship. The quality of the final product is not what's important here (as this isn't a course in how to use Photoshop professionally), but instead the processes they used to collaborate and proceduralize arguments.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

So far, there has been an overwhelmingly positive response to this project. Students have pushed the boundaries of the assignment, opting for multimedia authoring tools not covered in the class and investing themselves in creating fascinating games. One group decided to use the game Little Big Planet, not as a platform for their game, but instead as a presentation platform (something I might look into in further lesson plans), while another is using the program Game Salad to prototype their game. The goals of getting students immersed in a project and thinking creatively about multimedia authoring seem to have been met.

I approached the multimedia component as studio work, where students learn basic principles from the workshops, but are free to develop other skills and teach them to the rest of the class (myself included). I believe this freedom led to much of the innovative work on the students' part.

Were I to change anything in the lesson plan, it would probably be the amount of time needed to complete it. I, personally, am interested in multimodal scholarship, but would also like to see how the "pared down" version of this lesson plan would pan out. Is it the multimedia that is engrossing students, or the prototyping of the game?

Course Type:

Course Description:

This course seeks to explore video games as a moderndiscursive medium. Far from being mere “mindless entertainment,” many videogames make explicit or implicit arguments about gender and sexuality, economicsystems, corporate practices, geopolitics, and both real and imaginedsocieties. What arguments do these simulations and simulacra mount about howthe world is? What arguments do they mount about how the world should be?

Much of the past and current study of digital rhetoric seemsto look at the content of computers through applying older means ofrhetorical analysis, looking at the text and images contained on computersrather than the processes through which this content is represented. What weseek to explore is a relatively new field—procedural rhetoric—and the ways thisnew field can inform video game criticism. How do the procedures inherent invideo games make arguments about the world?

Tags:

Group Project

Introductory Rhetoric Course - Final Multimedia Presentation

RMazique — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:06:31 +0000

Author:

Rachel Mazique

Image Credit:

Cartoon by Ben Sargent, published in The Alcade (2011)

Brief Assignment Overview:

A five-minute multimedia presentation showcasing skills developed over the entire semester: summary, analysis, and refutation/rebuttal of a position in a student's chosen controversy.

Type of Assignment:

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Students will engage with multimedia texts as they showcase their synthesis skills and create a coherent and concise five minute presentation, which includes a brief introduction to the controversy, a showing of the multimedia (viewpoint) text that they created or found in their research, determination of the point of stasis, and refutation of the position within the multimedia text.

This final assignment thus brings together the major goals of each unit:

1. Summarizing and mapping the controversy,

2. Analyzing a position within the controversy, and

3. Refuting a position within the controversy.

The oral presentation should also help students refine their refutations and rebuttals in their final written argument.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Computer with internet connection and projector with volume control for videos/songs and "Final Multimedia Presentation Rubric" so students understand how they will be evaluated (or, if using the Learning Record, how they should evaluate themselves)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

A five-minute multimedia presentation showcasing skills developed over the entire semester: summary, analysis, and refutation/rebuttal of a position in their controversy.

The multimedia source should be a viewpoint source relevant to the student's chosen controversy. Students have the option of creating a multimedia argument themselves, or finding a multimedia argument that has already been published.Since the assignment's requirement for a multimedia source is open-ended, students may choose from a variety of possibilities—from already published cartoons like the Ben Sargent example above—to original songs of their own creation.

The assignment is intentionally open-ended so students will most likely choose to create a multimedia argument with the technology that they are most familiar with—whether PowerPoint, iMovie, Prezi, GarageBand, etc. Since I teach using the Learning Record, students have the opportunity to demonstrate going above and beyond the requirements in the course strand of Digital Literacy—if they create their own multimedia argument (as this is only an option, but not a requirement). Most students will likely find and refute an argument that has already been published online.

In their presentation, students must spend the first thirty to sixty seconds introducing their controversy to the class. Then, they will introduce and show the multimedia viewpoint source that they created or found. After showing the source, students will refute the argument within the multimedia source.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Introduce the assignment and its instructions at the introduction of the final unit of the semester so students have time to create a multimedia source if they choose to go the creative route with an original multimedia argument. Provide for class time so students may ask questions about the assignment. I'm also planning a day into Unit Three so students can work on their presentations during class and ask any questions as issues come up.

Students will need an understanding of refutations and rebuttals and practice applying these skills (during whole class instruction and activities) before creating their individual presentations.

Instructions For Students:

Create or find a multimedia viewpoint source that makes an argument; it can be a photoessay, TV clip, documentary clip, movie clip, slideshow, image, cartoon, podcast, song, etc. The only requirement is that this form of multimedia relate to your controversy. During the last week of class, you will give a brief talk (thirty seconds to one-minute) on the context of your controversy, introduce and show us your multimedia source or creation, and then refute/rebut the viewpoint/argument that you've shown us. In total, the entire presentation (including the viewing of multimedia) should be NO longer than 5 minutes.

This presentation will require you to synthesize the skills you've developed throughout the entire semester: summary, analysis, and refutation/rebuttal. Your one-minute talk on the background of the argument requires that you summarize the context of your controversy and all of your research from the entire semester into one minute. The refuting argument that you build requires that you determine the stasis point—ensuring that the multimedia argument speaks to, or opposes your position, which is a skill that requires analysis.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Before I used the Learning Record, I used a rubric for traditional assessment. However, with the Learning Record, I still provide rubrics, so students have a concrete form to check their work from.

Although I will not assign a specific grade to this assignment, I will still provide comments following the rubric below. Students will then be able to use the rubric as evidence of their learning processes in their final analyses. Because their final analysis relies upon a selective Learning Record portfolio, the rubric is only one possible piece of evidence that students may use to assess their progress throughout the semester.

Name: ________________________

Final Multimedia Presentation

Baseline Requirements for a “C” (Bold categories have most weight in the overall grade)
	Excellent (A/B)	Satisfactory (C)	Unsatisfactory (D/F)
One minute talk on context of your controversy (must be comprehensively synthesized and summarized)
Refute/rebut viewpoint in your multimedia source (with analysis/explanation of how the multimedia argument relates to your position on the controversy)
Source is a multimedia viewpoint source that relates to your controversy
Total presentation only five minutes long (including viewing of multimedia source)
Effective and coherent
Arrived to class on time and prepared for in-class presentation:

Overall Grade:

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This assignment was a great way to wrap up our class and to give everyone an understanding of the research their classmates had been conducting throughout the entire semester. I really enjoyed seeing the students display their summary, analysis, and refutation skills. The multimedia arguments that they chose to refute were striking and engaging so the class did not become bored. The five minute time constraint (including the viewing of the multimedia source) also eases the anxiety of those who do not relish public speaking, and it requires that students prepare, time themselves, and remain as concise as possible. Seeing the students take their presentations seriously and come to class dressed to the nines was also fun to see.

Course Type:

Course Description:

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

Tags:

Visual Rhetoric

Refutation

Rebuttal

No Classroom Technology Required

Chronological Annotated Bibliography Using Dipity

Cate Blouke — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:51:36 +0000

Author:

Cate Blouke

Image Credit:

Screen shot of sample bibliography created on Dipity.

Brief Assignment Overview:

Using the free digital timeline website, Dipity, students can organize and annotate their sources chronologically. This enables students to visualize the sequence of events and better address how particular texts interact with or talk past each other.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Cultural Context

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Annotated Bibliography

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The assignment is designed to help students with their research, summary, and citation skills, as well as familiarize them with a particular digital environment.

Media Requirements:

Required Materials:

Students will need Internet access and a computer. They will also need to create a free account with Dipity - which will allow them to make up to three time lines.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

This particular assignment was part of a larger unit in which students were asked to map out the life of an Internet meme of their choosing. To prepare for the essay they would be writing, I had them create an annotated bibliography of at least five iterations of their meme. Using Dipity for this assignment helped students to organize their sources chronologically and therefore visualize how the various iterations of the meme evolved. They were expected to include an image with each annotation, a paragraph describing the source, its argument, its author, and its "publication" venue. Dipity is useful in that it allows students to compile multimedia materials related to their topic, and it also provides multiple viewing modes through which to access the material.

Here is a student example (graciously offered by one of my students). Notice that you have several viewing options in the upper left-hand corner, and you can adjust the scale of the timeline to see more events or zoom in on particular events.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

I found it was particularly helpful to create a mock-up of the assignment to model for the students. I would point out that the Dipity site can run somewhat slowly at times - meaning that the creation process and/or loading the embedded timeline can sometimes take a while. The site is fairly intuitive, so it is not necessary to spend time demonstrating it in class. My students did not seem to have much trouble figuring it out on their own. Just in terms of annotated bibliography assignments in general, a lot of students seem to have a hard time grasping how robust their annotations should be. So I recommend spending a fair bit of time explaining that one or two sentences is not sufficient for generating a useful source annotation.

Additionally, the Dipity format doesn't really lend itself to including a "proper" citation, so you may want to consider how you want students to provide official citations (beyond just the links in each "event" entry). I organize my courses using a PBWorks wiki, so I had my students embed the timeline on a wiki page and then provide citations below it. You could just as easily have students e-mail you links to their time lines and provide their citations in a separate Word document.

Instructions For Students:

You will create an annotated bibliography with (at least) 5 entries related to a particular meme (or online version of a cultural idea/event/issue) that you want to investigate. One of the entries will be for the “original” iteration of the meme, and the other entries will be for texts that deal with the same idea in different ways. It will be important, therefore, to choose texts that are clearly related but different enough that you can talk about the diverse ways the idea manifested across media and publication venues. Ultimately, you will choose at least three of these texts to write about in essay one, Mapping a Meme.

Below is an example of an "annotation" - it includes a full bibliographic citation (formatted in MLA style) and a paragraph offering a brief summary of this book’s argument. If I were annotating an article, I would do the same thing. For a video or visual text, I would offer a brief description of the text’s elements or storyline and summary of its message.

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Print.

Aristotle defines “rhetoric” as not merely the art of figures of speech, but as the ability to see available means of persuasion, focusing on types public speaking. Here, his emphasis is on the external effects of speech in terms of political implications and audience response (i.e. the public ends of oratory). For Aristotle, public speech consists of three vital elements: the arguments a speaker uses, the character of the speaker, and the disposition of the audience. He finds ethical appeals to be the “controlling factor” in a speech, and explains that these consist of good sense, goodwill, and good character.

For your assignment, after your provide a brief summary, make some sort of assessment of your source and offer some criticisms. Is your source scholarly, popular, or perhaps some of both? What does its purpose seem to be? Is it current? Is the research (if here is any) biased or objective? Why? Are the facts well documented? Who is the author? Is s/he qualified in this subject?

After summarizing and assessing, you can now reflect on this source. How does it fit into your research? Is this a helpful resource? What are the main similarities and differences between this and the “original” iteration? How well do you think you can connect it to other sources you might use in essay 1?

For each source, be sure to include an image and a link to the original source. When you are finished, copy and paste the embed code into a wiki page in your student folder. Be sure to set your timeline's viewing permissions to "public" or else I will not be able to see/evaluate it.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I used the Learning Record in this class, so my evaluative comments were largely based on the students' progress. However, here is the rubric I used:

[ ] The sources’ main arguments are made clear at the beginning of the annotation

[ ] Thorough

[ ] Accurate

[ ] Supported with quotes and paraphrase

[ ] Annotations are well-organized and follow similar organizational patterns

[ ] Writing relatively free from grammatical error

[ ] Quotes are properly framed

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

On the whole, my students seemed to do well with the assignment and appreciated the departure from a traditional writing assignment. They had trouble in terms of writing robust enough annotations, but I suspect that if I spent more time explaining my expectations this would be less of a problem.

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this exercise in my intermediate writing course (The Rhetoric of Stand Up Comedy). This course examines how comedians use humor to advocate positions in public controversies, to construct notions of group identity, and to criticize public figures – essentially, how they use humor to persuade. If laughter is a sign of persuasion (a question the course explores), students think through why audiences do or don’t laugh, are or are not persuaded by a text. Students think and write critically about what makes comic performances compelling, focusing closely on the relationship between performers and their audiences. They track how the purpose and message of texts changes as jokes move across media and venue in the digital age, looking at a wide range of sources - from comedy albums to HBO specials, from YouTube to Twitter.

Tags:

Free Software

Dipity

Annotated bibliography

Visualization Software

Designing an Online Commenting System

Wall — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:41:21 +0000

Author:

Amanda Wall

Image Credit:

Screen shot of student project

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this group project, students design a commenting system or other forum/method for conversation within a website, matching the system to the particular rhetorical goals of the site. Groups present their systems in a presentation and are required to turn in two documents: a visual representation of the conversational interface and a 3-5 page design rationale.

Type of Assignment:

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Semester-long Project

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

In the Rhetoric of Flame Wars*, I teach that online comment posts, discussion boards, blogs, and other discourses constitute important sites of public discourse. These discourses are influenced not only by the traditional rhetorical components--audience, ethos, logos, and even then, in interesting and problematic ways--but by the technological and social systems that make possible and shape discourse online: interfaces, proferred levels of pseudonymity, moderation, and other processes.

The point of this assignment is to force students to step into the position of web designers, or, as we might also call them, dialogue designers. The design and governance procedures of websites help to shape the conversations and discourses that happen there in substantial ways, and what I hope to see reflected in students' work is an awareness of rhetoricity of interfaces and governing procedures.

*"Flame war" is a slang term for a vicious internet fight, usually between anonymous or pseudonymous writers; some critics of online communication argue that it is the inevitable result of every online discussion. I disagree.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

Ideally, students would have access to the internet and to image-editing software within the classroom so that they can begin work there. However, I believe this assignment is adaptable for classrooms without technology: students are quite capable of brainstorming internet concepts on paper, and I have specified that the images they produce can be produced through physical means (hand-drawn, in other words) if the digital means are not available to them. The point of this assignment is to force students to step into the position of web designers, or, as I would argue they could be called, dialogue designers. The design and governance procedures of websites help to shape the conversations and discourses that happen there in substantial ways, and what I hope to see reflected in students' work is an awareness of rhetoricity of interfaces and governing procedures.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Mid-Semester

Dibbell, Julian. "A Rape in Cyberspace."

Full Assignment Description:

These are the instructions for the students; I think they give a good description of the assignment.

For this project, you will form groups of 3-4 people. Choose either a specific website or a particular type of website to design for. (So you could choose the New York Times, or Cracked, or BagNewsNotes, or UT's website, Obama's campaign website, or a more general type like a political blog, a gossip website, or a gaming forum. If you choose a "type," it's a good idea to find examples of that type of site.)

You will brainstorm the needs and problems of people who converse with each other on your website or type of website (need-finding). Based on those needs and problems, you will brainstorm many possible solutions in the form of different commenting systems. A "commenting system" includes all of the technologies, interfaces, policies, rules, guidelines, and moderation procedures that govern, support, shape, and otherwise make discussion possible. So you might need to talk about technologies separately from procedures/rules in the beginning of your brainstorming process. After you've come up with many options, you'll decide together which option (or combination of options) you want to pursue.

Something to keep in mind: by calling it a "commenting system," I'm already narrowing down the field. Commenting, after all, traditionally means comments by public audience members responding directly to single pieces of media that are posted on the site. But it doesn't have to look like that. Feel free to break the boundaries of the genre, to cross over into discussion forum or mailing list or wiki territory. There are many different ways of having a conversation. The only requirements are that a public audience must be able to converse with each other. That's it. Depending on the goals of your website and the kind of conversation you want to inspire, there are many different ways to accomplish this.

Creativity is greatly encouraged. Don't feel like you have to stick to "tried and true" methods. Experimentation is where all the great ideas come from.

This project has two required components:

1. One visual representation of the website with the commenting system clearly shown. If there would be more than one interface involved in the commenting system (for instance, if users had their own profiles), you are encouraged to mock-up that webpage as well for extra credit. Digital representations are preferred (because it's a digital environment), but physical art is also accepted. Examples of programs you could use include Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, MS Paint, MS Word, Frontpage, Publisher, GoogleSites, iLife (Mac), Gomockingbird.com, Ning, etc.

(If you are familiar with programs for creating illustrations, mock-ups, or actual websites and would like to give a short overview of the basics of that program for creating a visual representation of a website, you are welcome to do so! This is one way you could work on going beyond the course requirements.)

(If you want to put in some extra work and build a live website, that is also acceptable.)

2. A 3-5 page write-up describing the system.

- What is the purpose of the website, and what kind of conversation are you trying to generate on the website? You might go so far as to explain what the purpose of conversation on this website as you see it.

- How does does your system work? How do you imagine people will use it?

- How does it address specific problems people have or might have with the current system or with other systems?

- How might your system go wrong or be misused? Is there any way to ameliorate these problems? Do keep in mind that some negative side effects are expected and inevitable in any design.

- You are encouraged to use the rhetorical tools we have discussed in order to explain your system. Things like audience and ethos will probably be particularly important. You may also cite or discuss writers that we have read in class in order to back up your decisions.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This project comprises the entire third unit of my course. We spend about three weeks on it, giving the students time to brainstorm their projects in class and reading articles about debates in online spaces, moderation procedures, deliberative democracy, and social software design. We had already covered debates about anonymity and pseudonymity in the first unit, but some of those readings might be useful to other instructors. (For instance: the move of some websites to require commenters to sign in to Facebook in order to comment.) Some of the readings I've used are:

This article from the early 90s is great for a lot of reasons, but I've used it in this unit for its sustained description of a debate within an online community. It deals with such questions as: Who should resolve an online debate? The community at large via democratic vote or consensus? A moderator or other official? Or is an online community an inappropriate place for deliberation? These are questions that the students will have to decide about the websites that they design.

Shirky, Clay. “Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software.” The Best Software

Writing I. Ed. Joel Spolsky. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2005. Print.

Aside from a useful metaphor for the social web (the computer is a door to the social world, not a device-box for the individual, Shirky tells us), this article argues that designing for a social group is different from designing for individuals. I relate this to rhetorical ideas of audience. How might an audience evaluate a system differently if it perceives itself as a group instead of as individuals? This article also attributes designers' reluctance to design for groups to a "horror of censorship," which relates to the political issues raised in the Dibbell article.

Instructions For Students:

Creativity is greatly encouraged. Don't feel like you have to stick to "tried and true" methods. Experimentation is where all the great ideas come from.

This project has two required components:

(If you want to put in some extra work and build a live website, that is also acceptable.)

2. A 3-5 page write-up describing the system.

- How does does your system work? How do you imagine people will use it?

- How does it address specific problems people have or might have with the current system or with other systems?

- How might your system go wrong or be misused? Is there any way to ameliorate these problems? Do keep in mind that some negative side effects are expected and inevitable in any design.

Evaluation Suggestions:

In my course, I use the evidence-based portfolio system called the Learning Record. Using this system, it's easy for students to present their own contribution to the project and to get credit for going above and beyond expectations. Because mine is a rhetoric course, I focus on the extent to which students connect their design decisions to rhetorical rationales: does their design fit the purposes of the space as they conceived it? This rhetorical focus makes it possible to equally reward those students who are using MS Paint to create rudimentary images as well as those students who show off their pre-existing coding skills by building actual working websites. The Learning Record requires students to go "significantly beyond" the course requirements in order to earn an A, so students who spend time building such a website, or those who put in the time to learn Photoshop for the first time, or those who do extra research on the rhetorical reasoning of actual web designers to augment their design rationale, can all have their efforts pay off.

For those using more traditional assessment systems, I might recommend having students do a quick write-up at the end of the project describing their own contribution and creating a pie-chart estimating the distribution of work among the group. This gives the instructor a chance to compensate for an especially hard-working or recalcitrant group member.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

I was astounded by my students' projects this past semester. I only required three pages of collaborative writing and a single image, but every one of my students' groups, without exception, produced multiple images and incredibly thorough design rationales. Although I give students the option to redesign the commenting system of an existing website, every group chose to design an original website with specific rhetorical goals.

Let me give you a sense of the projects my students produced. One group produced a wide-ranging, utopian website that strove to stimulate public discourse by organizing discussions into "galaxies" of common topics (individual stories were "planets" and "stars"). It featured both synchronous and asynchronous communication and had robust moderation procedures. Another group went in the opposite direction: their website, "Belligerency," rewarded flaming, trolling, and other bad behavior with a complicated point system. I had to admire the rhetorical savviness of this profit-driven project, for the students clearly understood how particular kinds of conversation can feed back into website profits via ad sales. A third group had users communicating mainly through images, drawing on trends seen in websites like tumblr, Pinterest, and Canvas. A fourth group organized debates into columns of "for" and "against"; this strategy stimulated an interesting discussion amongst their peers about the relative merits of an unlimited but messy debate versus a constrained but organized one.

My last group contained a student with some coding expertise, and they produced an actual working website, with full log-in and comment functionality. They also created a static image in Photoshop to represent the front page of their website (see the attached image): on this gossip website, called The Grapevine, stories with many "likes" are featured in green grapes and those with many "dislikes" are featured in red grapes.

For some ridiculous reason, I only allotted one 90 minutes class for these five groups to present their projects, which left almost no time for discussion. Next time, we'll spread them out over two days.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

Rhetoric 309k: The Rhetoric of Flame Wars

Rhetoric classes are fundamentally about argument—how to make an argument—and this one is no different. The pervasiveness of electronic communication, particularly on the internet, means that we encounter new (and old) challenges in making arguments and having dialogues. Some have suggested that all arguments on the internet are fated to end up flame wars: vicious bouts of namecalling and mudslinging. I don’t think that’s the case, and I’m not even sure that flame wars don’t serve some purpose in our culture. But it is the case that lots of people are worried about how we talk to each other and how we argue with each other online. Issues like privacy settings and moderation and screen names and anonymity and character limits all affect how we debate. This class examines those issues and more. Ultimately, we ask, how might it be possible to have or design or produce a deliberative, democratic debate in a public internet space?

Tags: