DWRL Lesson Plans - Internet

Using Comment Walls to Practice Rebuttal

Sloan — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:11:14 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment asks students to think through the rhetorical practice of contributing to a discussion on a website's comment wall. After finding a video on YouTube, a blog entry, or an opinion article on an online news source, students will read through the comments section, locate effective and ineffective comments, and ultimately draft a possible contribution to the wall based on their understanding of any manifested disagreements. This exercise will highlight the importance of refutation, concession and rebuttal.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rebuttal

Stasis

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Students will be asked to think critically about ways to effectively make an argument in a small amount of space, the "venue" of forum comment walls, the genre of the comment post, and the importance of fair, balanced rebuttals. This exercise also helps students understand the impace that rhetorical skills can have in real-world situation. Students will find an online argument that takes a position in their controversy (YouTube videos work well here), read through the comments section, identify a disagreement, evaluate various users' use of rebuttal, and, ultimately, insert theirown opinion. This assignment works in-class for rooms with computers with internet access. It can also be assigned as homework.

Before this lesson, define refutation, concession, and rebuttal for your students. Ask students to surf the web (a simple Google search worked well for my class) for a position within their controversy. Ask them to examine the argument, then read through the comments section. Ask them to find some examples of effective and ineffective responses to the argument. Ask them to think about why particular comments are convincing and why others are not. Are some responses simply offensive? Do they give faulty evidence? Do they give a fair summary of the argument or misrepresent it?

After your students have looking through the comment walls, have them report to the class or to small groups on their findings. The ensuing discussion should solidify the importance of a fair summary, concession, and refutation.

Ultimately, ask them to write less than 100 words offering a rebuttal to either the argument or to a comment they found particularly intriguing. Instruct them to focus on fairly representing their opponent's position and finding common ground before persuasively using refutation.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment requires computers with internet access. Decide beforehand whether this assignment will be performed in-class or as homework.

Instructions For Students:

Before this assignment, students should be introduced to the concepts of refutation, concession, and rebuttal. This is a great way to emphasize the importance of brief, fair summaries and of finding common ground, or points of stasis, with opposing positions.

1) Locate an argument online that participates in your controversy. Try using some key words in the Google search engine. Make sure the blog post, opinion news article, YouTube video, etc. has a comments section that you can access. Read through the argument, then read through the comments wall. What do people disagree with in the article? Where are commenters disagreeing with each other?

2) Pick two comments that you think are particularly effective in convincing the reader. Pick two that are particularly ineffective. How do these comments differ from each other? Which comments fairly represent the main argument? Which comments use concession? Which comments use refutation? How does each comment go about rebutting the main argument (or another comment)? Do any of the comments make faulty claims?

3) Write up your own comment that will contribute to the conversation on this forum. It must rebut either the main argument or another comment on the wall. Your rebuttal must be less than 100 words, offer a fair summary of your oppositon's position, and offer some point of concession.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

I used this lession in an introductory rhetoric course.

Tags:

Evaluating & Complicating Audience on the Web

Wall — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:05:28 +0000

Author:

Amanda Wall

Image Credit:

"The Calm After the Show" by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson plan is designed to get students thinking about the real and intended audiences of web texts by analyzing publication venues and comment replies. It also highlights that a text's audiences are not (always) simply people who agree with the author(s) or people who disagree and need persuading.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Peer Review

Revision

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Open Access Software

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Media Console/Projector

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

I used this lesson in a computer classroom where each group of students had access to a computer, but that's not necessary. In a non-networked classroom, you could print out articles with comments attached for students to analyze. Or you could project one article at a time using an overhead or a digital projector as a full group exercise.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

When presented with texts published on the web, students often have difficulty identifying an audience more specific than "everyone with an internet connection." Not all texts are viewed by everyone everywhere, and access to texts is decided not just on the basis of physical access to the material. This lesson plan is to get them thinking about the real and intended audiences of web texts by analyzing publication venues and comment replies. This lesson is additionally meant to point out that a text's real and even intended audiences are not (always) simply people who agree with the author(s) or people who disagree and need persuading. Web audiences, in other words, are (often) neither hopelessly heterogenous nor simplistically homogenous, and when we construct audiences through rhetorical interpreation, we ought to be as clear as possible about our logic. Students work in groups to analyze webtexts with different audiences and then come together as a group to compare their findings.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before this lesson, we had already covered the basics of rhetorical ethos and had some discussion of audience as it affects and is affected by authors' ethos. I had also quickly shown them a couple of ways to find demographic data for websites, through advertiser information or through in-site analytics such as YouTube's statistics.

First, I distributed the set of analysis prompts/questions to every student. (See below under Student Instructions.)

We first analyzed a sample text together using the questions. I used a projector, but you could also print it out for everyone.

I then broke students into groups of 4-5 and assigned each group a web text to analyze using the analysis questions I had given them. Although the questions ask students to use comments to reflect on their initial discussion of the audience, I do not assume that comment posts provide clear indications of an audience's makeup. Instead, the my intention is to ask students to triangulate their data, to allow the comments and the publication venue and the content of the article to complicate each other when it comes to constructing an audience. (You can find the web articles that I assigned under Resources.)

After 30-40 minutes, we came together to share our findings and compare the audiences of the different texts. We were able to discuss the ways in which audiences are difficult to determine, or rather, construct, and the importance of interpretation when it comes to arguing that a particular audience is indeed what we say it is.

I did this in one 75 minute class period, but I could easily see this exercise spread over two such class periods, perhaps with a take-home writing exercise between them to have them further reflect on their interpretation of the data.

Instructions For Students:

Looking at the Original Post: the article, video, blog post, etc.

First, what kind of website is this? If you don't know much about them, search in Wikipedia for some basic information. Do they put out certain kinds of content? What are they known for? What kinds of things do people say about them?
What is their purpose in publishing this particular article or blog post or text, do you think?
Can you tell who wrote it? What can you find out about them? If no author is listed, why do you think that is? How does that affect our interpretation of the audience?
Skim or view the article/video/post. Based on a very quick read-through, who is their intended audience?
Is there any particular information to tell anything about who reads this article (like YouTube statistics) or this website (like advertiser demographics)?
Now that you've written all this stuff down, ask, "Who is their audience?" (Both real and intended). Who do they expect their audience to be? What kind of people do they expect when they write these articles? What kind of people read these articles? Be clear about how you're coming to these conclusions. Draw arrows or write down which piece of evidence you're using for each of these generalizations.

Looking at the comment posts.

Read the first 5-10 comment made on the article/blog/video. How do these comments confirm or complicate your initial thoughts about the audience? Give three specific examples of how these comments do so.
Pick one comment. What kinds of things can you guess about the person who wrote it? Explain your reasoning next to each thing you guess. How does this person's ethos compare to your initial thoughts about the article's audience? What does the purpose of this comment seem to be?
Sum up your group's thoughts about the article's audience. What can be said about the audience at this point, how sure are you about those things, and what evidence do you have to back them up? What kinds of statements are the most of the audience likely to agree on, if anything? What kinds of things CAN'T you determine at this point, and what pieces of evidence or lack of evidence makes it too complicated to do so?

Evaluation Suggestions:

This lesson was not evaluated, the first time I did it, but I believe I will do so in the future. Students are doing a substantial bit of prompted writing in this exercise, and I will probably count it as a credit/no-credit minor writing assignment next semester.

Additional Resources:

These are the sources I had students analyze:

Austin American Statesman - Judge strikes down key provisions of sonogram law

YouTube - Alamo Drafthouse Takes on Texters

Human Events - Carrying A Gun Responsibly Isn't Simple

Cracked - The 6 Most Frequently Quoted Brain Facts

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Course Description:

This lesson was created for my class RHE 309K: The Rhetoric of Flame Wars, in which we take a rhetorical approach to understanding the public discussions, arguments, and yes, flame wars, that happen in online spaces. Here's the course description:

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:

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

Course Unit

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Course Unit

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:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Media Console/Projector

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

Late in the Semester

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:

Dibbell, Julian. "A Rape in Cyberspace."

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

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

Rhetoric 309k: The Rhetoric of Flame Wars

Tags:

Multimedia Presentation

Images

Audience