While this seems like a prime moment for me to engage in the
whimsical rhetoric my writing typically includes, I will spare you from some
bizarre analogy or tangential introduction and instead let you immediately get
to a better piece of rhetoric: Professor Debbie Ernie’s active learning activity
focused on (you guessed it) rhetoric.
Setting: Activity
implemented in multiple sections of same 100-level course; activity takes about
20 minutes in active learning classroom (5 pods with 4 students per pod) but
time varies in traditional classrooms due to prep and transition time for class
sharing (see extended discussion below)
Purpose of the
activity: For the Blugold Seminar in Critical Reading and Writing, we place
a large emphasis on rhetoric as a way for students to transfer knowledge
learned in the seminar to other classes or writing they will do on their chosen
career paths. A good entry point for many students is through advertisements
and social media, examples of rhetoric they come into contact with regularly,
examples that might have more obvious elements of rhetoric. For this activity,
done both in an active learning and traditional classroom, my students were
identifying rhetorical choices made in advertisements. The goal here was to
review concepts we had been discussing in their own words and through their own
analyses of use of the term.
Setup for the
activity + how the activity unfolded in the classroom: This activity would
come toward the beginning of a discussion of the elements of rhetoric, but
after having done some work/reading as an entire class on these elements. This
activity is thus a bit of review/testing student knowledge, as well as a chance
for students to begin to play with these devices themselves. This activity took
place in both an active learning room and traditional classrooms. I will
discuss the procedure for the active learning version. Then, I will discuss the
differences when placed in a traditional space.
Active Learning
Procedure: Before the students arrived, I wrote one element of rhetoric we
had been discussing on each whiteboard (near each pod). We had one extra
whiteboard. On that board, I listed some options –print advertisement, YouTube
video, meme, etc. Once students had taken their respective seats, I discussed
the activity:
- As a group, find or create a strong example of use of your board's element.
- This example can take any of the forms listed on the extra board.
- Be prepared to share with the class. You will need to define your element in your own words (review) and explain your example's use of said element. Why is this a strong example? How is your concept at work here.
Traditional Classroom
Comparison: This was a fairly simple but effective use of our technology.
Just how effective this was came into play when attempting similar activities
in my more traditional classrooms. Because of a lack of pods, a more
traditional classroom has certain limitations that lead to needed prep work by
the instructor or students. Some options: I bring magazines into the classroom,
this of course limits options for discovery; students are asked to bring in
advertisements, this is an issue for coordinating group work on this small of
an activity, as well as the issue that many students print in black and white,
which plays into rhetorical concerns; students bring in laptops; or I instruct
students the day-of to make up their own advertisement or meme (could do so with
scratch paper or laptops). Even in making these decisions, the small activity
becomes more complicated. Because I teach several sections, I tried a few
variations. I brought in magazines, a wide variety, but felt students spent
less time analyzing multiple options, and rather just picked one at
almost-random (NOT a goal of this activity). I also asked students to choose
their own advertisements before class, as well as bringing in laptops. With the
choosing of individual ads, students were given assigned elements ahead of
time.
The group work once in the classroom felt limited with the
group search aspect removed. I certainly could not assess their searching and
critical thinking involved in person. We also had to waste some time moving
into groups, no matter the prep chosen, especially in a classroom filled with
rows of desks. While the project got them reviewing rhetoric, and while I would
not necessarily cut it from future classes in more traditional rooms, these
versions certainly presented more challenges. Lastly, sharing could be done one
of two ways –groups coming up to the front to display their ad/meme, or small
groups sharing with another nearby group. Again, a little more finagling
required and time-wasted.
After the activity:
The assessment was tied into the sharing portion of the activity, both the
review and analysis of the use of the concept for each group. Assessing their
work and knowledge was certainly more easily observable in situations where
they were searching while in the room.
Additional comments
from the instructor: On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 = high success), I would
rate this activity as a 3-4 for a traditional classroom. It requires more prep
from the teacher and/or students and makes the group aspect and sharing of the
activity less accessible. If I were to rate this in an active learning setting,
however, I would give it a 4-5. This activity runs smoothly in these
classrooms, and is an easy and fun way to utilize our technology.
Tip provided by: Debbie Ernie
Write up by: Jon Pumper
Write up by: Jon Pumper
No comments:
Post a Comment