The Daily Me
Developed by Meline Akashian and Cara Ramsay
MODULE: TEACHER VERSION
Grade 12, 3 weeks
Module Purpose
This module aims to offer students a rich introduction to reading with and against the grain. Students will use it as a reading strategy, reflect on it metacognitively, discuss it in relation to the module’s various texts, and apply the habit of mind to writing an opinion piece.
Questions at Issue
The following are the questions at issue in the module:
· Why do people tend to believe arguments that appeal to their biases, and what are the potential consequences of this?
· How do rhetors take advantage of this tendency, and what strategies can we use to manage it?
· How can “personalized” digital media interact with this tendency?
Module Texts
Hauser, Eduardo. “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad.” The Huffington Post, 2 May 2009, www.huffingtonpost.com/eduardo-hauser/the-daily-me-is-neither-n_b_181922.html.
Kristof, Nicholas. “The Daily Me.” New York Times, 18 Mar. 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html.
Module Mentor Texts
Aubrey, Allison. “Mindfulness Apps Aim to Help People Disconnect from Stress.” NPR, Oct. 2017. www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/16/557633144/mindfulness-apps-aim-to-help-people-disconnect-from-stress.
Craft, Kevin. “Kialo Is an Internet Unicorn.” UrbanDaddy, Nov. 2017, www.urbandaddy.com/articles/40999/kialo-is-an-internet-unicorn.
Leigh, Simon and Steve Flatt. “App-based Psychological Interventions: Friend or Foe?” BMJ Journals, vol. 18, issue 4, 2015, ebmh.bmj.com/content/18/4/97.
Module Web Site
Apply Magic Sauce, University of Cambridge, The Psychometrics Centre, 2018, applymagicsauce.com.
Module Video Texts
Bishop, Bill. “The Big Sort.” YouTube, uploaded by TheVillageSquare, 31 Jan. 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvzAUSVnIbo.
Busari, Stephanie. “How Fake News Does Real Harm.” TED.com, TEDLagos Ideas, Feb. 2017, www.ted.com/talks/stephanie_busari_how_fake_news_does_real_harm.
Galante, Laura. “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the U.S. Elections.” TED.com, TED2017, Apr. 2017,www.ted.com/talks/laura_galante_how_to_exploit_democracy.
Pariser, Eli. “Beware Online ‘Filter Bubbles.’” TED.com, TED2011, Mar. 2011,www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.
Tufekci, Zeynep. “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads.” TED.com, TEDGlobal>NYC, Sept. 2017, www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads?language=en.
Module Learning Goals
At the conclusion of the module, students will be able to
· Develop metacognitive awareness of reading with and against the grain
· Recognize questions of value and their relationship to cause and effect reasoning
· Synthesize various concerns regarding “personalized” information and articulate a clear, narrowed position on it
· Write an app review or letter to the editor that uses conventions of the genre to address an audience’s questions and concerns
Rhetorical Concepts
The rhetorical concepts emphasized in this module are reading with and against the grain, genre analysis, and an introduction to questions of value.
English Language Arts/Literacy Standards
Emphasized in this module are the following English language arts (ELA)/literacy standards for grades 11-12: Reading Informational Text 7; Writing 2; Speaking and Listening 2.
English Language Development Standards
Emphasized in this module are the following English language development (ELD) standards for grades 11-12: Part I, A. Collaborative, 1, Bridging; Part I, B. Interpretive, 6, Bridging; Part II, A. Structuring Cohesive Texts, 1, Bridging.
Defining Features of the Module
The main texts for this unit are both from 2009, and they debate the value of users personalizing their own news (a concept dubbed “the daily me”). While Hauser argues that people have always picked and chosen what to read, Kristof warns that filtering news according to our tastes could lead to ideological echo chambers and black-and-white thinking. The Web sites and videos introduced throughout the module evolve the conversation to the present; our information is personalized for us by algorithms, which introduces a constellation of interrelated concerns that students will ultimately synthesize.
Students will consider the effects of confirmation bias (e.g., polarization, filter bubbles, the forwarding of fake news) as they engage with the various texts and media in the module. The reading-with-and-against-the-grain think aloud and metacognitive reflections are crucial skill-building, helping students learn to recognize and counter their own confirmation bias. In the final paper, asking students to acknowledge the strengths and limitations of an app in their review transfers the habit of mind to a new arena.
Culminating Task
The culminating writing task is an app review in which students analyze and rate an app for its strengths and limitations in counteracting the negative effects of 21st-century information inundation. The app review requires students to apply their understanding of 21st-century information reality, analyze the app with and against the grain, and apply their understanding of the review genre. There is an alternative writing task: students write a letter to the editor in response to one of the module’s texts, updating the conversation to current concerns regarding personalization on the internet.
Setting Teaching Goals for This Module
This module focuses on reading with and against the grain, skills that are closely tied to habits of mind that the course aims to foster in young adults. What are ways you establish a classroom environment that fosters deliberative thinking and open-minded inquiry? When students are engaged in this type of inquiry, how do you handle topics that strike close to your own heart or controversies around which you hold strong opinions? During whole-class discussions, how do you provide feedback on students’ contributions without suggesting that correct answers or your validation are the goals of participating in those discussions? If goals suggest themselves, make note of them, and actions you could take to meet them.
System for Student Reflections
If this is the first module you teach in the school year, then it is important to establish your expectations for how journal entries will be maintained. A composition book or folder that students use throughout the year would work well. Student can even fold several pages in half and staple them for use during this module only. Depending on access to technology, an electronic document or blog could be useful. Thinking beyond simple logistics, how will you create a classroom space that encourages real reflection? How often—if at all—will you collect this? How will you give feedback? A classroom journal can be useful if students return to if often to capture and reflect upon their thinking for further discussion and more formal writing.
NOTE on Italics in the TEACHER VERSION: The activities for students provided in the Student Version for this module are copied here in the Teacher Version for your convenience. The shaded areas include the actual activities the students will see. The use of italics in the shaded areas generally indicates possible student responses. These are not meant to be definitive correct answers, only some version of possible student responses showing an acceptable degree of understanding. These are meant to help you keep discussions on the right track and indicate the need, should it arise, for further clarification or differentiation. If there are notes to the teacher within the shaded areas, they are indicated by italics and parentheses.
Reading Rhetorically
Module Web Site 1 – Apply Magic Sauce
Preparing to Read
Getting Ready to Read
The essential question of this activity is a rhetorical one: Which is more powerful information to have when targeting an audience with a persuasive message—an audience members’ skin color, age and income (demographics), or their values, fears, and group affiliations (psychographics)? The activity also introduces two more concepts that play a significant role in future discussions: the personalization of information and the allure of clickbait.
This activity is meant to take about 20 minutes. Be sure to allow time for students to ask clarifying questions about the reading before moving on to the quickwrite. Once students have written one response for each set of quickwrite prompts, have them share responses with students who wrote to the other prompt.
Note: If some students choose to interact with the Apply Magic Sauce Web site, be sure they read the privacy policy first. Remind students that the algorithms are meant to analyze adults, so their results may be questionably accurate. Also, help students stay on point: the age and gender predictions don’t concern us because our focus is on the personality results.
Activity 1 – Getting Ready to Read-Magic Sauce Web Site
In March of 2017, a company called Cambridge Analytica, which analyzed data to help political campaigns, claimed it could predict the personality and politics of every American adult simply by gathering information from their online behavior.
The University of Cambridge Psychometric Centre, a research group whose stated purpose is to help personalize people’s experience on the Internet, has also developed computer algorithms that use data collected online to make the same kind of “psychographic” profiles of individuals. In 2017, these were their research results: “Given enough data, the algorithm was better able to predict a person’s personality traits than any of the human participants. It needed access to just 10 likes to beat a work colleague, 70 to beat a roommate, 150 to beat a parent or sibling, and 300 to beat a spouse.” *
Apply Magic Sauce is an interactive Web site posted by The Psychometric Centre (applymagicsauce.com). If you gave it access to your Twitter and/or Facebook accounts, it would develop several profiles of you, including personality profiles, based on things you have “liked” or online posts you have written. Below are screenshots of an Apply Magic Sauce profile for a real-life adult. The demographic predictions (age and gender) are off, but the personality predictions are remarkably accurate.
*Quenqua, Douglas. “Facebook Knows You Better Than Anyone Else.” New York Times, 19 Jan. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/science/facebook-knows-you-better-than-anyone-else.html.
Task: First, skim through the sample Magic Sauce results. Then, in a two-part quickwrite, respond to one question from Set A and one question from Set B. Discuss the questions as a class. You may choose to include Set C for a deeper exploration into the concept of “likes” a social function and data collector.
Respond to one question from Set A and one question from Set B.
Set A
· Who might be various audiences for the Apply Magic Sauce Web site? What types of audiences might benefit from knowing what an adult values or fears? What types of audiences might benefit from knowing this technology exists?
· What did you notice about the sample psychographic results? Did anything surprise you?
Set B
· Which do you imagine gives someone more persuasive leverage: basic demographic data (the means to target a group based on skin color, age, and income) or psychological data (the means to target an individual based on their values, fears, and group associations)? Why do you say so?
· In January 2017, Vice News reported that Cambridge researchers were studying the effectiveness of their personality profiles. Their early findings suggested that using personality rather than demography to target audiences, Facebook posts could attract up to 63 percent more clicks.** When people are using social media platforms, what can entice them to click a new link? How might knowing somebody’s temperament, values, or politics help online authors to write a tempting clickbait title?
**Grassegger, Hannes and Mikael Krogerus. “The Data That Turned the World Upside Down.” Motherboard, Vice News, 17 March 2018, motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win.
Set C (optional)
· Some social media companies are experimenting with removing “likes” from social media posts. What are the benefits and drawbacks of allowing users to interact with posts in this way? Should “likes” be removed from all platforms?
How else—besides tracking “likes”—do companies collect data about their users? Would removing “like” buttons disrupt company’s ability to gather pyshcographic data about users? How else can media providers infer what users like?
Video Text 1 – Bishop, “The Big Sort”
Exploring Key Concepts
From the beginning to 5:40, show students a YouTube video by Bill Bishop called “The Big Sort.” Before you show the video, make sure students are familiar with what “red” and “blue” mean in American political discourse. Here is the link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvzAUSVnIbo.
This activity supports students’ upcoming reading by making accessible abstract ideas like polarization and “the risky shift.” It also offers students practice looking for statements of cause and effect, which they will do again when engaging with the texts in this unit.
This activity also provides an opportunity to model a methodical approach to note-taking from a video, which students will do independently later in the module. Show the video once for students to get the overall gist. Have a brief whole-class discussion about the video’s main ideas. Then, show the video one more time for note-taking, stopping it periodically for students to discuss main ideas with their elbow-partners and take notes.
If you believe some students may need more support in the note-taking process, put keywords and phrases on the board, such as “geography,” “affluence,” “taste,” “tribal,” and “feedback loop.” Discuss their meanings and post the explanations next to each word. You could also provide sentence frames for the follow-up discussion. In that case, you may decide to review some of the vocabulary in the sentence frames, too, before having students take notes on the video.
Americans have unintentionally __________.
Because __________ and because __________, Americans lived in communities that were more politically and culturally diverse.
Because __________ and because __________, American communities have become increasingly tribal.
The feedback loop inside American “tribes” causes __________.
Formative Assessment: A quick scan of students’ responses in the Causes and Effects boxes of the “polarization” graphic organizer will allow you to see if they have working understandings of both “polarization” and cause/effect reasoning.
Activity 2 – Exploring Key Concepts – The Big Sort
We are about to watch a video excerpt which summarizes a book called The Big Sort. The information in this video will be useful to you because the book’s ideas will be used for supporting evidence in an op-ed you are about to read.
We will watch the video twice, from the beginning to 5:40. First, we will watch it without stopping, so you can pay attention to the big ideas without trying to take notes. Then, we will watch the video again, pausing it as we go; this will allow you to clarify the big ideas with your neighbors, and then jot them down in your own words.
· What are Bishop’s main idea and purpose?
· How does Bishop describe American life in the 1960s?
· How does Bishop describe American life in 2004, when he wrote the book? According to Bishop, what factors caused the change?
· What are some effects of this change?
Now use what you have learned from your note-taking and discussion to analyze the concept of polarization.
Polarization
Definition and Picture
“Division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs” – Google’s Dictionary
Characteristics
Something has opposite sides
Pushing apart like magnets
Unable to agree
Can’t find common ground
Examples
Congress
Global Warming vs. it’s a hoax
God vs. the devil
Non-Examples
Best friends
My grandparents
Countries that are allies
Superhero and sidekick
Causes
People hanging out with others who agree with them
Affluence lets people choose where to live
We like the comfort of people who agree
Effects
Feedback loop of news and ideas
Risky shift
People’s attitudes become more extreme
What questions do you have for the author of The Big Sort? Are there other factors in America’s polarization that you think he should consider?
You will be reflecting on your learning throughout this module and throughout the course. In your dedicated journal, create a journal entry titled “Taking Notes from Video or Conversation.” Then, respond to the following prompt:
· Later in this module, you will be taking notes from another video on your own, so consider what you can learn from this activity. What helped you take notes from the video? What changes or additions might make it easier next time?
Be sure to file this handout behind the ERWC tab in your binder or online folder.
Surveying the Text; Making Predictions and Asking Questions
In this activity, very briefly survey both the main texts of the module, “The Daily Me” and “The Daily Me Is Neither New nor Bad,” by giving students the handout below (without passing out the texts, yet). Once students have highlighted the portions that they believe provide them clues about the message, purpose, or audience of the text, lead brief discussions around each follow-up question. This survey of the textual elements will work hand-in-hand with the next activity to help students make predictions and ask questions about the texts they will be reading.
Note: At the end of this activity, students are prompted to file their predictions grid handout behind the ERWC tab in their binder or online folder. Whatever system students use to stay organized is fine; helping students establish and maintain it is the priority.
Activity 3: Surveying the Text; Making Predictions and Asking Questions
Surveying texts quickly before reading helps people to get ready for the task and to make predictions about the text. The predictions readers make help them to focus on the main ideas of a text. In other words, when you make predictions about a text, it is not important to be right; it is important to see whether or not you were right.
Part One: You will be reading two primary texts in this module. In the brief introductions to the texts below, highlight portions that may provide you with clues about each text’s audience.
· “The Daily Me” was printed in the opinion section of the New York Times. It was written by Op-Ed Columnist Nikolas Kristof and published on March 18, 2009.
· “The Daily Me Is Neither New nor Bad” was published on Huffingtonpost.com on May 2, 2009. It was written by Eduardo Hauser, a former head of news for a television network, a board member of National Public Radio, and current media entrepreneur and CEO of DailyMe.com.
With a partner, use your highlights to help you answer these questions:
What do you suspect about each text based on this information? Is there something about either of these texts to make you think it is likely to appeal to your biases or to challenge them?
Part Two: Below are introductory paragraphs from both texts. This time, highlight words and phrases inside each sentence that may provide you with clues about the main idea, purpose, audience, and occasion of each text. Also, underline portions that provoke questions.
These are paragraphs 2-3 from “The Daily Me”:
When we go online, each of us is our own editor, our own gatekeeper. We select the kind of news and opinions that we care most about.
Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T has called this emerging news product The Daily Me. And if that’s the trend, God save us from ourselves.”
These are paragraphs 1-2 from “The Daily Me Is Neither New nor Bad”:
Certain journalists have recently expressed fear of a “new” trend they believe threatens their already struggling institutions—the growing news personalization Web sites that Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. coined “The Daily Me.”
But they shouldn’t be scared. The trend isn’t bad, and it isn’t new. In fact, far from being an enemy to news media, “The Daily Me” trend stands to help save journalism.
Fill out the grid with your predictions about both texts.
Kristof’s “The Daily Me”
Hauser’s “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”
Main Idea
Purpose
Audience
Occasion
What question do you have that might be answered by the text?
With your partner, share your responses to the above questions. Then, discuss how you expect these texts to relate to each other. Are these texts discussing the same topic? Do they seem to be talking directly to each other or not?
Understanding Key Vocabulary
First, have students add definitions where they are lacking and find (or draw) related images. Consider whether this should be individual homework, collaborative work online, or collaborative work in class. Also consider dividing up the word list so each student is doing one or two words on their own and then sharing their findings with others.
Depending on the activities you have done so far, students may have already done vocabulary work with words in the list such as “polarization” and “personalization.” You may leave the definitions that are provided in the handout or ask students to use what they have already learned to fill in those definitions. It is important that these review words remain in the activity because they are an opportunity to talk to students—especially learners of English—about how verbs can be made into nouns (nominalization), and because they are useful words to include in the word sort portion of the activity.
Once students have a basic understanding of each word, they will sort them into categories and then explain the principle they used to connect each set of grouped words. Grouping words into categories should be done in class. Consider modeling the thinking behind gathering three words into a group and verbalizing the organizing principle before setting small groups to work to complete the task. Ultimately, using the information they generate by categorizing the given concepts, they will try to add to the predictions about the texts that they made in the previous activity.
Activity 4 – Understanding Key Vocabulary – Sorting Key Vocabulary Concepts
In this activity, your group will
· Look up words that you don’t already know. There are many online dictionaries online, like the Longman Online Dictionary, www.ldoceonline.com, which generally offers clear explanations and sample sentences. Consider using Google Images to find pictures representing each concept, or feel free to draw your own representation of the word.
· Sort words and phrases into groups based on what the words mean. (In other words, don’t group words together because they are all verbs or because they all begin with “p”). Group at least three words in each category that you create, and explain why you have grouped the words as you did.
· Finally, using that information, refine the predictions and questions that you created in Activity 3: Surveying the Text; Making Predictions and Asking Questions.
When you are done with this activity, file the Vocabulary Sort handout behind the ERWC tab in your binder or online folder because you will use it again.
Vocabulary Sort
Definition
Picture
polarization (noun): the situation when groups push each other away or can’t agree on anything
Look up “polarize.” How does “-ation” change the meaning?
personalization (noun): the act of making something for one specific person
Look up “personalize.” How does “-ation” change the meaning?
insulation (noun): the situation when someone is kept apart from or unaware of different viewpoints or experiences
Look up “insulate.” How does “-ation” change the meaning?
echo chamber (noun): A metaphorical place where a person encounters only beliefs or opinions like their own, so those beliefs are just reinforced
bias (noun):
homogenous (adj.):
interest (noun):
intolerance (noun):
like-minded (adj.):
Definition
Picture
me (pronoun):
prejudices (noun):
selective (adj):
Now sort the vocabulary words into groups of three or more, and explain why you put them together.
prejudices
polarization
intolerance
bias
echo-chamber
like-minded
homogenous
insulation
me
personalization
selective
interest
Put together because they are the opposite of open-minded
We think these all relate to things being one-sided
These all have to do with individuality
Revisiting your Predictions and Questions: In a previous activity, you made some predictions about the texts in this module. Now that you have examined some key vocabulary concepts, what would you add to those predictions? What kind of arguments do you expect to see in each text? Review the grid where you made your initial predictions, and then make your additions or changes to it.
Creating Personal Learning Goals
This activity will introduce to students the concept of confirmation bias before asking them to set learning goals around reading with and against the grain.
In Teaching Arguments, Jennifer Fletcher says about the process of reading with and against the grain, “While there are lots of times when fluent readers unconsciously slip between reading with the grain and reading against it, the ability to choose to do one or the other despite our natural inclinations takes intentional effort and practice” (29). By putting a name—“confirmation bias”—on our “natural inclinations” to accept that which appeals to our biases and reject that which does not, we help students notice an otherwise unconscious process, facilitating the metacognitive work that is reading with and against the grain.
A few paragraphs in Activity 5 offer students a brief introduction to confirmation bias, but if there is a psychology elective on your campus, encourage students in your class to further explain the concept to their peers. If you feel your students may need more support with this abstract concept than the paragraph and their peers can provide, then Nir Eyal’s blog offers a friendly explanation along with cartoon illustrations. Here is the link: www.nirandfar.com/2017/10/confirmation-bias-terrible-life-choices.htm.
It is also important to note, although confirmation bias is not mentioned by name in any of the texts or videos in this unit, it is a concept central to many of them (e.g., filter bubbles, echo chambers, polarization). Since confirmation bias figures into both the content of the texts in this unit as well as the trajectory of the metacognitive reflections, it is important to engage your students with some form of this activity.
Activity 5: Creating Personal Learning Goals – Setting your Learning Goals for the Module
David McRaney begins an article titled “Confirmation Bias”* this way:
The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information that challenged your preconceived notions.
Even though McRaney explains “confirmation bias” in an extreme way to be humorous, there is some truth in his claim.
Confirmation bias is a term from the field of psychology that describes the unconscious human tendency to seek, notice, remember, and give more weight to information that seems to support what we already believe. And the more deeply we hold a particular belief, the stronger our instinct is to defend it from challenges.
In this module (and throughout the year) we will be reading texts “with and against the grain.” This practice asks us to put aside our existing biases while reading. In other words, we resist the temptation to unquestioningly agree with claims that support our currently held views; to “cherry-pick” or twist evidence to support our currently held views, and to carelessly dismiss or ignore arguments and evidence that don’t. Simply put, to read with and against the grain, we take control of our own confirmation bias, giving each text we read an open hearing and a critical eye, whether we initially agree with its stance or not.
*McRaney, David. “Confirmation Bias.” You Are Not So Smart: A Celebration of Self-Delusion. 23 June 2010, youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/.
Comprehension Self-Check: Before you go on to setting your personal learning goals, discuss the text with a partner to clarify any sections that were confusing. Use this checklist to help you.
❏ Can you explain what confirmation bias is? Try doing so in your own words.
❏ When is confirmation bias the strongest?
❏ What does it mean to read with and against the grain? Try putting this in your own words.
❏ What does reading with and against the grain have to do with confirmation bias?
❏ Do you still have unanswered questions? If so, ask them.
Setting Your Personal Learning Goals: Working to achieve specific goals can help us progress in that area. In this unit, you will be practicing the skill of holding back your judgment on an argument until you have tried to both understand it and think critically about it. In your Reflections Journal, title a new page “Setting My Own Learning Goals.” Then, set some goals for yourself by responding to the following prompts:
· What will I do when I notice I automatically agree with someone?
· What will I do when I notice I automatically disagree with someone?
· What will I do when I notice I am skimming or ignoring certain parts of the text?
· How can I apply the concept of listening with and against the grain in discussions with my peers?
Be sure to keep your goals in mind as you go through the module. Keep track of your efforts in writing. For example, you could write in the margin of the article to mark evidence that supports an opinion you are inclined to disagree with. At the end of the module, your written notes will make it easier to reflect upon how well you accomplished your goals.
Texts 1-2 – Kristof, “The Daily Me” and Hauser, “‘The Daily Me’” Is Neither New nor Bad”
Reading Purposefully
Note to Teacher About Planning: From Activity 6: “Reading with the Grain” through Activity 9: “Mapping the Argument Structure,” the module calls for students to deal with the articles one at a time, beginning with Kristof’s “The Daily Me.” Once students have completed Activity 9 for “The Daily Me,” repeat the sequence with Hauser’s “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad,” giving students more independence and responsibility. A time-saving alternative could be to analyze Kristof’s text in classand then ask students to do the same activities for Hauser as independent homework.
Reading for Understanding
“Reading with the grain” means reading to understand an argument on its own terms. This is the first step toward giving any text a full and fair hearing. If we aren’t the intended audience, if we don’t share an author’s values or beliefs, reading with the grain can be a difficult task.
This assignment is intended to help students see the mental moves a reader makes while listening to a text. Using a think aloud, model reading with the grain and annotating your text from paragraphs 1-10 of Kristof’s “The Daily Me;” as you think aloud, your students will be capturing your annotations on their copies of the article, too. At each break in the think aloud, give students a few moments to review those annotations in order to mark on the checklist the “listening” strategies that you used. Make sure your think aloud doesn’t inadvertently mix in some reading against the grain, so you don’t confuse students.
Review the checklist with your students before beginning the think aloud. After you model the think aloud of reading with the grain through paragraph 10, ask students in pairs to take turns thinking aloud and reading with the grain for the remainder of the text. Then they should work together to respond to the culminating prompts. There will be a reprise of this activity when students read against the grain, so it is important that students keep their checklists for future use.
Note: This activity has been adapted for “The Daily Me” from an activity in Chapter 1 of Jennifer Fletcher’s Teaching Arguments(7). The chapter offers more insight and support around reading with the grain in general and this activity in particular.
Sample Reading-with-the-Grain Think Aloud for “The Daily Me”
The following think aloud is provided as a sample of how you might model your thinking for students as you read with the grain.
· Read paragraphs 1-3 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
At first, the tone seems light because he uses clever wordplay in the first sentence, and later he calls newspapers “ink-on-dead-trees.” But he gets really serious when he says, “God save us from ourselves.” Is he joking? In Paragraph 2, he says the Daily Me allows people to choose the news they care about. I think the term Daily Me is describing any online news that you can pick and choose news according to your tastes. I’m not sure why he is worried about that, but I will keep reading to see his reasons. Because I can tell he is going to support the idea that personalized news is bad, I expect to see him explain the negative effects of the Daily Me. I will keep my eye out for that.
· Read paragraphs 4-5 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
First, I just have to clarify some word meanings, starting with “we.” In the context of this piece, when he says “we,” I think he means “people” in general (not just his readers). I think “good information” means “accurate information.” When he says we like information “that confirms our prejudices,” “prejudice” here doesn’t mean hatred toward a group; he means we like information that supports the opinions we already hold. So, in Paragraph 4, basically he is saying that if you give people a choice, they will choose to read information that supports them rather than information that challenges them. He makes a big claim there, so in Paragraph 5 he offers the experiment with Republicans and Democrats as evidence.
· Read paragraphs 6-7 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
This paragraph is still connected to 4 and 5. In paragraph 5, it talked about how both Democrats and Republicans liked reading strong arguments that supported their existing opinions. Paragraph 6 adds two more angles on the same idea: both Republicans and Democrats also liked reading silly arguments in support of the other party’s opinions, and they did not like reading solid arguments that challenged their views. Basically, it sounds like people aren’t interested in changing their minds. Paragraph 7 suggests there is a lot more research that got the same type of results. Kristoff doesn’t include any of that research, but he does offer a book where I could find it, so it is easy to give him the benefit of the doubt on this point. I do wonder about the title of the book. What does “post-fact society” mean? That there is no such thing as a fact anymore? Or, given what this text is talking about, maybe it’s suggesting our society doesn’t care about facts anymore.
· Read paragraph 8 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
In this paragraph, he admits that he also has preferences for information that lines up with what he already thinks. It’sinteresting because normally admitting that might hurt somebody’s credibility. But here, it’s like he’s saying, “I’m just like all those Republicans and Democrats.” It keeps him from sounding like he thinks he’s better than everyone else. I think it actually helps his credibility, and it’s supporting his argument at the same time.
· Read Paragraphs 9-10 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
This is a change in direction. Up through paragraph 8, the author was describing how people like confirming their own biases. This paragraph moves to talk about effects. He cites a book that argues Americans are surrounding themselves with people who think the same, and he believes that the Daily Me (personalized news?) will “insulate” us even more from people with different viewpoints.
Activity 6: Reading for Understanding – Reading with the Grain
In the next series of activities, you will successively read two texts that agree on some points and disagree on other ones. Your initial task is to read with the grain of both texts, trying to understand each of them as the author intended. If an argument you read lines up with your current beliefs and values, reading with the grain isn’t difficult; if an argument you read challenges your current beliefs and values, reading with the grain takes more effort. The goal is to understand each text so well that you can summarize its argument in a way the author would recognize and approve, saying, “Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.”
Round 1: “The Daily Me”
Using the first ten paragraphs of “The Daily Me,” your teacher is going to read with the grain, thinking aloud while annotating the text. As your teacher models, write down her thoughts in the margins of your article, too. After every paragraph or two, your teacher will pause so you can put a plus sign next to items in the checklist that your teacher did while reading with the grain.
Then continue this process with a partner, taking turns thinking aloud while you read with the grain. When you are through, file this checklist in the ERWC tab of your binder or online folder because you will use it again when you read against the grain.
Think-Aloud Checklist: Reading With and Against the Grain
q Identify the main idea
q Postpone judgment
q Identify underlying assumptions
q Question the writer’s authority
q Identify the context
q Notice text structure and organization
q Evaluate the effectiveness of the writer’s rhetorical choices
q Identify important examples
q Paraphrase key claims
q Summarize the writer’s argument
q Question the relevance of the evidence
q Challenge the writer’s claims
q Notice what paragraphs say and do
q Identify the writer’s purpose
q Notice key transitions
q Offer a personal response
q See the issue from the writer’s point of view
q Suggest additional supportive examples or reasoning
q Suggest potential counterarguments
q Question the writer’s reasoning
q Give the writer the benefit of the doubt
q Clarify key terms
q Disagree with the writer
Round 2: “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”
In this activity, you will independently read with the grain Hauser’s “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad.” Before you begin, review your “Reading With and Against the Grain Checklist” to remind yourself of how people think when they are listening to a text and reading to understand. Annotate your text with these moves in mind. Afterward, your teacher will put you in small groups to share your annotations with one another and respond to the culminating prompts.
Rounds 1 and 2: After your initial reading of each text, choose any four of these prompts and respond to them. Discuss your ideas with groupmates before writing out your responses.
· What is the question at issue? If it is explicitly stated in the text, make a note in the margin. If it is not, put it into words near the title.
· What is the main claim of the text? In other words, what is this author’s answer to the question at issue? Make a note in the margin.
· In the margins, note various examples of cause/effect reasoning used to support the main claim.
· Some sections of the text are not making cause/effect claims. In the margin, explain how those sections help the author make his case.
· Summarize the author’s argument by explaining why the word “news” (Kristof) or “new” (Hauser) was put inside quotation marks.
· On your first read, does this text appeal to your biases or challenge them? Put an X on the spectrum and explain its position.
Appeals to my biases ---------------------------------------------------------------------Challenges my biases
Annotating and Questioning the Text
In this activity—described in Reading Rhetorically as a Binary Chart (Bean 86)—students will be asked to make inferences from the text about what the author does and does not value. By doing so, they will gain insight into assumptions that shape the author’s ideology. In particular, students should recognize a key assumption that is shared by both texts, that there is a benefit to “a variety of opinions” (Kristof) and it is important to “seek out and understand conflicting views” (Hauser). Since neither author defends the idea, it is important to assess whether students understand the possible reasoning behind this shared value.
To help develop a multi-faceted understanding of this shared assumption, consider the potential value of tapping your campus colleagues’ expertise. If your colleagues are amenable to helping out, students could collect responses from teachers in various disciplines on the question, “Why might people believe it is important to seek out and understand conflicting viewpoints?” It might be helpful to give students questions tailored to specific disciplines: for example, for science, “What is the value of open-mindedness to the scientific method?” For social science or journalism, “Why is it important to examine events from multiple perspectives?”
Activity 7: Annotating and Questioning the Text – Identifying Assumptions Within the Text
Assumptions, whether stated directly or left unsaid, are unsupported opinions that contribute to the logic of an argument.
Sometimes the assumptions in an argument are beliefs that make up the speaker’s worldview (i.e., “value system” or “ideology”). To recognize these types of assumptions in the texts we are reading, use the T-chart shown below. List what you can infer the author values in one column and what he does not value in the other.
Round 1: Kristof’s “The Daily Me”
Values
Does Not Value
People understanding various viewpoints on issues
People becoming their own editors
Round 2: Hauser’s “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”
Values
Does Not Value
People understanding various viewpoints on issues
People becoming their own editors
Journalism
When you have identified assumptions and/or values in both texts, work with a partner to respond to these questions:
· What is an assumption or value that both texts share?
· Neither author chooses to defend this belief. Why not?
· What might be the reasoning to support this assumption?
Negotiating Meaning
In this activity, students will be asked to unpack key sentences from “The Daily Me” that are important to the argument, rich in content, and dense in structure. By diving deeply into such sentences, students will emerge with a more nuanced understanding of the author’s argument. Unpacking sentences can be especially helpful for language learners. This activity could be streamlined by having small groups paraphrase a single sentence and report out to one another.
Before beginning the activity, engage students in a brief discussion about how people use paraphrasing to help themselves understand and be understood. Tap their own understandings of this skill:
· When, besides in English class, can it be useful to put another person’s idea into your own words?
· What are the qualities of a well-done paraphrase?
Model the process by unpacking the first sentence. When you pass responsibility to your students, they should work in groups of two to three. Consider having small groups check in with one another after unpacking each sentence for an added measure of support on the way to complete and accurate responses. If they need to look up definitions, remind students about high-qualityonline dictionaries like Longman or Oxford.
When students read “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad,” have students themselves identify two to three sentences that merit unpacking. Briefly discuss the reasoning behind their choices before having students chunk the sentences and work through them on their own. Debrief at the end of the exercise.
Sample Think Aloud:
“We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, /
Think Aloud: To say “we believe intellectually” is like saying your head knows something but your heart does not agree yet. A “clash of opinions” means people disagreeing. But why would you believe in that? I guess because when you are trying to find the truth, it is important to look at all sides of something
but in practice /
Think Aloud: The phrase “in practice” means “what we actually do” or “how something is really done.” So I think he is going to say that what we believe is not what we really do.
we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb /
Think Aloud: This sounds like figurative language because a womb is inside your mother’s stomach before you are born. I think this metaphor is saying we like to feel safe, and that is why the womb is called “reassuring.”
of an echo chamber.”
Think Aloud: An echo chamber at first doesn’t sound safe and reassuring. This must be a metaphor, too. A chamber is a small room, and an echo is when you hear a sound repeated. When I looked up “echo chamber,” the definition that made the most sense was from Oxford dictionaries.com. It said an echo chamber was an environment where a person only encounters opinions and beliefs that match their own.
Rewrite of sentence:
We know that it is good for your own thinking to hear from people who disagree with you, / but that’s not how we actually act. / We like to feel safe and stay comfortable /by surrounding ourselves with people who think and say the same things we do.
Activity 8: Negotiating Meaning – Unpacking Important Sentences
In this activity, unpack each sentence, working through them one at a time. If you need to use a dictionary, write the words and the definitions you find on the back of your Vocabulary Sort handout. When your group is finished discussing the sentence all together, rewrite the sentence in your own words.
Round 1: Kristof’s “The Daily Me”
Paragraph 4: “We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice, we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.”
We know that it is good for your own thinking to hear from people who disagree with you, /but that’s not how we actually act. / We like to feel safe and stay comfortable / by surrounding ourselves with people who think and say the same things we do
Paragraph 11: “‘The nation grows more politically segregated – / and the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions / is lost to the righteousness / that is the special entitlement of homogenous groups,’ Mr. Bishop writes.”
Paragraph 16: “So perhaps the only way forward / is for each of us to struggle on our own / to work out intellectually with sparring partners / whose views we deplore.”
Your choices: Choose at least one more word, phrase, or sentence that you would like to work through with your group. Quote them here, one by one, as your group discusses them. When you are done, write out your new understanding of each word, phrase, or sentence.
Round 2: Hauser’s “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”
The sentences above from “The Daily Me” were worth the time and effort to unpack, not just because they are complicated sentences, but also because they contain ideas that are important to Kristof’s argument. Now you are going to unpack 2-3 sentences from Hauser’s text, but this time, it is your task to choose the sentences. Choose them well!
1. Choose two to three sentences worth unpacking.
2. Using slash marks, divide each sentence into sensible chunks.
3. With your groupmates, work through the meaning of each chunk.
4. Each of you should rewrite the sentences, one by one, in your own words.
Examining the Structure of the Text
In this activity, students will develop their capacity to see how elements of an argument are working together. To do so, they will create a hierarchical map of elements in the authors’ arguments: at the top of each map are the question at issue and the main claim (that claim which responds to the question at issue) and / or the call to action; below the main claim are sub-claims (i.e., the author’s reasons in support of the main claim); the bottom layer is made up of evidence in support of the sub-claims.
For “The Daily Me,” consider providing students with a graphic organizer that is partially completed. The aim of this step is to help students see the difference between the main claim, reasons, and evidence.
When it is time for students to map the structure of Hauser’s “The Daily Me Is Neither New nor Bad,” consider how much independence they are ready for based on their level of success with the previous argument map. You could ask them to create an argument map from scratch; you could give them a blank, generic argument map; you could give them a graphic organizer with the correct number of properly placed but empty boxes; or you could give them another partially filled in a graphic organizer.
Formative Assessment: Walk the room and scan papers. How successfully are students distinguishing between evidence and claims (both the main claim and the reasons below it)?
Activity 9: Examining the Structure of the Text – Mapping the Argument Structure
Round 1: “The Daily Me” Argument Map
Below is a partially completed argument map of Kristof’s “The Daily Me.” Maps like this are one way to break an argument into its pieces and look at its logic. From top to bottom, these are the elements to the diagram:
· The question at issue (What question is Kristof trying to answer?)
· The main claim (What is Kristof’s answer to that question?)
· Request of Audience (What does Kristof want from his audience? Is there a call to action?)
· Reasons (What reasons does Kristof have to believe his main claim?)
· Evidence (What support does Kristof offer for his reasons?)
Some of the boxes are filled out already, to give you some guidance and a little head start. Beginning with notes you have already made on the text, work with a partner to complete the rest of the argument map. When you are done, file this handout behind the ERWC tab in your binder or online folder for future use.
Argument Map: “The Daily Me”
Question at Issue: Is personalized online news (e.g., the Daily Me) a good or bad idea?
Main Claim and/or Call to Action: Personalized news will be harmful. Find people who disagree with you and interact with them so you can do the mental exercise of considering your opposition’s arguments.
Reason 1
Personalized news could be dangerous because people tend to prefer information that supports what they already believe.
Reason 2
Daily Me will make Americans more polarized than they already are.
Evidence:
Study, mailings to Democrats and Republicans, shows we tend to seek and notice info that supports our views or that makes our opposition seem silly
Evidence:
Almost half of Americans are segregated into political landslide communities.
Evidence:
Many replicated findings referenced in True Enough
Evidence:
In a 12-nation study, Americans are least likely to talk politics with people who disagree.
Evidence:
Kristof’s own personal experience of “selective truth-seeking”
Evidence:
Research says that discussing things with like-minded people makes your views more extreme and more intolerant.
Round 2: “The Daily Me Is Neither New nor Bad” Argument Map
Create an argument map of Hauser’s “The Daily Me Is Neither New nor Bad.” Use the argument map you created for The Daily Me to refresh your memory on how to approach this task. From top to bottom, these are the elements to include:
· The question at issue (What question is Hauser trying to answer?)
· The main claim (What is Hauser’s answer to that question?)
· Request of Audience (What does Hauser want from his audience? Is there a call to action?)
· Reasons (What reasons does Hauser have to believe his main claim?)
· Evidence (What support does Hauser offer for his reasons?)
Beginning with notes you have already made on the text, work with a partner to complete the argument map. When you are done, file this handout behind the ERWC tab in your binder or online folder, because you will need it again.
Argument Map: “’The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”
Question at Issue: Is personalized online news (the “Daily Me”) a good or bad idea?
Main Claim and/or Call to Action: Personalized news will be helpful.
Reason 1:
Daily Me will not create more insulation; nothing is different but the device and the headline.
Reason 2:
Daily Me will help people find informationthey care about.
Reason 3:
Daily Me will engage readers so they will read more.
Reason 4:
Daily Me will save journalism by connecting audiences to journalists who share their interests.
Evidence:
We already choose what to read.
Evidence:
Hypothetical example of a person researching diabetes suggests it’s easier to find information.
Evidence:
Users who personalize their news look at double the number of pages of the people who aren’t registered users.
Evidence:
Note to Teacher on Planning: From this point forward, students will be working with both texts at the same time.
Considering the Rhetorical Situation – Discussion
In this activity, break students into small groups for discussion. The discussion questions are not printed in the student version, allowing you to post the prompts for students one round at a time. This allows you to monitor more closely the groups that need prompting from you to dive more deeply into the questions. For each round, at least one student per group needs to be assigned as a note-taker, and that responsibility shifts to different students each round.
Make sure students have their Argument Maps and both texts at hand before they begin the discussion. At the end of this activity, collect the Synthesized Responses handout, because students will need them in Activity 11: Analyzing Rhetorical Grammar.
Before beginning the activity, consider a brief whole-class discussion to develop a checklist of good small-group discussion habits, and post it on the whiteboard. If your students might benefit from some discussion support, you could also post on the board some thoughtful ways to contribute to the conversation: for example, 1) ask follow up questions, such as “What about X?” “What are other points of view?”; 2) emphasize an idea to help move the conversation forward: “Ok so you are saying…” “That helps us…”; 3) question or challenge an idea: “Why do you think that?” “Where does that evidence come from?”
If you anticipate students may have trouble taking notes on the conversations, recruit volunteers to make Round 1 a brief demonstration discussion. As they discuss the first question, everyone else can practice documenting the group members’ useful ideas. A note-taking page with a column for each speaker may be a helpful start. After a 5-7 minutes of sample discussion, debrief the experience, asking students about note-taking strategies that worked and what they might do to increase their success when taking notes for their group.
Finally, if equitable discussion in an issue with any particular class period, consider using the Talking Chips strategy, which is explained in Appendix X.
Round 1 Prompt: Are both authors responding to the same occasion? To the same question at issue?
Round 2 Prompt: How urgent do the authors make the situation seem? How do they communicate that level of urgency to the audience?
Round 3 Prompt: What is each author’s purpose?
Activity 10: Considering the Rhetorical Situation – Discussion
Using the texts you have annotated and the Argument Maps you have created, work with groupmates to develop responses to questions about the audience, purpose, and occasion of each text. At the end of this activity, your teacher will collect the single page where all your group’s synthesized responses are collected.
How the Rounds Work
· Your teacher will post questions, one at a time, for your group to discuss.
· In your group, one or two people—instead of joining the conversation— take notes of groupmates’ ideas during the discussion.
· When each round ends, work together to use the notes and develop a concise response to the discussion question. Your notetaker records it onto the Synthesized Responses handout. If the teacher asks groups to report out, the notetaker is also the reporter.
· Finally, offer one another feedback based on the small-group discussion checklist, and decide who will be the new notetaker(s) for the next round.
Synthesized Responses: Group Members _______________________________________
Round 1 Response:
In some ways, they are responding to the same occasion since both are talking about the rise of personalized news. However, Hauser is also responding to other editorials. He seems to be answering people who think the Daily Me will be bad for journalism. Kristof worries that it will encourage one-sided thinking and be bad for democracy.
Round 2 Response:
Kristof makes the issue seem very urgent by focusing on negative effects like intolerance and saying things like “God save us from ourselves.” That makes it seem like the issue is life or death, and he wants to make plans for what to do right away. Hauser’s piece is the opposite of urgent because he doesn’t think there is a problem. Hauser tells his readers from the very start, “You shouldn’t be scared,” and makes personalized news seem like a savior instead of a villain. It’s more like, “People are worried over nothing. Relax.”
Round 3 Response:
Sample Report: Kristof wants readers to deliberately seek out opposing views and really exercise the mental muscles it takes to stay open-minded and not let our biases take over. Because Hauser does not see the situation as any different from the past, he has no call to action. He sees people like Kristof as unnecessarily alarmed, and he wants to reassure his readers. Both authors might be trying to keep the readers they have for their news sources.
Analyzing Rhetorical Grammar
To prepare for this lesson, duplicate enough of each group’s Synthesized Responses paper (from the previous activity) for each group member to have a copy. Students will create transition sentences between the existing responses.
Although this lesson in creating paragraph flow does not require a grammar lesson, some students might benefit from a quick review of pronouns and antecedents, in particular, demonstrative pronouns and relative pronouns.
Relative Pronouns: That, which, who, whom, whose
· These come after a noun and begin a relative clause.
· They always point back to an antecedent.
Example: Kristof is the authorß who fears The Daily Me.
Demonstrative Pronouns: This, that, these, those
· Demonstrative pronouns can point forward and backward.
Example: That ànewspaper was in business for 180 years. ßThat is why we mourn its demise.
Activity 11: Analyzing Rhetorical Grammar – Sentences that Flow
In this activity, you will practice writing with the flow. In the book They Say I Say,* Graff and Birkenstein explain how to create flow: “It may help to think of each sentence you write as having arms that reach backward and forward.” In other words, smooth writing requires more than transitions between paragraphs. Within a paragraph, each sentence should flow smoothly from the previous one, with ideas in it that point back to ideas in the last sentence and forward to ideas that will be in the next sentence.
Here are some ways that you can link ideas between sentences.
· Pronouns (e.g., this, that, whose, etc.) can point back to ideas in the previous sentence
· Cue words and phrases (e.g., however, consequently, for example, etc.) can create transitions that clarify how back-to-back ideas are related to each other
· Well-placed repetition of keywords or ideas can strengthen the connection between sentences
*Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. “Connecting the Parts.” They Say I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 4th ed., W. W. Norton, 2018, p. 103
Exercise 1: Go through this excerpt from Kristof’s “The Daily Me.” In each new sentence (starting with the second sentence), find where an idea connects to the previous sentence. Circle the ideas and connect them with a line.
When we go online, each of us is our own editor, our own gatekeeper.
We select the kind of news and opinions that we care most about.
Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. has called this emerging news product The Daily Me.
And if that’s the trend, God save us from ourselves.
That’s because there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information,
but rather information that confirms our prejudices.
· What do you notice about the placement of the connections you found?
Usually, the idea that points backward is near the beginning of a sentence, and it connects to an idea that was toward the end of the sentence before it. So basically, the linked ideas are often pretty close together, without other ideas interrupting them.
· What is the function of “but rather” in the last sentence?
It lets the reader know that a contradictory idea is coming, so the reader won’t feel confused.
Exercise 2: Your teacher will provide you with a copy of the synthesized responses your group wrote during Activity 10. In the blank spaces in between each of your responses, create a transition between paragraphs. You might accomplish that by writing a new sentence: the beginning of it should point backward to the sentence above it, and the end of it should point forward to the sentence below it. If you need to reorder the ideas in your sentences to set up connections, do so.
Questioning the Text
Thinking Critically
“Reading against the grain” means reading with skepticism. Sometimes our students mistake healthy skepticism for a cynical dismissiveness—but the cynicism takes far less energy! Critical thinking takes effort. This can be particularly true when a text aligns with our pre-existing biases. This assignment is intended to help students see the mental moves a reader makes while doubting a text.
In a think aloud, you will model reading against the grain using paragraphs 1-6 of Hauser’s “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”; as you think aloud, your students will be annotating their texts with your critical commentary. Be sure to give them time both to make those annotations, double-check their understandings with one another, and then to note on their checklists the doubting strategies they noticed.
Once you have modeled reading against the grain through paragraph 6, ask students in groups of two to three to take turns thinking aloud and reading against the grain for the remainder of the text. When they have completed annotating Hauser’s text, have them move directly into reading and annotating Kristof’s text against the grain. Finally, they should work together to respond to the culminating prompts.
For the purpose of reading against the grain, it is useful to remember that both texts deal with questions of quality (is personalized news good or bad?), so they both use cause and effect arguments (because we judge something as good based on its positive effects or bad because of its negative ones). In terms of critical thinking, this is useful knowledge, because claims of cause and effect can be tricky. When a cause (A) and effect (B) argument is presented, it is important to consider whether the relationship is really just a “correlation”—that A and B are related somehow, but not because A caused B. For example, is it possible some third factor caused both A and B? Or even, is it possible that B caused A?
Note: This activity has been adapted for “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad” from an activity in Chapter Two of Jennifer Fletcher’s Teaching Arguments (29). The chapter offers more insight and support around reading against the grain in general and this activity in particular.
Sample Reading-Against-The-Grain Think Aloud for “The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad”
The following think aloud is provided as a sample of how you might model your thinking for students as you read against the grain.
· Read paragraphs 1-2 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
I wonder why he doesn’t name the journalists he is responding to. It sounds at first like he is being polite by not accusing anyone in particular of being scared they might lose their job. But if that’s true, he is not answering Kristof. Kristof does say newspapers are disappearing, but he doesn’t blame the personalized news for it. Is Hauser misrepresenting his opposition by summarizing them inaccurately? I think Kristof would argue that he is worried about much more than whether newspapers are saved. Why does Hauser leave out those concerns? Maybe that is partly because he wants his readers to believe they “shouldn’t be scared.” Of course, he wants that. Hauser works for a Web site that’s actually called “The Daily Me.”
· Read paragraphs 3-4 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
It is hard to tell how important Hauser assumes editors are. He sends mixed messages. In paragraph 3 he seems to dismiss them, saying we have always been our own editors, picking and choosing where we focus our attention. In paragraph 7, though, he makes editors choices seem useful and important. Is he contradicting himself?
In paragraph 4, his point is so important that the paragraph is one sentence all by itself. He says there is nothing new about online news except the “methods.” Whenever an author uses a comparison to support a point, it’s important to test it. Is online news really the same as newspapers and TV news in all the important ways? And what are these “methods” he’s talking about? Maybe these “methods” are an important difference.
· Read paragraph 5 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
In this paragraph, he defends personalized news with a cause and effect argument, and it’s always important to think twice about those. Hauser says the cause is personalized news; the effect is registered users with personalized news look at “about double” the number of articles compared to non-registered users of his company’s news site. He is using that data to claim that his readers are more engaged.
But is it possible that the people who register themselves with a news site in the first place are already more likely to read more news articles than people who don’t bother to register? When I think about it, I don’t think it’s useful to compare registered users to non-registered ones; they should measure what a registered user did before he personalized his news feed, and then measure that same user again after. That would make it much clearer that personalizing the news is what made the difference.
Besides all that, is engagement measured by clicks really what matters? What are they clicking on? If users are clicking on three extra articles that confirm their existing biases, then this research might actually support Kristof’s point. We just don’t know.
· Read paragraph 6 aloud to students followed by the think aloud:
In this paragraph, he gives a hypothetical example of why personalized news could be helpful. Hypothetical examples are made-up examples, so it’s always important to decide if imaginary support like this is realistic and relevant. In this case, I’m not sure it’s realistic that someone would personalize their news feed to alert them to updates on diabetes research—maybe. But it is definitely not a relevant example in response to Kristof’s concerns that people will only come across opinions they already agree with and become black-and-white thinkers.
Activity 12: Thinking Critically – Reading Against the Grain
Now that you have read both texts with the grain and understand the authors’ arguments, it is time to deliberately look for points in those texts that seem questionable. The process of bringing your doubt to a text is called “reading against the grain.” That means you are rereading each text, withholding your agreement while you deliberately examine the argument for flaws. If you disagree with an author right away, reading against the grain is easy; however, if the argument in the text matches your values and opinions, reading against the grain can take deliberate effort.
Round 1: Using the first seven paragraphs of “‘The Daily Me’ Is Neither New nor Bad,” your teacher is going to think aloud while reading against the grain. Take notes of your teacher’s thinking in the margins of your own text. Then, use the same checklist to which you added plus signs during Activity 6: Reading With the Grain, but now put a minus sign by everything you hear your teacher do during reading against the grain.
In pairs, take turns thinking aloud and reading against the grain, paragraph by paragraph, for the remainder of the text. Add notes to your articles and minus signs to your checklist as you go.
Round 2: “The Daily Me”
In this activity, you will independently read against the grain Kristof’s “The Daily Me.” Before you begin, review your “Reading With and Against the Grain Checklist” to remind yourself of how people think when they are approaching a text critically and looking for flaws in the argument. The list of questions below is also intended to help you as you read against the grain.
· Does the author say anything that bothers me or gives me pause?
· Are any of the writer’s claims unsupported? Or extreme?
· Does the writer draw any questionable conclusions?
· Does the writer contradict himself or herself?
· Do I disagree with any of the writer’s claims or assumptions?
· Are there reasons not to trust this writer?
· Does the writer leave out anything important?
If you find reasons to question the author or flaws in the argument, make notes in the margin of your paper.
After Round 2: After you have critically read both texts, discuss these prompts with your groupmates, but fill out your own set of responses.
· What is each author’s weakest claim? Why do you say so? If there is no consensus in your group, write your own responses to these questions.
· Some might say that both authors are biased (Kristof works for a newspaper, and Hauser works for a Web site that’s actually called “The Daily Me”). Is bias a reason to dismiss someone’s argument? Since they might both be biased, do you find one author more credible than the other? What is this based on?
· Ask yourself this question for each of the texts: Does this text appeal to my biases or challenge them? Put an X on the spectrum and explain its position.
Kristof: Appeals to my biases ------------------------------------------------------------Challenges my biases
Hauser: Appeals to my biases-------------------------------------------------------------Challenges my biases
Video Texts 2-5 – Busari, “How Fake News Does Real Harm,” Pariser, “Beware Online Filter Bubbles,” Galante, “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the U.S. Elections,” and Tufecki, “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads”
Summarizing and Responding
This is a vital activity in the arc of the module, and students need to understand all three required TED Talks (there is an optional fourth). In this activity, students map the argument made in a Ted Talk, and then they summarize the TED Talk’s key points for others. These videos springboard the module’s conversation forward from 2009 into evolved concerns related to personalization on the Internet.
The TED Talks vary in complexity. Try to calibrate the activity so that students have a challenging but achievable task – not so challenging as to frustrate them into quitting, but not so scaffolded that students get bored or miss an opportunity to grow as learners and meaning-makers. Consider, will you use the information below to create student-groupings yourself and differentiate instruction, or will you give students the information they need to wisely self-select which TED Talk they will take notes on, map, and ultimately summarize for others?
Appendix B offers you multiple scaffolds for this activity – too many. They are provided as a menu of options. Avoid bogging down the activity by arbitrarily assigning scaffolds to students who do not need them. For example, of all the options provided, a teacher might give one small group a partially-filled out graphic organizer while providing a different group with vocabulary words to preview. Another option is to make the scaffolding available to students as options to use if they see the need. Remember, almost no students would need all of the supports provided in order to make meaning of the text, and many students will not need any support at all.
Whatever supports you might make available to students, what follows is the basic activity.
Before setting students to work on the TED Talks:
1. Discuss the verb “curate,” since all the presentations in relate somehow to the idea of a curated Internet. “Mixtapes are curated music; museums are curated objects. What do you think it means when someone talks about ‘curated’ Internet content? Is curating a museum an important job? If you curated a museum or a mixtape badly, what would that mean? How is ‘curating’ different from ‘censorship’?”
2. Ask students to review the notes they made after taking notes on “The Big Sort.” What advice did they give themselves about taking notes from a video?
3. If you believe some students may be unfamiliar with the TED Talk Web site features, lead students through a quick review, including the interactive written transcript for the video, which allows you to click anywhere in the text to make the video jump to that spot, and the settings wheel which allows you to speed up and slow down the speaker’s speed. Then have students make a plan for taking useful notes.
4. Assign Ted Talks to students, or guide them through the process of choosing. Whether you differentiate instruction by assigning videos to particular students or by giving them information to make their own wise choices (see below for Notes on the Ted Talks), divide the three to four TED Talks fairly evenly amongst students so grouping them afterwards for sharing will be easier.
Have students individually take notes on their assigned video. Once students have taken their own notes, group together students who watched the same video and have them map the argument. Make blank argument maps available to students who would like to use them.
Finally, coordinate the jigsaw portion of this activity. You could regroup students, ideally with two representatives of each TED Talk per group, so they can share a thorough summary of the video that they watched with students who didn’t see it and vice versa. Alternatively, you could leave students in video-alike groups, and the reporting of summaries could be done in brief, informal slide presentations to the class, which might allow you more opportunity to monitor the quality and accuracy of each group’s summary.
Once students have reported out their videos to one another, give students time to work through the Connections Self-Check before engaging them in the formative assessment quickwrite / class discussion.
Throughout this process, encourage students to make connections to the previous readings and to their own lives, because this activity leads directly into Activity 14: Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives.
Formative Assessment: In students’ quickwrites (or in a culminating class discussion), look for students to recognize the redefinition of “personalization.” Kristof and Hauser were arguing the relative benefits of setting one’s own news filters. Now, algorithms are setting the filters.
Notes on the TED Talks:
Here are brief introductions to each “talk” that appear on the respective TED Web pages, along with some commentary about text complexity. The presentations range from around seven to ten minutes long.
· “How Fake News Does Real Harm”: On April 14, 2014, the terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 schoolgirls from the town of Chibok, Nigeria. Around the world, the crime became epitomized by the slogan #BringBackOurGirls – but in Nigeria, government officials called the crime a hoax, confusing and delaying efforts to rescue the girls. In this powerful talk, journalist Stephanie Busari points to the Chibok tragedy to explain the deadly danger of fake news and what we can do to stop it.
- The argument is made by telling a story. There are some visuals to support the narrative. Some inferences are required, but the argument is largely straightforward. These are the questions at issue: “How does fake news do real harm, and what can we do about it?” Even if students are not already familiar with The Chibok Girls or Boko Haram, the TED Talk provides enough information for most students to understand their place in the story.
· “Beware Online ‘Filter Bubbles’”: As Web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview. Eli Pariser argues powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be bad for us and bad for democracy.
- The argument deals largely with abstract ideas, but there are helpful everyday examples with visuals. These are the questions at issue: “What are online filter bubbles, are they bad, and what should be done?” Helpful background knowledge, among other things, includes experience with online searches, social media, Netflix, and Facebook. Some vocabulary may be new to students.
· “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the US Election”: Hacking, fake news, information bubbles…all these and more have become part of the vernacular in recent years. But as cyberspace analyst Laura Galante describes in this alarming talk, the real target of anyone looking to influence geopolitics is dastardly simple: it’s you.
- This TED Talk is packed with ideas, and it deals with abstractions without visual aids. These are the questions at issue: “Why did Russians hack the US election in 2016, what are their tactics, and what can we do about it?” Helpful background knowledge, among other things, could include a basic familiarity with Vladimir Putin, Wikileaks, and the hack of the Democratic National Committee in 2016; however, familiarity with spy thrillers would be helpful in terms of understanding specialized vocabulary and various anecdotes that are offered as examples. There will likely be new vocabulary for many students.
· Portion of “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads” (03:22-12:58) OPTIONAL: We're building an artificial-intelligence-powered dystopia, one click at a time, says techno-sociologist Zeynep Tufekci. In an eye-opening talk, she details how the same algorithms companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon use to get you to click on ads are also used to organize your access to political and social information…
- This Ted Talk deals with abstract information, but the speaker tries to use familiar situations and accessible analogies to make her points. For the portion of the presentation that students watch, these are the questions at issue: How have artificial intelligence and algorithms changed the way people are targeted with ads or political messages? What are the problems with these new systems? Because one aim of Tufekci’s presentation is to explain what artificial intelligence and learning algorithms are and what they can do, basic background knowledge about AI would put students one step ahead.
Activity 13: Summarizing and Responding – Updating the Conversation
So far in this module, we have been examining texts written in 2009 about personalized news on the Internet. In this activity, you and your classmates will watch various TED Talks which help to update the conversation.
Step 1: Take notes on your assigned TED Talk, working to understand the speaker’s main idea, claims, and support. Most students will combine viewing the TED Talk and reading the transcript to do this.
When you are confident that you understand the speaker’s big ideas and supporting points, work with your groupmates to complete an argument map as completely and accurately as you can. If you would like to use a graphic organizer, ask your teacher for one.
Your argument map should include answers to these questions:
1. Who is the speaker, and what are his or her credentials?
2. What is the speaker’s world view? (i.e., What do they value? Not value?)
5. What are the questions at issue? (i.e., What questions are they answering?)
6. What is the speaker’s purpose?
7. What is the speaker’s main claim and/or call to action?
8. What reasons and support does the speaker offer to back up his/her main claim or call to action?
Be prepared to report out to your group about these questions:
· Think about the types of claims your speaker is making, and look for cited sources. Does this TED Talk benefit or sufferfrom having or lacking citations? Or links to source material? If seemed credible without citations, why did you think so? If you feel it would have benefited from citations, which specific ideas are you thinking about?
· Did you have questions for the author? Places where you disagreed? Why? How could you follow up on those questions?
· When you watched the Ted Talk, which was harder for you—to listen with the grain or to listen against the grain?
Step 2: Using your argument map as a guide, summarize the TED Talk that you watched. Share this with peers who have not seen it and listen to their summaries of the other TED Talks. Listen for new problems and listen for connections. How does each TED Talk relate to the issue of personalized news? In any of the videos, do you see connections to the Magic Sauce Web site or “The Big Sort” video? How do the TED Talks relate to each other? How do they change the conversation we have been having in this module?
Connections Self-Check
❏ How is the kind of personalization discussed in The Daily Me texts from 2009 different than the kind of personalization being discussed now?
❏ What’s a connection between one of the TED Talks and the idea of personalization on the Internet?
❏ What’s a connection between one of the TED Talks and any of the other resources that we have read or watched so far?
Three-Sentence Quickwrite or Culminating Class Discussion: How have technological advances changed the conversation about personalizing the Internet? What are the implications?
Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives
Note to the Teacher About Planning: If you plan to use the alternate writing assignment, a letter to the editor, you will conduct this activity through the end of Step 2, and then move to Appendix E. If you use the alternate writing assignment, teach the rest of the module from Appendix E. See the module overview for a brief description of the culminating task options.
In this activity, students will be synthesizing big ideas from the resources that they have read and watched throughout the module. This activity is not going to organize students’ thoughts. Rather, the purpose of this activity is to help students see connections and implications between the module’s interrelated resources. The collection of these interrelationships onto one page could result in quite a mess.
Generating such a sophisticated understanding makes for an excellent opportunity to teach students about narrowing a topic. The quickwrite students complete at the end of this sequence—in which they identify one problem on the concept map worth solving—provides the focus for the culminating writing assignment, so those papers must be kept safe for review in Activity 17.
Begin by giving students time to review the various notes they have collected over the course of the unit, including the vocabulary handout, initial predictions about the texts, argument maps, video summaries, various quickwrites, and the like. Before the mapping begins, students should use these resources to review some of the big ideas within the module so far.
All around the outer edge of the classroom’s whiteboard or a large piece of butcher paper, create headings for the many resources students have worked with in the module: “Apply Magic Sauce,” “The Big Sort,” “The Daily Me,” various TED Talks, etc. Have your students create a matching map (ideally on 11x17 ledger paper).
Step 1: Ask students, “What are the main ideas, best points, or big takeaways associated with each of these texts?” Organize students’ responses on the whiteboard, leaving white space in the middle of the map. Students should do the same on their 11x17 maps.
Sample entries: Algorithms can target messages to people’s values and fears; hanging out with like-minded people can cause the “risky shift”; personalized news might contribute to filter bubbles; Russia’s tactics are hacking our brains and human nature, not our computer networks; the algorithms don’t have ethics about how they curate information or target people; etc.
Step 2: Ask students, “Where do you see connections between the different sources?” As students connect ideas in different texts, draw a line between them; if the ideas are in a cause/effect relationship, make the line an arrow pointing from cause to effect. Students need not draw any lines yet, but if they choose to do so, the lines should be penciled in lightly (dark lines may make it visually confusing).
Sample entries: Algorithms like Magic Sauce that personalize the Internet are putting us into filter bubbles; Galante and Busari both say that we should pay more attention to why stories get posted; Russia wants us to become more polarized; thoughtlessly forwarding fake news caused harm to others in Busari’s story and harm to ourselves in Galante’s Ted Talk; Magic Sauce makes it easier for people to target us with things we are more likely to thoughtlessly click; online filter bubbles are contributing to polarizing groups; we are more likely to believe fake news in a filter bubble; etc.
Note to teacher: If your students’ culminating assignment will be a letter to the editor, turn to Appendix E, and begin with the Activity 15A you find there. Continue teaching the rest of the module from Appendix E.
Step 3: Whether students work on their own or discuss this step with others, they will use the concept map to identify a problem, and that problem will become the focus of their upcoming writing assignment. After identifying a focus, students will use a marker to make connections between texts, but only connections relevant to their topic.
Formative Assessment: Review the 3-sentence quickwrites to determine students’ readiness to move into problem-solving mode. Students are well-positioned to choose an app to review if they have identified a clear problem, its negative effects, and an element of the problem that an individual might be able to control. If you collect these quickwrites for review, keep them safe; students will need to use these quickwrites in Activity 17.
Planning Note to Teacher: Appendix E is the Alternative Writing Task and its activities. If you choose to use the alternative writing task, a Letter to the Editor, students will complete Activity 14 Step 2, then continue with Activity 15-Alt in Appendix E and continue until the end of Appendix E. All activities in Appendix E are labeled “Alt” as an extension to avoid confusion.
Activity 14: Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives with a Concept Map
Life is full of opportunities to sort through multiple viewpoints in order to decide what you care about most. In this activity, you will map connections between the various texts and media that you have read and watched. Then you will identify an idea that stands out to you as a problem, and that problem will become the focus of future assignments.
Step 1: Whole Class Discussion
What are the main ideas, best points, and big takeaways associated with each of the resources from this module? As your teacher organizes ideas on the whiteboard, capture them, too, on your own version of the concept map. Then, help your teacher find connections between the ideas in various sources, and your teacher will connect those ideas with a line. If the relationship is between a cause and an effect, the line will become an arrow.
Step 2: On Your Own
From your own perspective, identify something on this concept map that is a problem worth solving. (Remember, if something is a problem, you should be able to describe its negative effects.) Write the problem in the center of your concept map and circle it. Then, using a marker or highlighter, draw lines and arrows between texts that have to do with the problem you identified.
Three-Sentence Quickwrite:
Briefly explain the problem you identified and its negative effects. Then, looking at your concept map, identify and explain at least one factor contributing to the problem that is within your control.
People waste time with junk food information, so we are poorly informed and can even make our filter bubble worse when algorithms use our clicks to decide to send us more junk food information. But I can control what I click.
Fake news can really hurt people. It can make lots of people misinformed, especially if they are in a filter bubble, and polarize us. Sometimes it even gives governments like Nigeria’s an excuse to not do the right thing. I can be more careful about what I forward.
People are trapped in filter bubbles..., but we can seek out other viewpoints.
Americans are polarized..., but we can control our confirmation bias.
People with agendas are targeting us using personality profiles…, but I can control my response to posts that push my buttons.
Reflecting on Your Reading Process
Give students dedicated time to reflect on their progress.
Activity 15: Reflecting on Your Reading Process
In your Reflection Journal, review the learning goals you set for yourself at the beginning of this module and reflect on your progress so far. Add a follow-up reflection in your journal which responds to these questions:
· Which goals have you made progress toward?
· In terms of reading both with and against the grain, which of the texts for this module presented a greater challenge for you, and why?
· What topic or current issue would provide a serious challenge for you to read about both with and against the grain? Why do you say so?
· How useful is it to escape a filter bubble if you don’t listen to people with and against the grain?
Preparing to Respond
Discovering What You Think
Planning Note to Teacher: Students are investigating apps at home while the class works with the Kialo review.
Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Analyzing the Writing Task
This activity is designed to support your students in breaking down and understanding the writing task. Depending on your student population, you may consider grouping or pairing students to analyze this writing task and subsequent ones until they demonstrate the ability to work independently.
Note: While the prompt specifically directs students to find an “app,” they may use any mobile app, add-on, browser extension, platform, or software solution that claims to address their chosen problem.
Activity 16: Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Analyzing the Writing Task
Understanding what the writing task asks you to do is the first important step in the writing process. Read through the below passage the first time with the grain, paying attention to your general understanding of the focus and purpose.
In this 21st century reality of personalized news-feeds, Web searches, and social media content, we are inundated by information; sometimes we contribute to that flood with media we create or forward. As if that weren’t enough, now the information we come across online might be crafted to appeal to our personal biases and fears. In the texts we’ve read, both authors assume the importance of trying to understand issues from a variety of perspectives, but how best to do so remains an important question.
Just as there are apps that claim to reduce stress or curb addiction, there are also apps that claim to address various problems associated with the deluge of 21st-century information. Using our readings, videos, discussions, andwriting, identify one problem related to that deluge of information and find an app that claims to address it. Write a review of that app that explains the problem, why it needs to be solved, and the extent to which the app does so.
Read the writing task again against the grain, annotating for areas that need a deeper examination or clarification. Then use the following questions to fully break down the task and plan your process.
· Circle the key terms and define them in the margins. What do you need to understand to do this review?
Personalized news feeds, 21st-century information, inundation, personal biases, and fears, deluge, review
· Underline the verbs. What do you need to do in this review?
Identify a key problem, find an app, write a review, explain
· Do you fully understand all parts of the task? What questions do you still have?
How long does my review have to be? What if I can’t find an app for the problem I chose?
· How will you get started? What material do you already have to help you with this task?
I can look back at the arguments maps we created for several of the readings. This can help get me started defining a key issue which can then lead me to finding the right app or other resource.
Gathering Relevant Ideas and Materials – Choosing an App
This activity begins with students reviewing their Activity 14 quickwrite, in which they identified a problem related to this module and an element of that problem that they might be able to control.
This activity requires online access since students are now tasked with finding an app, browser extension, platform, or other software solution that attempts to solve, or at least ameliorate, the problem that they identified. If they can’t find an app that directly addresses the problem, have them look for an app that tries to deal with a controllable contributing factor. (For example, they can’t control Google’s algorithms, but they can try to seek information outside their filter bubble. They can’t control Russian hackers and trolls, but they can control their response to the sensationalistic news. If they cannot find a software solution for the former, perhaps there is for the latter).
Ask students to find the apps (or add-ons, browser extensions, platforms, software solutions) on their own, but here is a list of some. Not all apps can be investigated by all students (the list below includes a Twitter add-on, a Facebook add-on, an app that only works on iPhones, etc.), so work with students to be sure they choose something they will be able to engage with.
Privacy Apps and Extensions (for not-personalized searches):
· DuckDuckGo: Unfiltered searches and privacy protection
· Privacy settings on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
· Startpage Web Search
· Chrome add-on – VanillaGoogle
· Chrome Incognito Mode
Fact Checking/Fake News Apps and Extensions:
· Settle It! Politifact’s Argument Ender
· RealDonaldContext
· Politifact's Truth-O-Meter app
Filter Bubble/Confirmation Bias Apps, Extensions, and Platform:
· FlipFeed
· Quora (Platform, like Kialo)
Activity 17: Gathering Relevant Ideas and Materials – Choosing an App
In your quickwrite from Activity 14, you identified a problem related to the ideas we have been discussing during this module. Now, search online to find an app (or add-on, browser extension, platform, or any other software solution) that claims to solve the problem. If you can’t find an app-based solution to your identified problem, look for one that addresses the factor you said you could control.
What are search terms that might help you find an app? What resources might discuss apps like this?
As you initially look at your options, make sure you have access to the appropriate technology to investigate an app before you choose it. For example, you can’t test Flip Feed without a Twitter account.
Mentor Text 1 – Craft, “Kialo Is an Internet Unicorn”
Gathering Relevant Ideas and Materials – Analyzing Apps
Now that students have chosen an app for review, they will need to explore and investigate it. In the first section of this activity, students will preview the types of information they will be expected to glean from their investigation and the graphic organizer they will use to collect it.
The second section of this activity will use the Kialo Web site as a model for how to explore an app’s features, claims, strengths, limitations, and attention to the audience. (In Activity 20, a review of Kialo will also provide students insight into the writing task). It is useful to emphasize to students that a careful examination of cause and effect reasoning is helpful in exploring questions of value. Teachers should familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Kialo site (https://www.kialo.com) before introducing it to students.
Teachers can lead a whole class exploration of Kialo with questioning, demonstration, and discussion, or students can choose one of the Web site’s discussion topics to explore and share their findings with the whole class.
At the close of this lesson, the timeline for conducting investigations should be given to students. Activities 19 and 20, centered on analyzing the genre of app reviews are designed to be completed in class, providing students with some time to conduct their exploration of apps outside of class.
Formative Assessment: To ensure that students have evaluated the app critically for both its strengths and limitations (in other words, used the app with and against the grain), check in with a reflection. If students have not considered both strengths and limitations, they lack enough critical awareness of the app to write a substantial and balanced review.
Activity 18: Gathering Relevant Ideas and Materials – Analyzing Apps
Now that you have identified an app or Web site that claims to address your key problem, your next step is to explore it “with and against the grain.” Preview the graphic organizer and then take Cornell Style Notes on the following elements which you can use to complete the graphic organizer.
Step 1: Preview the Task of Investigating an App
· App Name/Web site
· Problem it claims to address
· Methodology
· User Interface
· Strengths
· Limitations
· Attention to Audience? Inattention?
Step 2: Practice Investigating an App
Before you investigate and evaluate the app you have chosen to review, we will practice by investigating a software solution called Kialo.
Preview the Kialo Web site’s homepage: https://www.kialo.com
· What key problem does Kialo claim to address? What is Kialo’s purpose?
Polarization, alternative viewpoints. Kialo’s purpose is to facilitate productive conversations from a variety of viewpoints, foster critical thinking, productive decision making and debate.
· Who is the intended audience and users? How do you know?
People interested in learning about and discussing current events, students, teachers. There are short, separate paragraphs that target each group.
Once you have answered and discussed the Preview questions, scroll to the bottom of the Kialo homepage and select “Learn More” to explore Kialo’s methodology—that is, the methods it uses and how they work—https://www.kialo.com/tour/.
Choose a discussion topic. Once a discussion topic is chosen, the site will take you to the background and discussion topology page. Read through the background information. Explore the topic thoroughly then answer the below questions:
· What is the question at issue?
(Various answers depending on a topic chosen)
· What does “topology” mean? What does it mean paired with the word “Discussion”?
It means the study of a surface so maybe it means the study of the surface of the discussion. A graphic representation of the discussion.
· What’s the purpose of the discussion topology?
It lets the users see a picture of the discussion and lets them explore it in a non-linear way.
· Does Kialo seem to accomplish its purpose? How do you know?
(Answers will vary.)
· Is Kialo user-friendly? How so? What features are frustrating and which enhance the user experience? Is the user experience appealing to the various audiences?
· What are Kialo’s strengths and limitations?
· Would you recommend Kialo as a tool to help address the key problem? Why or why not?
Rapid Reflection
Which questions asked you to evaluate the app “with the grain”? Which questions asked you to evaluate “against the grain”? How can you evaluate your own app with and against the grain? What reading strategies can you transfer to this type of online interaction?
Step 3: Independent Exploration and Investigation
Now it is time for you to evaluate your chosen app, browser extension, platform, or another software program. Approach the task thoughtfully, adapting the process we have practiced as needed for the product you will be reviewing. Pay attention to cause and effect reasoning as you explore this question of the app’s value. Your teacher will let you know when this evaluation needs to be completed.
App Name/Web Site Address:
Problem it claims to address, its purpose, and mission statement?
It claims to:
Its purpose is to:
How does it attempt to solve the problem? What are its features?
It works by:
Where does it succeed in solving the problem? Strengths?
It’s successful in:
Its strengths are:
Where does it fail to solve the problem? Limitations?
It fails to:
Its limitations are:
Describe the user interface experience
It’s user-friendly because:
It’s not user-friendly because:
Who seems to be their audience? What are their needs?
It seems to be targeting:
Mentor Texts 2-3 – Aubrey, “Mindfulness Apps Aim to Help People Disconnect from Stress” and Leigh and Flatt, “App-based Psychological Interventions: Friend or Foe?”
Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Analyzing the Genre Expectations of App Reviews
An app review is a new genre for many students and teachers in an academic setting. Most students are familiar with the star-rating type of app review, but this app review is more comprehensive than that.
The purpose of this genre analysis activity is for students to recognize that a review is a genre—that it has structure, organization, language, and common features suited for its purpose. They will use the rhetorical strategies they’ve practiced in this module to help them identify the features of a review, but teachers may choose to scaffold the genre analysis by using a combination of small group discussion, structured sharing, and whole class discussion for the first review, and then allow students to work more independently as groups for the second review. A genre analysis has been completed for each of the reviews (the mentor texts are included with the module texts) with the analysis as marginal comments.
Note: See Appendix C for an EPT rubric that has been modified to include purpose, audience, context, and genre considerations. Consider using this rubric for future assignments that also emphasize these demands.
Activity 19: Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Analyzing the Genre Expectations of App Reviews
Survey NPR’s “Mindfulness Apps Aim To Help People Disconnect From Stress” for features such as organization, structure and language choices.
· What does the title imply about the article’s purpose? Rephrase the title into a question.
Evaluate apps that help stress, raise awareness of mindfulness. Are mindfulness apps useful to help with stress?
· Where was it published? Who might read this publication and why?
National Public Radio. Educated, over 20, people who are stressed, interested in mindfulness and in apps.
· What kind of language does it use?
Language seems easy to read, but also sounds educated.
· What does all this tell you about the intended audience, their values, and their expectations?
It tells us that NPR values information that is interesting and keeps up with current events but also needs information to have credible sources and evidence
Now that you have a feel for speaker, intended audience and purpose, you will examine a completed genre analysis – in other words, an analysis of the features of the review genre in order to understand how reviews are organized, structured and developed.
The genre analysis has been completed in the marginal comments. Read the marginal comments, noticing that a genre analysis breaks the texts into meaningful chunks that are analyzed for purpose and effect on the readers. Annotate the comments for patterns, features and items of interest.
Survey “App-based Psychological Interventions: Friend or Foe?” for features such as headings, citations, organization, structure and language.
· What does the title imply about the article’s purpose? Rephrase the title into a different question.
The purpose might be to review whether using apps as psychological interventions is beneficial or destructive. Is it helpful or harmful to use an app for psychological problems?
· Where was it published? Who might read this publication and why?
It was published in Evidence-Based Mental Health Journal. Mental health professionals, researchers. They might read it to add to their professional practice or as a research source.
· What kind of language does it use?
It uses academic language and research jargon.
· What does all this tell you about the intended audience, including their values and expectations?
It expects the audience to understand the language and context and to expect all the claims to have researched sources. The audience values academic research and language.
Now that you have a feel for speaker, intended audience and purpose, you will examine a second completed genre analysis. Read the marginal comments, annotating for patterns, differences and similarities with the first genre analysis.
After answering the survey questions, reading and annotating both genre analyses, discuss your answers and annotations with a partner. Then discuss and answer these questions:
Consider each review’s features such as voice, structure, accessibility, attention to audience and organization:
· What are the shared characteristics of these two reviews?
Both reviews share an organizational pattern that first introduces the problem, the potential solution, its strengths, weaknesses and how to move forward.
· How do these reviews differ?
They differ in length, types of evidence and language.
· How does each review pay attention to the audience?
The NPR review is shorter, uses anecdotal evidence and more reasoning, while the second review is much longer, uses research-based evidence and academic language.
· What are the absolute conventions of a review that you will need to include in yours?
The organization pattern, careful evaluation of strengths and limitations of an app, credible sources/evidence, counterargument, attention to the audience.
· What features will be useful for your review?
Headings, purposeful title
· Which features won’t be useful for your review?
File this behind the ERWC tab in your binder or online folder.
Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Considering the Kialo Review as a Model for Your Own Writing
The Kialo review is included last to provide students with a model that contributes to students’ understanding of the review genre, right before they start composing their own review. While it shares the other reviews’ features, it focuses on a specific app, has a more distinct voice, and is attentive to a wider, internet-specific audience, providing students with a more accessible model for their own review. Now that students are familiar with the process from the previous two reviews, teachers might group students to complete and discuss the first part of Activity 20.
Activity 20: Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Considering the Kialo Review as a Model for Your Own Writing
This review of the Kialo Web site provides you with a model that contributes to your understanding of the review genre, while providing you with a more accessible and appropriate model for your own review of a specific app or Web site.
Survey “Kialo Is An Internet Unicorn” noting the title (what is a unicorn and why might the author have used this term in the title?), where it was published, its language, and its organization. Think about and discuss how the intended audience might differ from the previous two reviews. Read and annotate the genre analysis of this third review, noting similarities and differences from the first two reviews.
Reflection on All Three Reviews
Reflect on the organization, language choices, structure, and features of the three reviews you read and how the reviewers responded to the needs of their audience. What is the need for your app—who needs it and why? What is the potential for the success of the app—to what extent does it work? What is the reality of the app—where does it fall short in solving the problem? How should users move forward with using the app—how should users use the app as a support for their own strategies? How will you use cause and effect reasoning to evaluate the app’s usefulness?
File this behind the ERWC tab in your binder or online folder.
Writing Rhetorically
Composing a Draft
Making Choices as You Write
As students begin to write, they benefit from revisiting the writing task with a deeper understanding of the genre and the rhetorical situation.
Activity 21: Making Choices as You Write – Revisiting the Writing Task
Reread the writing task:
In this 21st century reality of personalized news-feeds, Web searches, and social media content, we are inundated by information; sometimes we contribute to that flood with media we create or forward. As if that weren’t enough, now the information we come across online might be crafted to appeal to our personal biases and fears. In the texts we’ve read, both authors assume the importance of trying to understand issues from a variety of perspectives, but how best to do so remains an important question.
Just as there are apps that claim to reduce stress or curb addiction, there are also apps that claim to address various problems associated with the deluge of 21st-century information. Using our readings, videos, discussions, andwriting, identify one problem related to that deluge of information and find an app that claims to address it. Write a review of that app that explains the problem, why it needs to be solved, and the extent to which the app does so.
The below questions will help you brainstorm how to pay attention to the audience as you start to compose your draft.
· Who might consider using your chosen app? Why should they want to address the target problem?
People aware of information manipulation, interested in accurate, reliable and responsible information consumption and production, in a healthy democracy.
· Where is the urgency in this topic for you? For your audience?
Polarization, increasing bias, prejudice, ignorance, manipulation
· How will you demonstrate your thoughtful consideration of the app and the issues it is trying to address?
By carefully reviewing my annotations, activities, and journals, outlining and brainstorming those ideas before I begin to write; by acknowledging the complexity of the problem and the seriousness of its consequences.
· How will your activities, annotations, and notes help you craft your review? What additional resources and materials will you need?
· How will you apply what you learned about the app review genre in the genre analysis?
Identifying the key problem, causes, and effects; need to explore apps, how to write a review.
Making Choices about Learning Goals
The goal of the metacognitive activities is to provide students with the tools they need to set realistic and streamlined goals, monitor their progress, and ensure planning and adjustment time for the most challenging parts of the task. Students revisit these learning goals at the end of the module.
Activity 22: Making Choices about Learning Goals
Reflect on your previous experiences with writing, and the demands of this task as you answer these questions. You will revisit your answers at the end of the module.
1. What is going to be the hardest part of this task for you? Consider these elements of the task:
a. Explaining a key problem
b. Explaining why it’s a problem
c. Reviewing organization, structure, and features of the app.
d. Adding your own ideas and voice to the conversation
e. Demonstrating my understanding of the app and the issues it’s trying to address
2. Why do you think this will be the hardest element of the task?
3. How do you plan to deal with this potential difficulty? How should you proceed?
4. When will you start putting your plan of attack into action and how much time do you need?
5. How will you plan for each step and stage of the task?
Making Choices as You Write – Developing a Position
As students begin writing the first draft of their review, emphasize the importance of developing a position in the following rewriting activity. This activity draws on their previous work with the structure of reviews.
Activity 23: Making Choices as You Write – Developing a Position
This activity will help you organize your ideas and develop a position for your review. Often students discover after they start writing that their position is unclear. This activity will ensure that you have a clear, strong roadmap to writing your review.
Review Chunks
Purpose: What will each section do?
Effect: What effect will each chunk have on the reader?
The Need:
· What is the problem?
· Why is it a problem?
· How do I know?
Explain problem, causes, andeffects. Polarization causes people to be increasingly disconnected from opposing viewpoints, causes intolerance, discord, stagnation
Focus reader on the problem, emphasize issue and alerts people about destructive effects
The Potential:
· What is the solution?
· What are its strengths?
· How does it solve the problem? Strengths?
· How does it appeal to its audience? Is it user-friendly?
Evaluate De-polarize! app as a potential solution. It works by revealing extreme or insular views and causes users to question their own reasoning. Its strengths are the way it appeals to its audience and the counter reasoning it suggests. Very user-friendly.
Alerts readers to the app being reviewed, reassures them that there are techno-solutions that they may enjoy using, interest them by exploring app for them, outline its strengths
The Reality:
· What are its weaknesses?
· Limitations?
Counter that the app is fun at first but gets boring after depolarizing the first idea—polarized people can’t depolarize from just fifteen minutes on an app
Offer a reality check for the reader
Increase awareness of app limitations, no quick fixes
Moving Forward:
How will people develop other strategies to deal with the problem in addition to the app?
Remind readers of the seriousnessof the problem, suggest lifelong strategies to help with the problem
Reassure readers that problem is solvable but complicated and ongoing need to address, keep them on their toes, motivate them and inspire them to move forward
Who is my audience?
Young (20-30), techno-savvy, curious and interested in app-based solutions, possibly a little polarized but not extreme. Aware of polarization and dangers. Values being open-minded.
What is the urgency for them?
This audience might feel an urgent need to address their own increasing tendency to be polarized, to perhaps be able to advocate for anti-polarization.
How will I pay attention to the audience?
I’ll pay attention to the audience by determining what they value, don’t value, their evidence, language and style preferences.
Revising Rhetorically
Analyzing Your Draft Rhetorically
At this point, students have completed a rough draft. Collect student papers and provide feedback to guide students in prioritizing and revising rhetorically.
Consider asking students to respond to the questions in Activity 24 and submit the responses with their rough drafts. You can then use students’ answers to frame feedback geared towards helping them make rhetorical revisions.
Activity 24: Analyzing Your Draft Rhetorically and Gathering and Responding to Feedback
Analyzing your draft rhetorically means breaking it down into the main rhetorical elements, and examining those areas individually. Answer the below questions thoroughly and specifically in order to help guide your teacher in giving you feedback that will be useful in revising rhetorically. Your answers should be based on what your writing goals are, not necessarily whether you achieved them in this draft. For each rhetorical element, provide one key question you have about your draft.
Purpose/Focus: What is the purpose and focus of this piece of writing?
The purpose of this paper is to review and evaluate a Web site that helps users fight their confirmation bias. I am focusing on the Anti-Conf. Web site and how effective it is in helping users see their own confirmation bias, and in providing strategies to help them put aside their own biases when considering an issue or new information.
Concern: Do I stay focused enough on reviewing the app or do I give too much background information about confirmation bias?
Development for Audience: To whom are you writing? What do they value? How are your choices appropriate for your purpose, audience, and context?
My audience is 20-30 years old, tech-savvy, politically and culturally current Americans who value tech and self-improvement, as well as a less polarized culture. I’ve chosen a hip, tech-savvy language and writing style, credible resources, and thoughtful reasoning that doesn’t insult their intelligence but isn’t too academic.
Concern: How can I catch my intended audience’s attention better in the intro?
Genre/Organization: How did you organize the elements of the genre into your argument? Why?
I chunked the organization of the review by first establishing the need for the app, then the potential for the app to solve the problem, then the reality of the app-based solution, and concluding with how to move forward addressing the problem.
Concern: Are my chunks supposed to be the same length, or did I overdevelop “The Need” section?
Style/Conventions: Did you proofread critically for grammar, usage, mechanical and spelling errors that will interfere with clarity and/or damage your ethos?
I proofread for errors and clarity.
Concern: Are there areas where I am unclear that I missed? How can I improve my clarity and ethos?
Editing
Editing Your Draft
Pattern error analysis is a useful tool for students to develop independent editing skills. Many students rely on teachers or grammar check to identify their grammatical and mechanical errors instead of learning to address a skill they need to master to stop making an error.
Activity 25: Editing Your Draft
Chances are that you tend to make the same grammatical and mechanical errors when you write because it is difficult for us to recognize our own pattern of errors. This activity will help you develop the necessary skills to identify the errors you tend to repeat—in other words, patterns of errors. Since mechanical and grammatical errors affect your credibility, it’s important to address these errors and master the skills you need in order to stop repeating them.
Editing Guidelines
· If possible, set your review aside for 24 hours before rereading to find errors.
· If possible, read your essay out loud so you can hear your errors.
· Focus on individual words and sentences rather than the overall meaning. Take a sheet of paper and cover everything except the line you are reading. Then touch your pencil to each word as you read.
· Review the work you did with flow in Activity 11. Can you identify choppy sentences that could benefit from the rhetorical grammar strategies you learned for improving flow?
· With the help of your teacher or a reliable peer, figure out your own pattern of errors—the most serious and frequent errors you make. For example, you might decide that subject-verb agreement, punctuation of quotations, and sentence fragments are patterns that you need to edit for consistently.
· Only look for one type of error at a time. Then go back and look for a second type, and if necessary, a third.
· Use the dictionary to check spelling and confirm that you’ve chosen the right word for the context.
Editing Focus
Select three patterns of error that you tend to make when you write. List them, and then one at a time, look for them in your essay and make corrections.
1.
2.
3.
Reflecting on Your Writing Process
Students should review the Learning Goals they drafted in Activity 22; Making Choices About Learning Goals.
Formative Assessment: Student should add these responses to their Reflection Journal, which will allow them to monitor their own progress over time.
Activity 26: Reflecting on Your Writing Process
Review the Learning Goals you wrote in response to the writing task, and then respond to the questions in your reflection journal.
1. What was the hardest part of the task for you? Was it what you thought it would be? If not, why? How might this change how you approach your next writing task?
2. How did you deal with the hardest part of the task? Was your approach effective? How can you further refine the approach for the next writing task?
3. What are the strengths of your paper? Why do you consider them strengths?
4. What are the weaknesses of your paper? Why, and what do you plan to do to continue strengthening these rhetorical concerns?
5. What did you learn from this assignment about your own writing process, and what are the implications of what you learned for future writing tasks?
Reflecting on Your Learning Goals
Before guiding students to this final reflection, emphasize the rationale for setting learning goals and monitoring their own progress toward their goals. Remind them that this metacognitive habit of mind not only improves learning, it helps develop lifelong learners.
Activity 27: Reflecting on Your Learning Goals
How useful would it be to escape a filter bubble if you don’t listen to people’s viewpoints both with and against the grain? At the beginning of this module, you set some personal goals around reading with and against the grain. You also set writing goals before composing your review.
Review those goals in your Reflection Journal and reflect on your process of working towards those goals. What skills have you developed? Where might you be able to use those skills outside of English class? Which goals should you keep in place? What do you need to do moving forward to continue strengthening those skills?
Write your final reflection for this module in your Reflection Journal.
Reflecting on Your Teaching Process
Review the goals you set for yourself at the start of the module. What practices will you carry forward or intentionally develop in order to foster a classroom culture conducive to reading (and listening) both with and against the grain? Look ahead to future modules. Where do you anticipate challenges to open-minded inquiry, and how will you plan for them?
Then read your students’ self-reflection with a notepad and pen. Write down common areas of student achievement, clarity, andconfidence. Then write down repeated areas of student confusion and/or frustration, performing your own type of pattern analysis. What implications are there for your future teaching? How will you reflect those implications in your teaching goals for the next module?
Appendix A: Protocol for Supporting Equitable Discussion
Some students love to jump right into conversation while others are reticent to speak or simply like to ponder a question before they say anything. This can mean that some students do a lot more talking – and possibly thinking – during small group discussions. The activity described below is an adapted version of “Talking Chips” (Barkley et al.), to encourage equitable engagement among students while allowing you to monitor it.
How to Use the Chips
· Each group member begins with a certain allotment of “chips.” Five to seven is usually a good place to start.
· Each time students make a thoughtful addition to the conversation, they add one of their chips to the “pot.” When students are out of chips, they may not contribute to the conversation anymore until they get a chip refill.
· Chip refills occur when every group-member is out of chips. Re-divide the pot so each group member has five-seven chips again, and continue the conversation.
How the Rounds Work
· The teacher poses a different question for each round.
· Consider assigning at least one student per group as a notetaker during each round. This responsibility rotates to new people each round.
· When each round ends, the note taker(s) will synthesize the notes into a concise response to the question, double-check it with the team, and write it down. If the teacher asks students to report out after each round, this is also the notetakers’ responsibility.
Appendix B: Optional Study Guides for Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives (TEACHER VERSION)
Remember, few if any students will need all the scaffolds on the following handouts. Provide only those that will support your students in a successful struggle, or allow them to choose which ones they need. Alternatively, rather than hand out any of these supports, you could use the “unpacking sentences” provided for formative assessment as you wander the room and check in with small groups.
Scaffolding Supports for “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the US Election”
I. Context or Background Knowledge
This TED Talk assumes you have basic background knowledge on some topics (see the list below). If these subjects are unfamiliar to you, will you look them up in advance, or see if you can figure them out from context before looking them up? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance?
· Democratic National Committee (DNC) Hack of 2016
· Vladimir Putin, his autocratic tendencies, and his attitude toward the United States
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms
Below are some words and phrases Galante uses to make her point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
insidious, exploit/exploitable, amplify/amplified, vulnerability, feckless, camouflaged, [espionage] operations
“gets under your skin,” “online personas,” “took the bait,” “land grab,” “sensational narrative,” “catch-22,” and “a nation-state’s strategic interest”
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. In :01-1:23, who is the “you” she refers to? In 1:24, who is the “you?” In 2:51, who is the “we?”
The first “you” is Putin. It is describing how annoyed he is with western democracies. In 1:24, the “you” is American listeners; she is assuming we know about the hack of the DNC. In 2:51, “we” is describing American cyber professionals who had figured out the Russians were the hackers behind that hack and other operations.
2. What is “reflexive control?” How might reflexive control connect with clickbait? Confirmation bias?
“Reflexive control” is a tactic the Russians use to influence people and get what they want. Instead of trying to persuade people to change their minds about something, instead they trigger people to follow their own beliefs, but doing it in a way that helps the Russians out. Galante says the Russians want us to question our democracy. So, clickbait is useful for Russians, because that is a great way to tempt us with what we already believe or find interesting. Maybe they are counting on our confirmation bias when they try to trigger us with sensational stories or clickbait.
3. How has the United States prepared for cyber warfare, and what did the Russians do, instead?
Galante says the US tried to protect our computer networks, but the Russians realized that our phones gave them instant access to our brains.
4. What is the “new brand of state-sponsored information operations” that she refers to in 5:44?
The Russians are hacking peoples’ minds, which is especially easy now that we have devices that bring us personalized information. So, they use that access to send us juicy stories we will latch onto, so we get them to trend and then the stories end up all over the news, too. All the noise covers up what they are actually doing, or it divides Americans, or helps them somehow.
5. She offers an example in 6:49. What is it an example of, and how is it supposed to support her point?
This is an example of how Russia leaked hacked information that got Europe mad at the US. It became such a big thing that no one paid attention and everyone just let Russia invade Crimea.
6. How does Galante describe the cause/effect relationship between mainstream news media and social media? What seems to be her concern about this relationship, and why?
When social media gets trending, then the news media just picks up the story. It’s like Russia can just bait the hook with a good story—fake or real. It makes it easy for Russia to hide what they are doing. She wishes we would stop and ask ourselves WHY a story has been leaked.
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Galante’s overall argument. Return to the transcript, because context will help.
1. (Paragraph at 02:29). You’ll need to turn their most powerful asset—an open mind—into their greatest vulnerability.”
The “you” is Putin. She is describing his approach to using Americans’ free speech and open access to information as a weapon to use against us.
2. (Paragraph at 5:44) “If you can get a hashtag trending on Twitter, or chum the waters with fake news directed to audiences primed to receive it, or drive journalists to dissect terabytes of email for a scent of impropriety – all tactics used in Russian operations—then you’ve got a shot at effectively camouflaging your operations in the mind of your target.”
If Russians can send out a bit of information that social media or the news media will run with, whether it’s a leak of something true or just fake news, we don’t notice it’s actually a Russian information operation. It makes it hard for people to fight against, because we don’t even know what’s happening. And magic sauce technology would make it easy for Russians to target the right people with messages that will get their attention. And we might have helped spread the news in the first place?
3. (Paragraph at 07:30) “But how meaningful is that truth if you don’t know why it’s being revealed to you?”
Here she is talking about how hacked phone calls and emails grab headlines, but that might be exactly how America is getting played by the Russians. When hacked material is released, she wants us to ask why someone had released it.
4. (Paragraph at 07:30) “So while hacked phone calls and emails and networks keep grabbing the headlines, the real operations that are the ones that are influencing the decisions you make and the opinions you hold, all in the service of a nation-state’s strategic interest.”
In this sentence, she is focusing on the idea that the Russians are targeting people one-by-one with massages that will trigger them in a way that will support whatever Russian agenda they are working on—dividing Americans, making us question democracy, invading Crimea—whatever. When we pay so much attention to the hacked phone calls and emails, we might be missing the more important bigger picture.
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the US Election”
Speaker and Credentials: Laura Galante, a cyber analyst with a lot of experience and a well-documented TED Talk.
Speaker’s Ideology: The speaker values democracy, the free-thinking that characterizes democracy, and the critical thinking that will withstand Russian attempts to exploit it
Question(s) at Issue: Why did Russians hack the US election in 2016, what are their tactics, and what can we do about it?
Speaker’s Purpose: To make Americans aware that Russians are trying to divide Americans and they are hacking our brains to do it.
Main Claim and/or Call to Action: She calls on Americans to think critically about information, especially “sensational narratives” they see promoted on social media, and to question why—for what purpose—information has been posted.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Russians were responsible for the 2016 DNC hack and others, in order to make Americans question democracy.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Russians use “reflexive control” operations to hide what they are doing.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Our phones make us very exploitable – a “perfect back door” into our minds.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Evidence/Example
American cybersecurity people had labeled the Russian group of hackers as APT28 back in 2014.
Evidence/Example
America has been spending its time trying to protect computer networks, when the Russians figured out that social media gave them direct access to individuals’ minds.
Evidence/Example
“Reflexive control” is a known Russian tactic and it describes the tactic of somehow pushing someone to acton what they already believe when that action helps the “pusher.”
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Research teams across the world recognized APT28’s activities.
Evidence/Example
She offers two examples of Russians leaking juicy stories and helping them go viral, which the news media picked up. The division caused was the goal of those operations.
Evidence/Example
Your phone gives you a constant flow of personalized information, and that is exactly what Russians can use to get their stories trending.
Evidence/Example
Scaffolding Supports for “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads” (Watch from 03:22-12:58)
I. Context or Background Knowledge
This TED Talk assumes you have basic background knowledge on some topics (see the list below). If these subjects are unfamiliar to you, will you look them up in advance, or see if you can figure them out from context before looking them up? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance?
Artificial Intelligence (a.k.a. machine learning) and “learning algorithms”
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms:
Below are some words and phrases Tufekci uses to make her point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
persuasion architecture, deployed, matrix/matrices, surveillance, benign, entice, profile (verb), mobilize/demobilize, susceptible, implausible
bipolar and bipolar manic phase; “increasing order of…”; “minding the store”
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. What is the difference Tufekci describes between the way people used to be targeted with ads and how it can be done now?
Before, advertisers could only target demographics. Now they can target us personally, and they can do so on our phone, so it’s private, and no one else sees it. Different people get different messages. It’s artificial intelligence algorithms that make this possible.
2. What kinds of data might be collected about you when you are online? What are different reasons why?
Seems like they collect everything online. Facebook collects everything you ever typed. It has your private messages, your likes, your photos. There are people who sell your offline data, too, like your financial data. It helps the algorithms learn even more about you, and it helps advertisers target you with things you are more likely to buy.
3. What point is Tufekci trying to make when she uses the example of someone with bipolar disorder?
She is making the point that the algorithms don’t have ethics. Also, she makes the point that there is no one who actually knows how the algorithms are targeting people. They are processing too much information for a human to figure out, so that means humans are not in control of who gets targeted or why.
4. What does Tufekci mean when she says, “a lot of the stuff is just off the shelf?” What “stuff” is she talking about, and what does the phrase “off the shelf” mean?
The “stuff” she is talking about are the algorithms that can target various groups and “look-alike” groups. Her example is anti-Semites as well as the “look-alikes” who don’t identify that way but are susceptible to the same kind of messages. “Off the shelf” means that people can just pay online providers to target ads to people in that way. Like buying a shirt off the rack or an item off the shelf.
5. What is a dark post?
With a dark post, an advertiser can send individual people a targeted or personalized message that isn’t published anywhere else.
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Tufekci’s overall argument. Return to the transcript, because context will help.
1. (Paragraph at 03:22): “In the digital world…, persuasion architectures can be built at the scale of billions and they can target, infer, understand and be deployed at individuals one by one by figuring out your weaknesses…”
Unlike the old days when people targeted ads at groups, now advertisers can target individual people with messages tailored just for them and what they care about, but doing this with billions of people at once.
2. (Paragraph at 05:11): “It’s giant matrices, thousands of rows and columns, maybe millions of rows and columns, and not the programmers and not anybody who looks at it, even if you have all the data, understands anymore exactly how it’s operating…”
The algorithms are looking at who-knows-how-many rows and columns of information to find patterns. No human can possibly know what the patterns are. So that means we can’t know how they are targeting people, and if it’s for reasons we would think were unacceptable if we did know.
3. (Paragraph at 10:02): They can also mobilize algorithms to find for you look-alike audiences, people who do not have such explicit anti-Semitic content on their profile but who the algorithm detects may be susceptible to such messages, and lets you target them with ads, too.
In this section of the text, reporters were able to pay Facebook and Google to target people with anti-Semitic views, and people who might go there. So the algorithms already don’t have their own ethics, but apparently people are willing to use them unethically, too.
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads” (03:22-12:58)
Speaker and Credentials: Zeynep Tufekci, someone who studies technology and social movements. She is an associate professor at UNC Chapel Hill and a faculty adviser for a center associated with Harvard. She is also a published author about social media and political movements.
Speaker’s Ideology: She values transparency in business practices, and she values ethics in marketing and politics.
Question(s) at Issue: How have artificial intelligence and algorithms changed the way people are targeted with ads or political messages? What are the problems with these new systems?
Speaker’s Purpose: (For the section from 3:22-12:58) She wants people to understand that Artificial Intelligence is changing how we are targeted on the internet in ways that be dangerous and she wants us to pay attention.
Main Claim or Call to Action: Artificial Intelligence algorithms can target individuals with personalized persuasive messages on their phone, sometimes unethically, and unethical people have easy access to that AI.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Learning algorithms encourage Web sites to collect data about us to target us with ads or to sell to others
Supporting Claim/Reason
Artificial Intelligence systems can target you individually with a message private to your screen
Supporting Claim/Reason
A.I. algorithms don’t have ethics
Supporting Claim/Reason
People use the AI algorithms unethically
Evidence/Example
Facebook collects every little click you’ve ever made, even the stuff you decided not to post.
Evidence/Example
Example of Vegas plane tickets – AI looks at data of people who have bought Vegas plane tickets, and then finds more people with similar data.
Evidence/Example
Programmers are not really in control of what the algorithms do. Giant matrices of info are too much for any human to see how the algorithms are working.
Evidence/Example
When reporters investigated, they discovered that they could pay Google and Facebook to help them target and broaden the audience for anti-Semitic messages.
Evidence/Example
Data brokers sell other information about us, like financial information, our browsing history, and such
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Algorithms can target people’s weaknesses, like people who are bipolar and about to go into their over-spending phase.
Evidence/Example
Trump campaign manager sending “dark” posts to specific individuals to convince them to NOT vote.
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
YouTube algorithm that keeps giving you more extreme videos—from vegetarian to vegan, from Trump to white supremacist, from Hillary to conspiracy left.
Evidence/Example
Scaffolding Supports for “Beware Online Filter Bubbles”
I. Context or Background Knowledge
This TED Talk assumes you have basic background knowledge on some topics (see the list below). If these subjects are unfamiliar to you, will you look them up in advance, or will you see if you can figure them out from context before looking them up? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance?
Online searches, social media, Mark Zuckerberg, Netflix “queues,” Waiting for Superman, Rashomon, Ace Ventura
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms
Below are some words and phrases Pariser uses to make his point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
relevant/relevance, rural, aspirational, impulsive, curate, consult, algorithm, gatekeeper,
news feed, query results, civic responsibility, embedded ethics, without consulting me
III. Study Guide Questions:
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. In the paragraph beginning at 3:06, Pariser says, “This is something that is sweeping the Web.” What is “this,” and what does he explain causes it?
“This” is personalization on the Web. Algorithms are figuring out peoples’ likes and personalities and then deciding what people will and won’t see.
2. Why does Pariser include the example of movies in a Netflix queue? How does it relate to what people click on first? How does it relate to information vegetables and information dessert?
One of Pariser’s main points is that the algorithms learn what information to serve us by paying attention to what we click. But, like how we watch Netflix movies, we intend to read serious news stories, but what we tend to click on first is the junk. Algorithms, then, that pay attention to what we click first then start serving us more junk.
3. Pariser sees more than one problem with algorithms controlling what we do and do not see on the internet? What are some of them?
He believes the cycle of looking at our first clicks and giving us more of the same probably gives us a diet of junk food information. He believes we are put into filter bubbles, meaning we don’t see other perspectives. And we don’t know what we don’t see. He thinks we should be in control of personalizing our own info. He believes this is bad for democracy, and that the internet needs a code of ethics like journalism did in the early 1900s.
IV. Sentences to Unpack:
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Pariser’s overall argument. Return to the transcript, because context will help.
1. From the paragraph beginning at 04:47: “And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they’re mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance.”
Because we tend to click on junk and fun things first, the algorithms may not get a complete sense of what we are interested in. The algorithms can filter out the diversity from our searches.
2. From the paragraph beginning at 05:44: “But that’s not actually what’s happening right now. What we’re seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones.”
It used to be that newspaper editors decided which news we saw and which news we did not see. His point was that at least the editors had ethics about what to show us, and they would show us things that challenged us, not just fun things.
3. From the paragraph beginning at 05:44: “So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they are going to decide what we get to see and what we don’t get to see, then we need to make sure they’re not just keyed to relevance.”
In the beginning of the talk, Pariser quoted Mark Zuckerberg, who talked about a squirrel on our front lawn and how that might be more relevant to us than someone dying in Africa. Pariser wants algorithms to be written so that we get information that is not tailored so specifically to us that we don’t have to care about or deal with other people and how they see the world. Relevant should be bigger than just our individual lives.
4. From the paragraph beginning at 06:48: And so now, we’re kind of back in 1915 on the Web.
In this section, he is making the analogy to yellow journalism and how newspapers were running amok until people figured out that democracy needed a flow of good information to work. He is saying this because he believes our democracy needs us to change how information is personalized online.
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “Beware Online Filter Bubbles”
Speaker and Credentials: Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble
Speaker’s Ideology: Values democracy, values differing perspectives
Question(s) at Issue: What are online filter bubbles, what causes them, are they bad, and what should be done?
Speaker’s Purpose: Pariser wants to show readers a process that is generally invisible to us (how filter bubbles happen online), and he wants us to remember that other people’s perspectives and “vegetable” news are relevant and important parts of our information diet
Main Claim or Call to Action: Algorithms are making decisions about what we do an don’t see on the internet, and that puts us into “filter bubbles” where we don’t end up seeing information from different perspectives. Pariser calls on the people who create personalization algorithms to give users control over the filters that regulate the flow of their information, and to program algorithms with civic responsibility.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Algorithms are often in control of what we do and do not see on the internet, putting us in filter bubbles.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Algorithms should not be keyed to “relevance.”
Supporting Claim/Reason
We need the internet to live up to its early promise of connecting people and showing us diverse viewpoints.
Supporting Claim/Reason
Evidence/Example
Facebook uses algorithms to decide what does and does not show up on our feed.
Evidence/Example
Algorithms do not have ethics like the human editors used to.
Evidence/Example
Compares this wild-west internet to yellow journalism that was solved by developing journalistic ethics.
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Google looks at 57 things to decide how to filter our search results.
Evidence/Example
People tend to click on information junk food first, which means algorithms serve you more junk food info.
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Newspapers are using algorithms to personalize news.
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Scaffolding Supports for “How Fake News Does Real Harm”
I. Context or Background Knowledge
Do you want to look up these groups of people in advance, or first do you want to try figuring out who they are from the TED Talk? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance? If you listened to the Ted Talk and still do not understand who these people are, go ahead and look them up.
The Chibok Girls, Boko Haram, the role of journalism in holding governments accountable
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms
Below are some words and phrases Basari uses to tell her story or to make her point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context during your first read. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
hoax, influential
“creating a narrative,” “proof of life,” “alternative facts,” “line of questioning”
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. What is the speaker’s career? How does this relate to her TED Talk about Boko Haram and the Chibok girls?
Busari is a journalist who happened to be in Nigeria when the Chibok girls were first kidnapped, so she has been reporting on the story since then.
2. Consider the following two sentences, and identify which one is the example of fake news: “Hundreds of Nigerian girls and women were kidnapped by terrorists,” or “It is a hoax that Nigerian women and girls were kidnapped.” Explain your choice.
Calling the kidnapping fake news was the fake news. Maybe Nigerian government officials pretended the kidnapping story was a hoax just so they would not have to deal with the problem.
3. In the paragraph beginning at 2:21, she talks about a video. What is that video, and how did it affect the situation?
She got her hands on a proof-of-life video that she made public, so she was able to prove to the public that the kidnapping was real. That is when the Nigerian government quit treating the story as a hoax, and some Chibok girls have been rescued because of it.
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Busari’s overall argument.
1. From the paragraph at 3:51: “And I am furious that the hoax narrative, I firmly believe, caused a delay.”
She is very angry that the politicians wasted time that could have been used to try to save the Chibok girls right away. By spreading the idea that the kidnapping was a hoax, more and more people came to believe it, so there was no pressure on politicians or police to help the girls.
2. From the paragraph at 4:26: “In this day and age, we are all publishers, and we have a responsibility.”
It’s not just newspapers that spread news nowadays. Now WE spread news with the things we click on or “like” and the things we forward to other people.
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may already know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “How Fake News Does Real Harm”
Speaker and Credentials: Stephanie Busari is a journalist who has been investigating and reporting the story of the Chibok girls from the beginning
Speaker’s Ideology: She values the Chibok girls and truth in the news. She values critical thinking.
Question(s) at Issue: What are negative effects of fake news? How can people help?
Speaker’s Purpose: She wants people to see that clickbait and fake news are not harmless
Main Claim or Call to Action: She calls people to think about information before they just believe it and forward it to others.
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Fake news has consequences
Supporting Claim/ Reason
We are responsible for what we forward online.
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Evidence/Example
Chibok girls’ rescue was delayed for years because politicians spread the story that their kidnapping was a hoax.
Evidence/Example
The false idea that the kidnappings were a hoax was spread on social media.
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Some Chibok girls are still missing.
Evidence/Example
Nowadays we do what newspaper publishers do—we send out news for other people to see it.
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Sometimes people forward news without thinking about the contents or even reading the article.
Appendix B: Optional Study Guides for Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives (STUDENT VERSION)
Remember, few if any students will need all the scaffolds on the following handouts. Provide only those that will support your students in a successful struggle, or allow them to choose which ones they need. Alternatively, rather than hand out any of these supports, you could use the “unpacking sentences” provided for formative assessment as you wander the room and check in with small groups.
Scaffolding Supports for “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the US Election”
I. Context or Background Knowledge
This TED Talk assumes you have basic background knowledge on some topics (see the list below). If these subjects are unfamiliar to you, will you look them up in advance, or see if you can figure them out from context before looking them up? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance?
· Democratic National Committee (DNC) Hack of 2016
· Vladimir Putin, his autocratic tendencies, and his attitude toward the United States
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms
Below are some words and phrases Galante uses to make her point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
insidious, exploit/exploitable, amplify/amplified, vulnerability, feckless, camouflaged, [espionage] operations
“gets under your skin,” “online personas,” “took the bait,” “land grab,” “sensational narrative,” “catch-22,” and “a nation-state’s strategic interest”
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. In :01-1:23, who is the “you” she refers to? In 1:24, who is the “you?” In 2:51, who is the “we?”
2. What is “reflexive control?” How might reflexive control connect with clickbait? Confirmation bias?
3. How has the United States prepared for cyber warfare, and what did the Russians do, instead?
4. What is the “new brand of state-sponsored information operations” that she refers to in 5:44?
5. She offers an example in 6:49. What is it an example of, and how is it supposed to support her point?
6. How does Galante describe the cause/effect relationship between mainstream news media and social media? What seems to be her concern about this relationship, and why?
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Galante’s overall argument. Return to the transcript, because context will help.
1. (Paragraph at 02:29). You’ll need to turn their most powerful asset—an open mind—into their greatest vulnerability.”
2. (Paragraph at 5:44) “If you can get a hashtag trending on Twitter, or chum the waters with fake news directed to audiences primed to receive it, or drive journalists to dissect terabytes of email for a scent of impropriety—all tactics used in Russian operations—then you’ve got a shot at effectively camouflaging your operations in the mind of your target.”
3. (Paragraph at 07:30) “But how meaningful is that truth if you don’t know why it’s being revealed to you?”
4. (Paragraph at 07:30) “So while hacked phone calls and emails and networks keep grabbing the headlines, the real operations that are the ones that are influencing the decisions you make and the opinions you hold, all in the service of a nation-state’s strategic interest.”
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “How (and Why) Russia Hacked the US Election”
Speaker and Credentials:
Speaker’s Ideology:
Question(s) at Issue:
Speaker’s Purpose:
Main Claim and/or Call to Action:
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/Reason
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Scaffolding Supports for “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads” (Watch from 03:22-12:58)
I. Context or Background Knowledge
This TED Talk assumes you have basic background knowledge on some topics (see the list below). If these subjects are unfamiliar to you, will you look them up in advance, or see if you can figure them out from context before looking them up? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance?
Artificial Intelligence (a.k.a. machine learning) and “learning algorithms”
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms:
Below are some words and phrases Tufekci uses to make her point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
persuasion architecture, deployed, matrix/matrices, surveillance, benign, entice, profile (verb), mobilize/demobilize, susceptible, implausible
bipolar and bipolar manic phase; “increasing order of…”; “minding the store”
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. What is the difference Tufekci describes between the way people used to be targeted with ads and how it can be done now?
2. What kinds of data might be collected about you when you are online? What are different reasons why?
3. What point is Tufekci trying to make when she uses the example of someone with bipolar disorder?
4. What does Tufekci mean when she says, “a lot of the stuff is just off the shelf?” What “stuff” is she talking about, and what does the phrase “off the shelf” mean?
5. What is a dark post?
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Tufekci’s overall argument. Return to the transcript, because context will help.
1. (Paragraph at 03:22): “In the digital world…, persuasion architectures can be built at the scale of billions and they can target, infer, understand and be deployed at individuals one by one by figuring out your weaknesses…”
2. (Paragraph at 05:11): “It’s giant matrices, thousands of rows and columns, maybe millions of rows and columns, and not the programmers and not anybody who looks at it, even if you have all the data, understands anymore exactly how it’s operating…”
3. (Paragraph at 10:02): They can also mobilize algorithms to find for you look-alike audiences, people who do not have such explicit anti-Semitic content on their profile but who the algorithm detects may be susceptible to such messages, and lets you target them with ads, too.
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “We’re Building a Dystopia Just to Make People Click on Ads” (03:22-12:58)
Speaker and Credentials:
Speaker’s Ideology:
Question(s) at Issue:
Speaker’s Purpose: (For the section from 3:22-12:58)
Main Claim or Call to Action:
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Scaffolding Supports for “Beware Online Filter Bubbles”
I. Context or Background Knowledge
This TED Talk assumes you have basic background knowledge on some topics (see the list below). If these subjects are unfamiliar to you, will you look them up in advance, or will you see if you can figure them out from context before looking them up? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance?
Online searches, social media, Mark Zuckerberg, Netflix “queues,” Waiting for Superman, Rashomon, Ace Ventura
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms
Below are some words and phrases Pariser uses to make his point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
relevant/relevance, rural, aspirational, impulsive, curate, consult, algorithm, gatekeeper,
news feed, query results, civic responsibility, embedded ethics, without consulting me
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. In the paragraph beginning at 3:06, Pariser says, “This is something that is sweeping the Web.” What is “this,” and what does he explain causes it?
2. Why does Pariser include the example of movies in a Netflix queue? How does it relate to what people click on first? How does it relate to information vegetables and information dessert?
3. Pariser sees more than one problem with algorithms controlling what we do and do not see on the internet? What are some of them?
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Pariser’s overall argument. Return to the transcript, because context will help.
1. From the paragraph beginning at 04:47: “And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they’re mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance.”
2. From the paragraph beginning at 05:44: “But that’s not actually what’s happening right now. What we’re seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones.”
3. From the paragraph beginning at 05:44: “So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they are going to decide what we get to see and what we don’t get to see, then we need to make sure they’re not just keyed to relevance.”
4. From the paragraph beginning at 06:48: And so now, we’re kind of back in 1915 on the Web.
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “Beware Online Filter Bubbles”
Speaker and Credentials:
Speaker’s Ideology:
Question(s) at Issue:
Speaker’s Purpose:
Main Claim or Call to Action:
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Scaffolding Supports for “How Fake News Does Real Harm”
I. Context or Background Knowledge
Do you want to look up these groups of people in advance, or first do you want to try figuring out who they are from the TED Talk? Are there any other terms in the TED Talk description that you want to look up in advance? If you listened to the Ted Talk and still do not understand who these people are, go ahead and look them up.
The Chibok Girls, Boko Haram, the role of journalism in holding governments accountable
II. Vocabulary, Jargon, and Colloquialisms
Below are some words and phrases Basari uses to tell her story or to make her point. Do you already know any of them well enough to explain to another person? Decide whether you will look up all the unfamiliar words in advance or if you will wait to see which ones you could not figure out from context during your first read. If there are other words and phrases that confuse you, look up those words, too.
hoax, influential
“creating a narrative,” “proof of life,” “alternative facts,” “line of questioning”
III. Study Guide Questions
If you want to make sure you understand big ideas in the talk, work through these comprehension questions with a partner who viewed the same video.
1. What is the speaker’s career? How does this relate to her TED Talk about Boko Haram and the Chibok girls?
2. Consider the following two sentences, and identify which one is the example of fake news: “Hundreds of Nigerian girls and women were kidnapped by terrorists,” or “It is a hoax that Nigerian women and girls were kidnapped.” Explain your choice.
3. In the paragraph beginning at 2:21, she talks about a video. What is that video, and how did it affect the situation?
IV. Sentences to Unpack
These are some important sentences from the talk. To check for a deeper understanding of the talk’s big ideas, you could try to accurately paraphrase these sentences, and then explain what they mean and why they matter to Busari’s overall argument.
1. From the paragraph at 3:51: “And I am furious that the hoax narrative, I firmly believe, caused a delay.”
2. From the paragraph at 4:26: “In this day and age, we are all publishers, and we have a responsibility.”
V. Sample Argument Map Graphic Organizer
You have already practiced argument maps earlier in the unit. You may already know how you want to organize the information that you are being asked to collect and then explain to your peers. However, if you think the graphic organizer below will help you, feel free to use it.
TED Talk: “How Fake News Does Real Harm”
Speaker and Credentials:
Speaker’s Ideology:
Question(s) at Issue:
Speaker’s Purpose:
Main Claim or Call to Action:
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Supporting Claim/ Reason
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Evidence/Example
Appendix C: Generic Rubric
6 – Superior
5 – Strong
4 – Adequate
3 – Marginal
2 – Very Weak
1 – Incompetent
Response to the Topic
Responds effectively to all aspects of the task, focused by a complex understanding of context, audience, and purpose
Addresses the topic clearly, but may respond to some aspects of the task more effectively than others, guided by an understanding of context, audience, and purpose
Addresses the topic, but may slight some aspects of the task, demonstrating adequate attention to context, audience, and purpose
Distorts or neglects aspects of the task, and may demonstrate lapses in attention to context, purpose, and audience
Indicates confusion about the topic anda flawed understanding of the rhetorical situation, or neglects important aspects of the task
Suggests an inability to comprehend the question or to respond meaningfully to the topic and rhetorical situation
Understanding and Use of the Source Material
Demonstrates a thorough critical understanding of the source material
Demonstrates a sound critical understanding of the source material in developing a well-reasoned response
Demonstrates a generally accurate understanding of the source material in developing a sensible response
Demonstrates some understanding of the source material, but may misconstrue parts of it or make limited use of it in developing a weak response
Demonstrates a verypoor understanding of the main points of the source material, does not use the source material appropriately in developing a response, or may not use the source material at all
Demonstrates little or no ability to understand the source material or to use it in developing a response
Quality and Clarity of Thought
Explores the issue(s) thoughtfully and in-depth.
Shows some depth and complexity of thought
May treat the topic simplistically or repetitively
Lacks focus, or demonstrates confused or simplistic thinking
Lacks focus and coherence, and often fails to communicate its ideas
Is unfocused, illogical, or incoherent
Organization, Development, and Support
Is coherently organized and supported by apt reasons and well-chosen examples, effectively employing a range of conventions associated with the genre
Is well-organized and developed, supported by appropriate reasons and examples, successfully employing conventions associated with the genre
Is adequately organized and developed, generally supported with reasons and examples, demonstrating attention to conventions associated with the genre
Is poorly organized and developed, presenting generalizations without adequate and appropriate support or presenting details without generalizations, demonstrating inconsistent attention to genre conventions
Has very weak organization and development, providing simplistic generalizations without support, and demonstrates a limited understanding of how to employ the genre
Is disorganized and undeveloped, providing little or no relevant support, and may disregard basic conventions of the genre
Syntax and Command of Language
Has an effective, fluid style marked by syntactic variety and clear command of language
Displays some syntactic variety and facility in the use of language
Demonstrates adequate use of syntax and language
Has limited control of syntax and vocabulary
Has inadequate control of syntax and vocabulary
Lacks basic control of syntax and vocabulary
Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics
Is generally free from errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.
May have a few errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics
May have some errors, but generally demonstrates control of grammar, usage, and mechanics
Has an accumulation of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that sometimes interfere with meaning.
Is marred by numerous errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that frequently interfere with meaning
Has serious and persistent errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that severely interfere with meaning
Appendix D: App Review-Specific Rubric
High Pass
Pass
No Pass
Conversation (The Need): explanation of the key problem and why it matters to an audience.
The review provides an overview of the key problem and an explanation of why it matters to an audience.
The review has a basic description of the key problem and some explanation of why it matters to an audience.
The review struggles to articulate the key problem and why it matters to a particular audience.
Description (The Potential): features of the app, organization of the app
The review includes a comprehensive and purposeful description of the app, its key features and purpose.
The review includes a basic description, with some key ideas, features, and / or some sense of purpose.
The review includes a short description or no description at all OR the description assumes that the reader knows the app (rather than writing a description for people who have not used the app).
Assessment (The Reality): how effectively does the app address the key problem?
The review offers a fair assessment of the app and how it addresses the conversation and provides appropriate evidence for that assessment.
The review offers an assessment of the app that is more general and includes some evidence to support that assessment.
The review offers minimal assessment of the app, and/ or minimal evidence to support the assessment.
Purpose (Moving Forward):
the review has a purpose and addresses an audience.
The review includes a sense of significance and addresses a particular audience or set of audiences (primary, secondary, and tertiary)
The review points to significance and attempts to address an audience.
The review struggles to articulate significance and is more writer-based rather than focused on an audience.
Appendix E: Alternate Writing Task
The following activities support the alternate writing task, Letter to the Editor. Begin them after Activity 14, Step 2.
Reading Rhetorically
Questioning the Task
Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives
Now that students have made connections between various forces, issues, causes, and effects related to personalization on the internet, students have the fodder they need, based on our new reality, to respond to Kristof or Hauser. Have students review the materials they have collected over the course of the module, and process with groupmates how it relates to the synthesis concept map they created in Activity 14. Then have students engage in this quickwrite below.
Activity 15-Alt: Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives
A Quickwrite: Review your activities and reflections for how the issue about news personalization has changed. Which of the videos update the conversation, and how? Consider how the speakers from these videos might respond to Kristof and Hauser, and how your perspective has been informed by all the voices in the conversation.
What does each author value? Review your Concept Map from Synthesizing Perspectives and your Ideology Grid and Values Statements from Activity 10. What connections can you make now between the updated voices in the conversation and what each author values? Which author’s values and arguments do you believe is most critical in considering in today’s current state of information consumption?
Reflecting on Your Reading Process
Give students dedicated time to reflect on their reading process.
Activity 16-Alt: Reflecting on Your Reading Process
In your Reflection Journal, review the learning goals you set for yourself at the beginning of this module and reflect on your progress so far. Add a follow up reflection in your journal that responds to these questions:
· Which goals have you made progress toward?
· In terms of reading both with and against the grain, which of the tests for this module presented a greater challenge for you, and why?
· What topic or current issue would provide a serious challenge for you to read about both with and against the grain? Why do you say so?
· How serious is it to escape a filter bubble if you don’t listen to people with and against the grain?
Preparing to Respond
Discovering What You Think
Analyzing the Writing Task and Your Rhetorical Situation
This alternative writing assignment is to write a letter to the editor in response to either the Kristof editorial or the Hauser article. A generic rubric is provided in Appendix C.
This writing assignment provides less scaffolding than the App Review, so that option might be best for a class that is doing well on the module activities up to this point and/or has had previous experience with 7th through 11th-grade ERWC Modules.
Formative Assessment: The transition to writing connected with prior readings offers an opportunity to explore points or issues that may still confuse students. Consider asking students to explore still fuzzy material in a quickwrite with the following prompt: “As you consider your readiness to use what you’ve learned from reading the article or articles in your own writing, is there any concept or idea that still has you confused? Write for a few minutes about this concept.” Reading through these papers could provide information about concepts or arguments that may require further explanation or analysis for some students.
Activity 17-Alt: Analyzing the Writing Task and Your Rhetorical Situation
A common way to respond to an editorial is to write a letter to the editor. Now that you have worked extensively with this text, you are ready to write a well-informed response to Kristof’s or Hauser’s ideas.
In a letter to the editor, respond to either Kristof or Hauser. Update Kristof or Hauser as to how news and information personalization has evolved since they wrote their articles. Then, given the current state of personalization, explain the extent to which you agree or disagree with his argument.
Some points to note before writing your letter to the editor follow:
1. A good letter to the editor is focused and concise. It should make your point, but no words should be wasted. It is sometimes best to write a longer draft and then cut out everything that is not essential.
2. Newspaper editors often cut letters to fit the available space or to make a letter more focused. If your letter is published unedited, you are very lucky.
3. Some letters respond to the thesis of the article, either in support or disagreement, and provide further arguments or further evidence.
Choose one of the Letter-to-the-Editor assignments below.
Response to Kristof
After thinking about your reading, discussion, and analysis of Kristof’s editorial and Hauser’s response to it, what do you personally think about Kristof’s point? Do you think it is true, as Kristof says, that “The effect of The Daily Me would be to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers [...] The danger is that this self-selected ‘news’ acts as a narcotic, lulling us into a self-confident stupor through which we will perceive in blacks and whites a world that typically unfolds in grays.” Do you think personalized news feed and curated content create dangerous filter bubbles and polarization? Or do you think Kristof is wrong? What has changed in the way we consume information since Kristof’s editorial? Write a letter expressing your viewpoint to the editor of the newspaper.
Response to Hauser
Eduardo Hauser responds to fears about news curating by arguing “But we have always been our own editors. Every time we consume media, we make choices, consciously or not. When we skip articles, choose one newspaper over another, switch television channels, or tune in to a radio station we decide what we want to consume. The Internet has simply provided tools to make the selection process broader, easier and better structured.” Hauser agrees with Kristof that we all have a responsibility to seek out opposing viewpoints but insists that the Daily Me makes this easier. Has time proven Hauser wrong, or is our current state of polarization a result of curated, personalized and controlled online information? Write a letter expressing your viewpoint to the editor of the newspaper.
Gathering Relevant Ideas and Materials – Quote, Paraphrase, and Respond
This activity is designed to help students integrate the words and ideas of others into their own texts. Students can select evidence by returning to the readings, their notes, their summaries, their annotations, their descriptive outlining, and other responses in order to highlight information they may use to support their claims and refute the claims of those who disagree. Students determine the relevance, specificity, and appropriateness of their evidence in relation to the rhetorical situation.
Activity 18-Alt: Gathering Relevant Ideas and Materials – Quote, Paraphrase, and Respond
The following “Quote, Paraphrase, and Respond” and respond activity will help you integrate the words and ideas of others into your own text. You may want to revisit your responses from Activity 13 to help you integrate your ideas about how the personalization situation has changed.
Choose three passages from the article you might be able to use in a letter. You may want to choose passages you strongly agree or disagree with.
1. First, write each passage down as a correctly punctuated direct quotation.
2. Second, paraphrase the material in your own words. What does the author mean by this?
3. Third, respond to the idea expressed in the passage by agreeing or disagreeing with it and explaining why.
Here are some further questions that might help you gather material you can use:
1. What are you going to quote or paraphrase from the article or articles you read? What do you want to say in response?
2. What information do you need to support your claims? Where are you going to find it? (This may involve Internet searches. If so, what search terms will you use?)
3. How closely does this piece of evidence relate to the claim it is supposed to support?
4. Is this piece of evidence a fact or an opinion? Is it an example?
5. If this evidence is a fact, what kind of fact is it (statistic, experimental result, quotation)?
6. If it is an opinion, what makes the opinion credible?
7. What makes this evidence persuasive?
8. How well will the evidence suit the audience and the rhetorical purpose of the piece?
Developing a Position
Before your students write their own letters in response to Kristof or Hauser, you may want to have them read and discuss the sample letter to the editor provided below. While the letter contains some conventional features of a response, it is also overly opinionated and contains questionable arguments and logical fallacies. It is not designed to be a mentor text, and does not update the conversation. Ask the students to analyze the letter for its relative persuasive appeal. You may want to have students score the sample letters according to the general rubric in Appendix D.
Formative Assessment: Your review of the students’ paraphrases and their reasons for agreement or disagreement provides an opportunity to evaluate how well they understand the texts and support for their positions. You may discover that some students need additional guidance and instruction in paraphrasing or providing support for claims, perhaps as mini-lessons in sub-groups.
Activity 19-Alt: Considering Your Task and Your Rhetorical Situation – Letter to the Editor Genre Analysis
Before you write your own letter in response to Kristof, look at the sample letter to the editor written in response to “The Daily Me.”
This letter is not a model for you to follow; it would not be accepted and published by respected news sources. You can do better. With your peers, consider the purpose of an editorial page. Then discuss why this letter is not a serious contribution to that purpose.
Analyze and annotate the letter for such things as tone, questionable arguments, etc. In terms of this letter’s ability to persuade an audience or add to a conversation, what are its strengths and what are its weaknesses?
Crystal
Pasadena, CA March 19, 2009
In the 1990s-200s, it was no hardship to stay informed on both sides. I read and watched my favorite liberal, left leaning news, of course, but I also watched Fox news and listened to right wing talk radio just so I could understand how the other side thought and what they valued. I had Republican friends and colleagues who were card-carrying Republicans, and we had conversations about issues. I trusted them.
Then, after the Republicans stole the election in 2004, I stopped trusting all right-wing nuts. So called “conservatives” had tramped on my values long enough. I resolved to stick with like-minded people who were rational and reasonable, and reject everyone else whose self-righteous values imposed on mine. I never regretted this self-created “echo chamber” and never looked back.
I think we on the Left have put up with the Right's ignorance, greed and lying long enough. I have no interest anymore in professing traditional liberal "tolerance." I now consider it more patriotic to aggressively defend the values I believe in, and that includes selecting my reading to gather the best arguments I can. Rush, you wanna rumble? Bring it on!
Writing Rhetorically
Composing a Draft
Making Choices about Learning Goals
Helping students think about the learning goals of the module and set their own personal learning goals allows them to understand why they are doing the activities in the module. This is likely to increase student engagement and learning.
Activity 20-Alt: Making Choices about Learning Goals
As you get ready to write a draft of your letter or essay, look back at the learning goals you established earlier in this module. Have you met some of these goals? Now think about what you want to improve about your writing. Don’t get stuck on grammar and punctuation. That is important, but you can think about those things when you get to the revision process. Write down at least two things you would like to improve about your writing.
Making Choices as You Write
Writing a first draft that uses sources is usually a matter of moving back and forth from notes to the sentences under active composition. This process can be made smoother with good organization of the materials at hand. Students begin by selecting their evidence and continue by thinking about the genre of the assignment. Students may be less familiar with the letter format.
Activity 21-Alt: Making Choices as You Write
Selecting Evidence: At this point, you should have a good idea what your stance toward the issue is and how you are going to support it. However, before you actually put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, you may want to try some of the following steps:
1. Organize your notes and other materials in the order you think you will use them.
2. Create a rough outline of your main points. (This is usually a good idea if you are going to do a timed writing, but it also can keep you on track as you write a longer piece.)
Write down a statement of your position and share it with a classmate or family member. Listen to his or her response. (Examples: “No matter what Hauser says, personalized news feeds contribute to confirmation bias,” or “The current state of information delivery is highly polarized.”)
Thinking about Genre: Examine the model below for the type of text you are producing. Ask yourself, does your organizational pattern fit the structure? Can it be made clearer or more effective?
Letter to the Editor
As noted above, some letters respond to the thesis of the editorial, either in support or disagreement, and provide further arguments or further evidence. Other letters focus on one point made by the original author and support it, question it, or refute it. A letter to the editor will probably have a beginning, middle, and end structure something like this:
· Introduction – In [Title of Op-Ed Piece], [Writer of Op-Ed Piece] says [Quote or Paraphrase from Op-Ed]. This is then followed by your own position statement. You may want to also indicate what role or experience you have in the matter as a way of establishing ethos.
· Middle – The middle paragraph (or paragraphs) presents arguments in favor of your position. It may cite and respond to ideas from the original piece. Be concise.
· Conclusion – The conclusion may make a strong final point or advocate a course of action for the reader.
Composing Your Draft
As you write, think about your audience. For a letter to the editor, your audience is not only the editor of the newspaper or Web site but also the readers. In composing the first draft, your primary concern is to get your ideas down on paper and develop them. In a first draft, you can explore ideas and take risks. The first draft is sometimes called a “writer-based” draft because it is really for you, although thinking about your audience often helps you think of what to say. Later, you will revise it for your audience and proofread it. Even though you have read articles, researched facts, and engaged in discussions with your classmates and are well on your way to becoming an expert on this issue, you may actually discover some of your best ideas while writing your first draft.
Negotiating Voices
This activity is about helping students properly integrate the words and ideas of others into their own texts. One aspect is avoiding plagiarism through proper in-text citation and attribution. Another is framing quotes and paraphrases so that they are well integrated into the sentences and the arguments. Students need to be able to distinguish their ideas from those of their sources and to make clear their stance in relationship to those sources. The activity can help students put direct quotations, indirect quotations, concepts, facts, ideas, and opinions from other writers into their own texts while keeping all the voices distinct.
Activity 22-Alt: Negotiating Voices
Using the information provided by your teacher, read your text looking for places where you have used the words and ideas of others. Have you punctuated quotations correctly? Are your paraphrases accurate and well integrated into the text?
Letters don’t usually have citations. If you quote, or paraphrase, use phrases such as “As Kristof states in his op-ed of September 1, 2003…”
After reading the material above, re-read your paper thinking about how the different voices in your paper relate to each other. Are the relationships clear for the reader? What could you do to improve?
One way of seeing the relationships more clearly is to mark a printout of the text with different colored highlighters. Use one color for your ideas and another for each other voice in the paper. Then look at the transitions between the voices. Is it clear who is saying what? Are the relationships between the ideas clear? Does one voice dominate the piece more than others?
Revising Rhetorically
Analyzing Your Draft Rhetorically; Gathering and Responding to Feedback
At this point, students have completed a rough draft. Collect student papers and provide feedback that will guide students in prioritizing and revising rhetorically.
Consider asking students to respond to the questions in Activity 23-Alt and submit the responses with their rough drafts. You can then use students’ answers to frame feedback geared towards helping them make rhetorical revisions.
Activity 23-Alt: Analyzing Your Draft Rhetorically and Gathering and Responding to Feedback
Analyzing your draft rhetorically means breaking it down into the main rhetorical elements, and examining those areas individually. Answer the below questions thoroughly and specifically in order to help guide your teacher in giving you feedback that will be useful in revising rhetorically. Your answers should be based on what your writing goals are, not necessarily whether you achieved them in this draft. For each rhetorical element, provide one key question you have about your draft.
Purpose/Focus: What is the purpose and focus of this piece of writing?
The purpose of this paper is to respond to Kristof’s argument, update him about the issue today, and explain how much I agree or disagree with him.
Concern: I’m unsure how to go about responding initially. How much do I paraphrase his argument compared to my own argument? How much information do I give about what the issue is like today?
Development for Audience: To whom are you writing? What do they value? How are your choices appropriate for your purpose, audience, and context?
My audience are the readers of the paper who are interested and aware of the problem but they might not value the problem because they are used to getting all their information this way. I’ve chosen to use a more formal language and writing style, credible claims, and thoughtful reasoning that doesn’t insult their intelligence but isn’t too academic.
Concern: How can I catch my intended audiences’ attention better in the intro? Did I target their values? Am I too formal and not passionate enough?
Genre/Organization: How did you organize the elements of the genre into your argument? Why?
I chunked the organization of the op-ed into a short intro that ends with a rhetorical question that I will answer with my thesis towards the end. The body is Kristof’s argument, my update and then my argument that disagrees with Kristof.
Concern: Are my chunks supposed to be the same length, or did I overdevelop any one chunk?
Style/Conventions: Did you proofread critically for grammar, usage, mechanical and spelling errors that will interfere with clarity and/or damage your ethos?
I proofread for errors and clarity.
Concern: Are there areas where I am unclear that I missed? How can I improve my clarity and ethos?
Editing
Editing Your Draft
Pattern error analysis is a useful tool for students to develop independent editing skills. Many students rely on teachers or grammar check to identify their grammatical and mechanical errors instead of learning to address a skill they need to master to stop making an error.
Activity 24-Alt: Editing Your Draft
Chances are that you tend to make the same grammatical and mechanical errors when you write because it is difficult for us to recognize our own pattern of errors. This activity will help you develop the necessary skills to identify the errors you tend to repeat—in other words, patterns of errors. Since mechanical and grammatical errors affect your credibility, it’s important to address these errors and master the skills you need in order to stop repeating them.
Editing Guidelines
· If possible, set your review aside for 24 hours before rereading to find errors.
· If possible, read your essay out loud so you can hear your errors.
· Focus on individual words and sentences rather than the overall meaning. Take a sheet of paper and cover everything except the line you are reading. Then touch your pencil to each word as you read.
· Review the work you did with flow in Activity 11. Can you identify choppy sentences that could benefit from the rhetorical grammar strategies you learned for improving flow?
· With the help of your teacher or a reliable peer, figure out your own pattern of errors—the most serious and frequent errors you make. For example, you might decide that subject-verb agreement, punctuation of quotations, and sentence fragments are patterns that you need to edit for consistently.
· Only look for one type of error at a time. Then go back and look for a second type, and if necessary, a third.
· Use the dictionary to check spelling and confirm that you’ve chosen the right word for the context.
Editing Focus
Select three patterns of error that you tend to make when you write. List them, and then one at a time, look for them in your essay and make corrections.
1.
2.
3.
Reflecting on Your Writing Process
Students should review the Learning Goals they drafted in Activity 20-Alt: Making Choices About Learning Goals.
Formative Assessment: Student should add these responses to their Reflection Journal, which will allow them to monitor their own progress over time.
Activity 25-Alt: Reflecting on Your Writing Process
Review the Learning Goals you wrote in response to the writing task, and then respond to the questions in your reflection journal.
1. What was the hardest part of the task for you? Was it what you thought it would be? If not, why? How might this change how you approach your next writing task?
2. How did you deal with the hardest part of the task? Was your approach effective? How can you further refine the approach for the next writing task?
3. What are the strengths of your paper? Why do you consider them strengths?
4. What are the weaknesses of your paper? Why, and what do you plan to do to continue strengthening these rhetorical concerns?
5. What did you learn from this assignment about your own writing process, and what are the implications of what you learned for future writing tasks?
Reflecting on Your Learning Goals
Before guiding students to this final reflection, emphasize the rationale for setting learning goals and monitoring their own progress toward their goals. Remind them that this metacognitive habit of mind not only improves learning, it helps develop lifelong learners.
Activity 26-Alt: Reflecting on Your Learning Goals
How useful would it be to escape a filter bubble if you don’t listen to people’s viewpoints both with and against the grain? At the beginning of this module, you set some personal goals around reading with and against the grain. You also set writing goals before composing your review.
Review those goals in your Reflection Journal, and reflect on your process of working towards those goals. What skills have you developed? Where might you be able to use those skills outside of English class? Which goals should you keep in place? What do you need to do moving forward to continue strengthening those skills?
Write your final reflection for this module in your Reflection Journal.
Reflecting on Your Teaching Process
Review the goals you set for yourself at the start of the module. What practices will you carry forward or intentionally develop in order to foster a classroom culture conducive to reading (and listening) both with and against the grain? Look ahead to future modules. Where do you anticipate challenges to open-minded inquiry, and how will you plan for them?
Then read your students’ self-reflection with a notepad and pen. Write down common areas of student achievement, clarity, andconfidence. Then write down repeated areas of student confusion and/or frustration, performing your own type of pattern analysis. What implications are there for your future teaching? How will you reflect those implications in your teaching goals for the next module?
Works Cited
Bean, John et al. “Binary Chart.” Reading Rhetorically. 2nd ed., Pearson Longman, 2007, pp. 86-87.
Eyal, Nir and Lakshmi Mani. “Confirmation Bias: Why You Make Terrible Life Choices.” Nir & Far, 2017, www.nirandfar.com/2017/10/confirmation-bias-terrible-life-choices.html.
Fletcher, Jennifer. “Listening With an Open Mind.” Teaching Arguments: Rhetorical Comprehension, Critique, and Response.Stenhouse, 2015, pp. 5-8.
Fletcher, Jennifer. “Playing the Doubting Game.” Teaching Arguments: Rhetorical Comprehension, Critique, and Response.Stenhouse, 2015, pp. 28-37.
Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. “Connecting the Parts.” They Say I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 4th ed., W.W. Norton, 2018, p. 103.
Grassegger, Hannes, and Mikael Krogerus. “The Data That Turned the World Upside Down.” Motherboard: Tech by Vice, 17 Mar. 2018, motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win.
McRaney, David. “Confirmation Bias.” You Are Not So Smart: A Celebration of Self-Delusion. 23 June 2010, youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/.
Quenqua, Douglas. “Facebook Knows You Better Than Anyone Else.” New York Times, 19 Jan. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/science/facebook-knows-you-better-than-anyone-else.html.