Of course teachers recognize the irony of this is that we, and our students, actually practice rhetorical analysis skills subconsciously all the time. Every time we over-think a conversation with a friend or a parent or a would-be significant other, we analyze how their conversational choices may have betrayed an underlying purpose.
So a few years ago I decided to harness this in my classroom as our very first introduction to rhetorical analysis. Instead of just analyzing face to face conversation, which would be difficult to replicate in the classroom, I had the idea to analyze text messages: they're written communication with infinite composition choices available, easily accessible en masse by students bringing their phones, and would allow students to realize that they do this kind of analysis by default.
I always start off with a general conversation about what analysis is, and I ask for examples of the last time they "over-thought" something someone said in a conversation; I like using that terminology because they immediately get it that they do this pretty regularly, even if they don't think they analyze rhetorically. Then of course I transition to the fact that formal analysis is just doing this intentionally and on a grander scale.
We move into discussing text messages as "texts" that can be dug into. They're skeptical until I give them an anecdote about how I was out shopping one Black Friday and texted my then-new husband something long and wordy and bubbly about my busy day and being excited to see him soon when I got home. I turn to the board and write "ok." and tell them that was his response.
They immediately go, "Oooooohhh yeah" and chuckle in recognition. They instantaneously get why that text message freaked me out thinking something was wrong.
So we talk about the choices that he made: the choice to put a period at the end of it, the choice to respond to an effusive message with a two-letter response, the choice to just write "ok" instead of "okay," "OK," or "o.k. :)"
(To be fair, we also talk about how his rhetorical choices may not have been intentional at all, because he's a stereotypical guy and doesn't think like that! But this leads to a conversation about whether authorial-intent or reader-assumption is more relevant here.)
I ask them to get out their phones and spend some time looking for messages that seem to have made specific rhetorical choices: punctuation, unusual typing or spelling styles, abbreviations, emoticons, etc. A few volunteers write them on the board and the class analyzes what choices were made and what affect they could have on the reader's interpretation of author's purpose.
Finally, we end up trying to take the same message and write it with different choices to change the rhetorical effect. I have a graphic organizer that they used to take notes on the whole lesson.
Years ago I would have them wrap up by writing a brief analytical paragraph on the prompt seen on the handout. But that is now outdated because with the advent of full-keyboard phone screens, people don't text in that same style of shorthand anymore, so if I were going to do that part of the lesson again, I would probably change the example in the prompt.
This lesson works as a really great non-threatening intro to rhetorical analysis. It gives them confidence that they can do this and it just takes time to build into reading more complex texts.
But I'd say my favorite part of the lesson is more than just what they take from it; the best part is that it's a fun lesson. We spend most of the block laughing at the seemingly-silly choices that get made in texts between teenagers, and we laugh at ourselves for the over-analyzing we manage to talk ourselves into. I will relish any opportunity to make analysis seem like something they actually want to engage in.
No comments:
Post a Comment