I recently had a successful class session which involved evaluating tweets made in response to the infamous “Trump tapes.” I thought I’d share my lesson plan, in case any other teachers are interested.
Some background: I teach freshman composition at a large public university. The theme of our course is “thinking about thinking,” with the underlying premise being that this sort of (self-)reflection is necessary to be a successful writer. We do a lot of activities which involve trying to understand the worldviews (or ideologies, you could say) which underlie certain claims. This activity is in that vein.
Note: This is designed for a 75 minute class.
Background Material:
Prior to this class session, we watched and discussed this interview with Professor Nicholas Epley, a behavioral psychologist from the University of Chicago. In it he discusses “egocentrism” and how individuals innately view the same event (he uses 9/11 as an example) in different ways.
My class also uses a standardized heuristic to critically analyze statements. We created this together and have termed it “The DACO method.” Here is a handout which explains this method and provides an example. In short, it involves taking a statement or belief and tracing the Definitions and Assumptions which underlie it, the Consequences to which it could lead, and where it fits in a range of Other Opinions. For this lesson plan to work, it’s not necessary that you use the DACO method. If you do want to use it though, it may be useful to go over the above handout as a group.
Lesson Plan:
I began the class by breaking the students into groups of 2 or 3. I then explained that we are going to watch a video that illustrates Epley’s point about the subjectivity of interpretation. We then viewed this CNN report featuring the video in which Donald Trump is caught making various vulgar comments about women. [Note: this version of the video is edited slightly, but still pretty offensive. You may want to issue a “trigger warning.”]
After watching the video, I distributed this handout, which lists 8 tweets interpreting said video. Tweets, of course, are very short, which makes them neat encapsulations of the writer’s worldview. Using our DACO method, we then worked together as a class to interrogate the first tweet. The goal was to try and understand “where the writer is coming from,” how they see the Trump video (and the world at large) and how we can learn to negotiate with such a perspective.
The first tweet states –> If you’re like ‘that’s just men being men’ after listening to the #Trump Tapes it’s seriously time you get some new male friends.
My class discussed how “men” and “friends” might be defined in this case. We then discussed the assumptions at play, particularly how this writer likely views Trump’s comments as unusual and wrong, and anyone who engages in such talk as shameful. Regarding consequences, we decided that this writer wants less vulgar talk because it’s “offensive,” meaning it upsets certain people. Going deeper, we realized that the writer may believe that such talk leads to physical violence. He or she may therefore view their tweet as a part of an effort to reduce such action. Finally, we discussed a range of other opinions. Opposing opinions can often be generated, we found, by challenging the writer’s premises. For example, if an opponent could show that vulgar talk doesn’t lead to violence, the argument implicit in this tweet would fail. Such a belief (that vulgar talk doesn’t cause physical violence) is an example of an “other opinion.”
After analyzing the first tweet as a class, each group worked separately to analyze the other 7 tweets. After about 20 minutes, they were asked to present their findings to the class, facilitating another group discussion.
Conclusion:
Overall, I found this to be a fun and intellectually lively activity. The tweets examined come from a variety of perspectives; through critical analysis the students had the opportunity to dwell in those perspectives, enriching their understanding of the other (and the way s/he thinks and writes). Because tweets are so short, such analysis requires both creativity and attention to the nuances of language. Also, by examining the intended consequences of each tweet– which I frame as “what the writer is trying to accomplish”—the students began to think about rhetorical tactics. This are all valuable outcomes, in my opinion.
m
MATTHEW OVERSTREET 