Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi. I'm Sid Dobrin. In this video I'll be talking about the Digital Project that asks
students to re- think the ways in which YouTube response videos might be made more useful.
This assignment does not ask students to create a response to a specific situation. Instead
it asks students to think about a genre of response and to develop a method for improving
one specific type of response. Thus, the objective of the assignment isn't to have students practice
writing to respond, but to have them think in depth about the role of medium and method
in a popular response situation. To this, end, too, you might want to consider
how this assignment also serves as a writing to propose assignment.
When I assign this prompt, one of the things I've found that I have to spend time talking
with students about is how they think about the various writers or respondents who use
the YouTube video response or comment apparatus. What I try to make clear is that the assignment
should not be thought of as a way to constrain who can and can't respond in public forum.
That is, when I teach this assignment, a lot of time students will want to propose the
comment/response feature be improved by improving the speakers, not allowing just anyone to
respond. For a number of reasons, of course, this should not be seen as a viable option
for this assignment, including the fact that it adjusts the focus of the assignment from
medium to writer, and also because the proposal is elitist and designed to silence rather
than empower. Likewise, I have found that some students
will suggest that the key to improving the comment/ response medium is to teach YouTube
users the kinds of things found in this chapter. This, too, is a problematic response because
it also focuses on improving writers not the medium. In some ways, though, this approach
can be directed to a more useful conversation for the assignment. I have had students translate
the conversation about making YouTube response writers more rhetorically aware of how they
craft responses into practical approaches for developing more rhetorically-focused guidelines
and tutorials for YouTube response writers. In a lot of ways, I have liked the assumptions
of these kinds of responses to the assignment because they emphasize a kind of rhetorical
education approach; however, in the same breath, they also impose a new kind of constraint
on the YouTube community and I want to be sure my students think through the implications
of making such constraints—particularly in terms of stifling creativity and restricting
marginalized voices. That said, though, one of the benefits of
crowd source conversations like the YouTube comments and responses is that they leave
much room for users to innovate how those spaces get used. With this in mind, I find
that students—with a bit of critical guidance—do find some useful suggestions for making the
YouTube comment and response feature more useful as a public space for critical engagement,
response, and dialogue. When I assess this assignment, I try to convey
to students a clear idea of what I'll be looking for in their responses to the prompt, and
I like to provide a version of the assessment prompt I've included with the instructor materials
for this chapter. Using this rubric, I emphasize with students the importance of the situational
understanding part of the rubric because the YouTube response space is a diverse and dynamic
space, thus requiring detailed critical engagement on the students' behalf. Likewise, because
the prompt asks for a kind of innovation, I also emphasize the critical thinking segment
of the rubric. So, those are just a few of the things I try
to be alert to when assigning this prompt to my students. I'm sure that as you use the
prompt, you'll find innovative tweeks you'll want to make to the assignment, as well, in
order to best meet the needs of your classroom, your curriculum, and your students.
Thanks for using Writing Situations and thanks for watching.