ENG 229 5.W: Editing Interview Footage

Today’s Plan:

  • Editing Interview Footage

Working With Sample Footage

Today we’re going to learn how to execute an “L Cut.” This is simply when there is a video transition over uninterrupted audio. The inverse of this is a “J Cut,” where there is an audio transition that precedes a video transition. The name for these cuts reflect the shape that the video and audio tracks make in an editor when you execute them. In the former, the original video clip stops and the audio drags on (like the foot of an L) and in the latter the audio starts before the video comes in (like the bottom of a J). This is a lot more complicated to describe than it is to demonstrate.

I’ve got two sample video files for you to download. These are from the fall 2022 Go West Film Festival. The first clip, our A-Roll, is Rodney Sauer, composer, keyboardist, and silent film fan, discussing X after his performance. The second clip, our B-roll, is a snippet from that performance.

We are going to perform a simple L-cut, so that we transition from Rodney talking to the B-roll of the performance.

We are going to do this two different ways. First, we will eliminate the audio from the B-roll clip. Second, we will lower the audio from the B-roll.

This shouldn’t take more than 20 minutes. You’ll have the rest of class to work on editing your interview footage.

Executing an L-Cut in Adobe Rush (No B-roll audio)

Here’s the steps:

  • Download Our Two Files:
  • Create a new project in Rush. Select the interview as #1 and the film clip as #2
  • Select Clip #2 in Rush (so that it has the yellow border around the video clip and its audio file). Right-click on the clip and select “Separate Audio.” You should now see something like the image below.
  • Delete the B-roll audio file.
  • Drag the B-roll video file to the track above it. NOTE: The tracks in Rush and Premiere work exactly like layers in photoshop. We see whatever is on top of the stack.
  • Now you can simply drag the B-roll clip to anywhere on the timeline and it will play “over” the A-roll. The A-roll audio will still play. Viola, an L-cut.

Executing an L-Cut in Adobe Rush (Lower B-roll audio)

This one is a bit trickier, only because Rush will kind of fight us. We need to do a simple hack to get this to work. The first few steps are the same:

  • Create a new project in Rush. Select the interview as #1 and the film clip as #2
  • Select Clip #2 in Rush (so that it has the yellow border around the video clip and its audio file). Right-click on the clip and select “Separate Audio.” You should now see something like the image below.
  • Now this will be weird. Drag the separated audio file to a lower track. For reasons I cannot fathom, Rush will *not* allow you to raise the video clip to the higher track. We need to trick it.
  • Move the separated audio track *after* its B-roll video track. See image #2 below
  • Now drag the b-roll video to the higher track. For reasons I really, really cannot fathom, Rush will slide the separated audio back in sync with the B-roll video clip. Weird.
  • Move the video clip to the position you want it. Then move the audio clip into position. It should auto-sync once it is close.
  • If you play the project, you will hear that the b-roll audio is too loud. We want to bring down the volume on the b-roll audio clip.
  • Select it and open the audio editing panel. Look for the image of a waveform on the far-right edge of the workspace. Alternatively, you can go to View > Audio.
  • Reduce the b-roll audio from its default of 50 to 25. Select the A-roll clip. Increase its audio from 50 to 75.
  • Bonus: drop a dissolve effect on the B-roll audio out and the B-roll video in.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 229 5.W: Editing Interview Footage

ENG 301 4.F: Report Expectations / Discussion Section

Today’s Plan:

  • Report Expectations
  • Discussion Section
  • Homework

Report Expectations

Generally this report is 6-8 pages, single-spaced (including title page, table of contents, and potential appendix). It does not need a formal reference list.

Rhetorical situation:
You have been hired by the UNCo Department of English to write a report that can be delivered to high school seniors, and their parents, discussing the current job market for English majors. The report will also be distributed to University Administrators and used to leverage funding for the Department. The report will be shared with faculty in the Department ahead of a round of curricular revisions. While the tone and language should be aimed at our primary audience, we should also keep in mind the secondary audiences that will interact with this document.

So we have multiple audiences for this report:

  • Primary Audience: High School Seniors
  • Secondary Audiences: Parents (who may or may not be skeptical that English is a viable career field), Administrators (who may or may not be skeptical of investing more resources in English, particularly money on technology-driven classes/computer labs), Faculty (who may or may not still see the mission of English tied to the traditional Liberal Arts education)

Again, our primary goal is to convince high school students to major in Writing, Editing, and Publishing or English Language Arts (perhaps with a minor in writing). We want to show them that our programs speak to the demands they will find in job advertisements.

Let’s Talk About What *This* Report Should Look Like

Something to Understand: there isn’t merely one standard format for a report. This isn’t like APA or MLA formatting where we can turn to a guide and have a specific, fixed set of expectations with which to work. When it comes to professional writing, both the content and its arrangement will likely be heavily context dependent.

My aim with this project is to give you a sense of what you can expect across a wide range of different situations. Here’s what I want to see in this report:

  • Front Loaded Introduction (combination Executive Summary and Intro): Does the intro summarize all significant findings and include specific, actionable recommendations?
  • Methodology: The methodology section needs to do a few things. First, how did I collect the job ads (I described this process in a blog post, condense my Brumberger and Lauer discussion)? Second, how did we analyze the job ads? Finaly, what did we do to ensure that our data was reliable? There needs to be a quick discussion of Brumberger and Lauer here.
  • Findings: Does the section contain a table or graph of data?
    Can you understand the table or graph, or is there some mystery meat?
    Does the writer make clear what the table or graph says [descriptive paragraphs after graphs]? Generally, these reports have three graphs–one on Tools and Tech, one on Professional Competencies, and one on Personal Characteristics
  • Discussion: See below.

Outside of these content demands, there’s a few stylistic expectations:

  • Length: Generally this report is 6-8 pages singled-spaced (this includes a title page, a table of content, and properly sized charts/graphs)
  • Style and Grammar [commas, run-ons, fragments, tense shifts, agreement errors, etc]
    Does the paper reflect our work on style (Williams and Bizup, Characters and Actions; we will be working on this next Wednesday in the lab)?
  • Does this paper reflect expectations for business formatting? (Check the ABO book)
    • Title Page
    • Page Numbers (should not include the title page)
    • Also, this is a professional report, not an academic paper. We are not using APA or MLA format for citing sources. Instead, we will rely on AP style–which uses in-line, reference citation.

Let’s take a look at a section from Alred, Brusaw, and Oliu’s Handbook of Technical Writing on formal reports.

Finally, you should draft and revise this paper in the same Google Doc. I will check the document history to see if it indicates that the paper was given a careful edit? (And/or, is the document relatively error free? Are there sentences in which grammatical errors lead to misunderstanding?). I’ll put my feedback into that Google Doc.

Discussion Section

So, I like to say that when it comes to a report like this–or almost any qualitative research project–you don’t really do much thinking until after you’ve collected the data. This is why I have you write the methodology section first. Because that really shouldn’t take too much thinking on your part. You’re just summarizing previous work (a la Lauer and Brumberger–you are picking up a project in medias res). But even if you did the job coding, that’s not a lot of thinking. It is a lot of reading, and, yeah, you might think about whether a particular signifier calls for a particular code, but–trust me–it is mostly mindless.

Creating graphs isn’t thinking either. It is simply translating data into a different form. I do ask that you summarize your graphs, and that requires some insight. But again, not a *ton* of thinking here.

Now we reach the discussion section. And now we have some serious thinking to do. I expect this section to do a few things.

First, it needs to put the data you presented in your findings in discussion with Brumberger and Lauer and, maybe, Lauer and Brumberger. This will require you to look at the results from the 2015 article and/or the observations from the 2019 article and find meaningful connections with the data section here. Full disclosure: you probably wouldn’t do this in a report aimed at high school students. But you would do this if you were speaking to administration or faculty. Put this research in conversation with previous research to amplify its validity and persuasiveness. This is hard to do.

Second, and more on point to our hypothetical task. You have to take the tools and technology codes and professional competencies codes and prove that a UNC education can provide those things. We are arguing not only that there actually are a wide range of jobs out there for writers (are we arguing that Or are we just stating that in the introduction?), but also that a UNC education can prepare you for those jobs. So, for every code that appears in the findings section, you should mention a class here at UNC–or maybe two, or maybe three classes–that speak to it. What classes are UNC really helped teach you to write? Which instructors are worthy of praise?

In a previous class notes, I linked to two documents that might help you think through this. And I’ll throw in a third:

Remember that you do not have to write specifically about how the WEP major, or even the writing minor, prepares you for a career in writing. On element of this report is my attempt to get you to engage in a bit of positive psychology: to recognize that there is value in the work that you are doing, that there are jobs out there for you after you graduate. Because there is! And there are! (And, if I were not likely already pressed for time, I would stress that the value of a degree should not solely be tied to vocational preparation, but also to creating critical and empathetic people capable of living meaningful lies and participating in democratic deliberation, but chances are I’m up against the end of class!).

Homework

Remember to read the Corder essay and complete the discussion assignment for Monday. We’ll work on editing prose (characters and actions) in the computer lab on Wednesday. We’ll look at sample reports in class on Friday. The final report will be due before next class on Monday the 25th.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 301 4.F: Report Expectations / Discussion Section

ENG 229 4.F: Montage

Today’s Plan:

  • Montage
  • Quick Look at Some Past Interviews
  • No Class on Monday

Montage

What is a montage? It is a series of shots in rapid succession. Montage was originally a Russian film technique (and Russian montage is often described by five formal categories). Because I’m a rhetorician, I like to think of them in terms of different purposes:

  • Compress time: you can tell a longer story (say, getting ready for work) quickly. This compression often shows up in the “training” montage of sport movies or the “gearing up” montage in action movies.
  • Composition: A montage can show us smaller elements of a thing to create either a sense of mystery or an air of grandeur (see Gestalt theory)
  • Repetition: A montage can amplify an idea or action by showing us it over and over again (and can play with slight variation for humor or tragedy)
  • Association: By putting elements in rapid succession, you can build a relationship between them. This can repeat a common theme. For instance, if my theme is nature, then I can jump to a lot of natural things. The viewer will feel nature without me having to say it. This is often referred to as “intellectual” or “ideological” montage
  • Juxtaposition: This is a special case (or quirk?) of association. If I string together seemingly dissimilar elements, a viewer will attempt to develop some kind of relationship between them. Filmmakers will strategize the dissonance that juxtaposition can cause. This is another form of “intellectual” montage (see Kuleshov Effect)

Perhaps the best way to introduce montages is just to watch some. Here we go: CineFix’s Top 10 Montages of All Time.

Quick Look at Some Past Interviews

To Google Drive.

No Class on Monday

I’m cancelling class on Monday to make sure that your group has time to record their interview. You’ll need to have access to that footage on Wednesday for editing. Remember that you need to record both A-Roll and B-Roll. I’ll ask you to cut up your B-Roll into a short introductory montage.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 229 4.F: Montage

ENG 301 4.W: Working with Data, Making Graphs

Today’s Plan:

  • Working with Data
  • Making Graphs
  • Homework

I am going to ask that your upcoming report have at least three graphs showing the top 5-7 codes for Tools and Technologies, Professional Competencies, and Personal Characteristics. Today we are going to work on this by creating cleaner spreadsheet data that we can visualize in Google Sheets.

Working With Data

Here, again, is the link to the data sheet I provided you earlier. That sheet is, in some ways, a disaster with which to work. There’s too much packed into one space. To make clean graphs, we are going to need to clean that data up. Let’s decide to work on a Tools and Technologies data set together. I’ve put together a template to get us started.

The next step will require you do some math. It will also help to arrange your windows so that you can see both the template sheet and the master data sheet at the same time. Remember that, for your report, you can focus on certain types of jobs (or do all of them). For this step, we want to carefully complete the template spreadsheet for the job categories you want to highlight.

Generating a Graph

Here’s the good news–once we have generated a data, it is quite easy to transform that data into a graph. Google has some simple documentation in case you need a refresher at home.

After we generate the graph, we can play with the formatting options. We should:

  • Give our graph a title (include Figure 1)
  • Give our graph a legend
  • Give our graph some data labels

Homework

For Friday, create two other graphs–one on Professional Competencies and the other on Personal Characteristics. In Friday’s class, I’m going to break you into groups to do some collaborative invention for the report (and I will finally give you an overview of the whole project). I tentatively have the final report due next Friday at midnight. This is negotiable.

For Monday’s class, read Corder’s “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love” and complete the Canvas assignment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 301 4.W: Working with Data, Making Graphs

ENG 229 4.W: Worklist #4, A Simple Interview

Today’s Plan:

  • Review Worklist #3
  • Introduce Worklist #4
  • For Friday: Read Schroeppel, Chapter 6 “Montages”

Review Work List #3

Base Criteria:

  • These videos should be 30-45 seconds long
  • Shots should be 5 seconds or less
  • Try to include title text for the video
  • The videos should include a music track (and I will cover this briefly on Monday)

Composition Elements:

  • Is there camera jiggle?
  • Are shots framed using the rule of thirds?
  • Is there space in front of faces?
  • Is there enough head room?
  • Lighting: Are there (non-intentional) deep shadows on the subject?

Formal Elements:

  • Contrast (brightness?)
  • Angled / provide depth?
  • Lines lead into subject?
  • Alignment
  • Contain backgrounds free from distractions?

Required Shots:

  • Opening or Establishing (We will talk about establishing shots on Friday)
  • Wide
  • Medium
  • Close Up
  • One Reversal

Work List #4: A Simple Interview

The 4th Work List assignment asks you to shoot a simple interview. This is a two-person project (two-camera) project. Camera number one will collect A-Roll and Camera number two will collect B-roll–before, during, and after the shoot. While the origins of the term “B-Roll.” are complicated and technical, its contemporary usage is pretty simple: it is complimentary video footage laid over the sound of main footage (A-Roll) to provide context. Or, more simply, it is cutaways. So, before and after the interview, you should let the camera run while setting up or talking afterwards. We will talk more about montages on Friday after you’ve read the Schroeppel.

The second camera will be set up at two different angles to provide an alternate shot of the subject. This will allow us to jump to a different angle of the subject speaking. To pull this off seemlessly, you will obviously need two cameras with tripods set up at different angles. We will then manually sync the b-roll with the a-roll in Rush. This will be tedious, and will make you appreciate Adobe Premiere more when we start working with it next week. To help with the sync process, you are going to want to start the video with a loud CLAP once both cameras are running. Make sure to CLAP again when you move camera #2–those claps will give us easy-to-identify cues in Rush to sync up.

We’ll talk more about potential ways of collecting B-Roll on Friday as we discuss montages.

Homework

Read Schroeppel’s short chapter on Montages.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 229 4.W: Worklist #4, A Simple Interview

ENG 225 4.M: Paragraph Structure and Working with Sources

Today’s Plan:

  • Reminder: Worknet #2 due on Wednesday
  • Paragraph Structure and Working With Sources

Paragraph Structure and Working with Sources

Today I want to spend time discussing some of the fundamentals of academic writing. We’ll practice this stuff on Wednesday in the computer lab.

  • Reminder: Writing cannot be taught

There’s two elements of writing that I want to handle today: paragraph structure and handling evidence. Academic papers are generally attempts to prove one major claim. Think of the entire paper like laying rail road tracks–you want to take a reader from position A to position B.

Paragraphs are individual steps on that track (ugh, the metaphor is failing me). Every paragraph should be attempting to articulate one (and only one) idea that helps move us from A to B. Here’s how I assess paragraph structure:

  • Does each paragraph open with a topic sentence that lays out the claim of that paragraph?
  • Does it transition into and contextualize evidence?
  • Does it supply evidence (quote, reason, anecdote, etc).
  • Does it summarize and then analyze evidence? [Note summarize and analyze are two different things!]
  • Does the closing sentence of the paragraph “end” the thought by referring the specific claim of the paragraph back to the overall argument of the paper?

Of especial importance is how you handle evidence–providing context, the evidence itself, and an analysis of the evidence to support the paragraph’s claim. Another list:

  • How well do you transition into a quote?
  • Do you know how to contextualize a quote [that is, briefly tell the reader where the quote falls in view of the original author’s argument].
  • After a quote, how deftly can you summarize the quote–putting it into your own words in a way that “opens” it up for the reader without sounding too repetitive. This is a skill, a real hard one.
  • AND then, how well do you add something to that quote/evidence that does something with it?

For instance, if your paragraph argues that Sicart believes players must feel complicity to enact ethical gaming, and you supply a quote speaking to that, then =what can you add to the quote(s) from Sicart to help me understand it more. Do you recognize what keywords in the quote require more explication? Do you have personal experience that can help illuminate the concept? Do you have something to add to the quote to amplify its argument? Extend? Examples? This is really the only part of a paragraph in which you are truly “thinking.”

Let me offer a simple example:

Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, writing: “To play is to inhabit a wiggle space of possibility in which we can express ourselves–our values, beliefs, and politics” (p. 9). Play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives. Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle rooom. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.

Even if I paraphrase the quote, I need a citation:

Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, noting how play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives (pp. 8-9). Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle room. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.

Plagiarism. It isn’t stealing words, it is stealing thoughts, ideas. Be sure to make a parenthetical reference when you use a idea from Sicart.

Let’s practice. Here’s a few passages from Katherine Isbister’s 2017 book How Games Move Us / Emotion by Design. Isbister is describing research she conducted on how players reacted to NPCs programmed to have human characteristics. The paragraph:

NPCs showed signs of submissiveness or dominance in their body postures and in the way they phrased their advice. For example, in figure 1.6, the NPC has taken a dominant stance (arms wide) but is using hesitant, submissive-style language (“what about maybe” and “perhaps”). In the study, each person saw one of four versions of the NPC–consistent dominant cues, consistent submissive cues, or mixed (body dominant with submissive phrasing, or submissive body with dominant phrasing). As would be the case with real human beings, those who interacted with the mixed-signal NPCs were less influenced. They made fewer changes to their own ranking of the items than participants in the study who saw consistent NPCs. In real life, consistency in nonverbal cues is associated with honesty and trustworthiness. It is amazing that these sorts of responses hold true for engaging with virtual humans as well. To the extent that NPCs display humanlike actions and reactions, we engage them using social norms and intuitive responses. This means that game designers can create powerful feelings in players when they make use of relationships that players form with NPCs. [p. 22]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 225 4.M: Paragraph Structure and Working with Sources

ENG 301 3.F: Describing Methodology

Today’s Plan

  • Elements of a Methodology Section
  • Quick Introduction to Genre / Let’s Read
  • Homework [Marc: At least 5 minutes to prep the reading]

Elements of a Methodology Section

If you Google Search for how to do a methodology section, you are going to see a pretty common set of expectations. Let’s take Indeed as an example, since it is currently the top hit on Google for “how to write a methodology section.”

  • Explain the purpose of the research
  • Explain the approach you chose
  • Explain any uncommon methods you use
  • Describe how you collected the data you used
  • Explain the methods you used to analyze the data
  • Evaluate and justify the choices you made
  • Discuss obstacles and solutions (relevant if anything went wrong during the research process)
  • Cite sources

So let me distill this down for this project:

  • Does the writer explain how job ads were collected?
  • Does the writer address previous research (Brumberger and Lauer)?
  • Does the writer explain the method of analysis?
  • Does the writer address reliability?

Homework

First, read the Carolyn Miller essay and complete the assignment in Canvas. Prep: a quick history on English departments and writing instruction.

Second, revise and resubmit your methodology section (you can resubmit to the same assignment).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 301 3.F: Describing Methodology

ENG 229 3.F: Opening/Establishing Shot

Today’s Plan:

  • Opening/Establishing Shot
  • Schedule

Opening/Establishing Shot

I am not a film director. But I do not that film directors spend a lot of time thinking about the opening shot of a film. I’ve been teaching this class for about seven years now and, perhaps more than anything else, thinking about opening/establishing shots might be one of the biggest impacts the class has had on me.

Let’s turn to Kelsa Davis’ article on “How to Create a Powerful Opening Shot.”

Schedule

A reminder that Worklist #3 is due on Wednesday. I’ve included a list of criteria for the project in Canvas.

Monday will be a work day. I’ll show you how to find some “copyleft” music, include it in Rush, and put a fade on it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 229 3.F: Opening/Establishing Shot

ENG 301 3.W: “Hybrid” Jobs and Diving into Data

Today’s Plan:

  • Thursday Office Hours from 9:30 to 12:00 in Ross 1140B
  • Discuss B&L Reading
  • Diving into Data
  • Homework

Diving into Data

As I mentioned last Friday, I am approaching teaching this project differently this semester. In the past, we would have spent a week coding job ads; this semester, I am simply going to hand you my data (link to 2017 and 2022 job data). Your task is to comb through that data in order to make sense of it and translate it for lay audiences (students, parents, other faculty, administrators).

I want to start that work today by giving you time to look at the data and identify three smart/interesting/relevant/rhetorical ideas. I am here if you want to ask questions.

The idea behind transforming this project grows out the L&B article we read for today: as professional writers, you are likely to encounter a project in medias res; having an ability to jump into and make sense of foreign material will be valuable. I expect my data will be a bit confusing–a direct learning objective here is to work through that feeling.”

First research goal: to identify what tools and technologies, professional competencies, and personal characteristics writers can expect to encounter in job advertisements. Identify trends/changes. Identify outliers. Compare my results to B&L 2015. Do something smart.
Let’s put some smart things in here.

Once we have this list under (somewhat) control, our second task will be to put that data in conversation with your education at UNC. Remember, our ultimate goal is to help sell high school students on pursuing a literature or writing degree here at UNC. So let’s think across those vectors. [NOTE: IIRC everyone here is an English Major or a Writing minor, so I think one of the two following options works for everyone].

  • Option One: Comb through the new WEP major to identify strengths (and maybe point out weaknesses / supplemental options)
  • Option Two: Map out how, while at UNC, a student can pursue a course of study that prepares them to apply for writing jobs

Unfinished Draft:
I don’t know if we will have time for this in class today, or if this will have to wait until Friday. But our second research goal is to align these expectations with our new Writing, Editing, and Publishing (WEP) major. To help facilitate this alignment, let me share:

Homework

For Friday, I’d like you to take a swing at drafting a methodology section for this report. The methodology section needs to do a few things. First, it needs to describe how the job ads were collected (I described this process in a blog post, condense my Brumberger and Lauer discussion)? Second, it needs to describe how the job ads were coded (what are codes)? Third it has to explain what the researchers did to ensure that their research was reliable. Overall, the point of an academic or professional methodology section is to articulate the project such that a reader feels they could recreate this work. Think of it a bit like a recipe.

This methodology will of course grow–since the coding of the job ads is something that happened before you even started working. We will have to add more on how you processed this data and aligned it with an education at UNC.

For Monday, read the Carolyn Miller article “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing” and complete the Canvas assignment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on ENG 301 3.W: “Hybrid” Jobs and Diving into Data

ENG 225 3W: Reviewing Worknet #1; Selecting Next Reading

Today’s Plan:

  • Thursday Office Hours: 9:30 -12:00 in Ross 1140B
  • Reviewing Worknet #1
  • Selecting Next Reading

Reviewing Worknet #1

First, I’ve commented on all of the worknets that I have in Canvas. You should find two comments from me (in blue): one on your summary paragraph and one a response to your final reflection.

I have also given you an Action item to complete. I’ll give you 10 minutes now to work on that item.

Second, I have some stuff I want to cover as a class. To Canvas!

Selecting Our Next Reading

For Friday, I want you to start reading a new research article. Let me discuss this by teams.

Team Ethical Gaming
I’d like you to read a more quantitative study on ethical decisions (something similar in design to the Lynch et al study on representation). So I propose that we start with Ryan et al’s 2023 article “The Effect of Morality Meters on Ethical Decision-Making in Video Games”. I haven’t read this one yet–but a quick skim suggests that it should resonate with Sicart.

For Friday, first spend 10 minutes playing this game.

Then read the introduction and methods section of the article. Finally, spend 10 minutes attempting to summarize:

  • How they collected participants
  • What they asked participants to do
  • How they turned this into meaningful data (what did they code/collect?)

Something I’ll be thinking about: how does Sicart’s critique of instrumental gaming, belief in consequences, concern about overt morality games, investment in pause/player reflection, and focus on wicked problems resonate with their Great Fire Game and their research design? What would Sicart say about this article?

Team Representation
This group is a bit more tricky to plan for–simply because I am unsure how many of you want to continue working on sex/gender and how many of you would prefer to work on race or queer studies.

If you want to continue working on gender, then I recommend reading either

If you want to work on race, then I recommend

If you want to work on sexuality or queer studies, then I recommend

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on ENG 225 3W: Reviewing Worknet #1; Selecting Next Reading