ENG 225: Rhetoric and Gaming

Fall 2022 | Sec 001 | T/R | 9:30-10:45
Tuesdays we meet in Cand 0260
Thursdays we meet in Ross 1240

Dr. Marc C. Santos
www.marccsantos.com
marc.santos@unco.edu
Ross Hall 1140B

Student Hours: Fridays 2:30-4:00 (Zoom links available upon request). I will be in the Michner Library foyer. Tuesdays 2:30-4:00 by email appointment.

Prologue

I wrote my first article on video games in 2004. At the time scholarship on video games was quite sparse. By the time I taught my first class on video games nearly ten years later, that body of scholarship had grown considerably. Video games have grown to be the most lucrative and ubiquitous media form in American. They are a global medium, crossing and mixing cultures. Their growth and reach have triggered interest from a wide variety of academic disciplines. Through three projects, this class introduces you to a few ways academics analyze video games. Our first project will follow typical humanities methodology, close reading specific scenes in a game in order to determine how it makes us feel and what purpose the creator might have in engendering said feelings. Our second project will use a qualitative methodology more common in the social sciences, as we develop a protocol to collect, code, and analyze trends in video games. Our third project will ask you to develop your own research question and methodology around a game/community of your choosing.

The earliest imagining of this course was titled “Rhetoric and Video Games,” but I changed it to Rhetoric and Gaming. I use the gerund (Gaming) because I wanted to stress that we are thinking about gaming as a form of action–not video games as static objects. While we can (and will) think of games as objects that we play, we will also be thinking about how the act of play impacts how we see ourselves and maneuver in the world. Gaming is gaining recognition as a kind of philosophy (meant in the most broadest of terms as an approach to how we live, appreciate, imagine our lives). Game theory has circulated in academic circles for decades, and more recently, the term “gamification” (the perhaps overused buzzword for this growth, Ian Bogost in particular has argued against the term) marks interdisciplinary study on the impact gaming has on economic, social, and political life. Thus, the goals of this course extend beyond studying video games as textual/aesthetic objects, and into how those games can explicitly and implicitly shape behavior and identity.

And that’s what brings us into the realm of rhetoric. I’m uncertain how many of you will be familiar with the discipline of Rhetoric. In popular culture, the term “rhetoric” is often synonymous with manipulation or bullshit–empty language meant to trick audiences. This definition of Rhetoric traces back to the philosopher Plato, who emphasized that rhetoric could only lead us away from Truth. Plato’s student, Aristotle, offers a vision of rhetoric as “persuasion,” but it is a logocentric vision, tied to Plato’s philosophy–one that rhetoricians for centuries have pushed against. It would take me quite a few weeks to survey all that is wrong with Plato’s misconceptions regarding rhetoric’s purpose and necessity (I do that in ENG 319). We don’t have that much time. So let me say this: throughout history, rhetorical scholars have emphasized that there is a distance between knowing what is true and doing what is right. Most people know that cigarettes are bad for them. Many still smoke. Most people know we are headed toward a climate catastrophe, but voted against green initiatives. This distance–between what people know and what people do–is one of rhetoric’s central concerns. How do we move people to act?

A second concern of rhetoric is our sense of collective identity. Plato’s philosophy is highly individualistic–every person must think for herself. This, however, is idealistic. This does not reflect the way that people live their lives. We are social animals. Our sense of self is always entwined in relationships: both to people and to ideas/institutions. This is the study of ethos. Perhaps you’ve been introduced to ethos before as “credibility.” This is a reductive and Platonic/Aristotelian way of thinking about ethos: can I trust what this individual is saying to me? Are they knowledgeable? Are they “objective” (most rhetoricians are deeply skeptical of the concept of objectivity)? Those are fine questions, essential in specific situations, but they do not address the totality of ethos, especially as it structures and operates in our daily lives. Rhetorical scholars and theorists frame ethos in far more complicated and comprehensive ways. Ethos marks the set of relationships and associations that frame the way I experience the world. For instance, I made a reference to climate change in the previous paragraph. That very term sets off a range of epistemic [conscious / rational / thought / logos] and affective [unconscious / bodily / felt / pathos] responses in folks. Who you “are” (your ideological identity) impacts what you hear and how you feel. We will explore these ideas more in our future projects. But, as we will see in our first project, I consider games as powerful machines for developing and influencing our identities.

Rhetoric’s two most common definitions are persuasion (Aristotle) and identity (Burke). Games, as Ian Bogost has highlighted, have powerful impact on both, persuading us toward particular attitudes and behaviors by subconsciously shaping our sense of identity and ideology (for simplicity, think of ideology as how you think the world works, should work, and what changes to the world are possible–what is, ought, and might be). Following Bogost, we’ll utilize critical methods for thinking about what games mean and we’ll invent methods for thinking about what gaming does (to me, to my community, to my economy, to my culture, to my world). This course focuses on “gaming” much more than on rhetoric; but throughout the course I will use the term rhetoric to mean either 1) how we explicitly attempt to shape what people think/do/feel or 2) how we implicitly affect how people see themselves, how they help us “identify” ourselves, or–perhaps more mystical and sinister–how they shape us beyond our immediate conscious awareness. More than mere wastes of time, games shape thought and develop communities and that makes them objects worthy of study.

In short, I am interested in games as rhetorical objects that both reflect and seek to persuade us to see and navigate a particular vision of the world. Games (some of them at least), are far more than mere distractions, are what Aristotle would identify as forms of poesis that teach values via memesis. Given their rhetorical power and increasing presence in our lives, we–players, scholars, citizens–need to pay closer attention.

Major Assignments

This course is composed of three projects that aim to introduce you to different research methods. Our first two projects will introduce you to critical analysis (our first project) and qualitative/quantitative research (our second project). You will then then the opportunity to design your own approach for your final paper.

Project One: Ethical Gameplay
LAC Course Content Criteria: 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b

Our first project examines the development of ethical choice in narrative game play. We will read sections from Miguel Sicart’s Beyond Choices (2013) and other articles to develop a notion of ethical game play. Our goal will be to develop a set of questions we can use to identify and discuss what makes a game ethically interesting, focusing on three terms/concepts:

• Player Complicity
• Wicked Problems
• Meaningful Reflection

So, for this first project, I am especially interested in games that involve ethical or moral choices (and we’ll talk a bit about the distinction between morals and ethics later).

We will test this theory on Telltale’s The Walking Dead. You will then compose an ethical analysis paper on a game of your choosing (typically these papers end up around 6-8 pages). This first project, then, exposes you to hermeneutic/interpretive research methodology. Specifically, how many humanist scholars approach games via the standard lens/object analysis paper. We read theory to develop a way of seeing or thinking (a lens), and then apply that way of seeing or thinking to a “textual” object in order to interpret it, to identify its purpose(s), meaning(s), and implications. In many cases, you use the theory to evaluate the success or failure of a game at engendering the kind of ethical experience Sicart champions. In rarer cases, you will use the success or failure of a game to challenge an assumption in Sicart’s theory.

Project Two: Race, Gender, Sexuality, and Gaming
LAC Course Content Criteria: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b

In this project we pick up the work of games studies critic Anita Sarkeesian, founder of Feminist Frequency. Her initial study, conducted in 2013 and released as a series of YouTube videos, focused on gender and video games; the results did not necessarily cast game developers in a positive light. Your goal will be to investigate whether things gotten better. Can we look at specific studios clearly answering her call for more progressive and authentic representations of women, people of color, and members of LGBTQ+ communities? Working in groups, students will design and execute a qualitative study of a specific gaming genre, learning to develop/compose a research methodology, collect data, code/interpret said data. This project isn’t about playing games, so much as analyzing game images, fan communities, character creation methods, or NPCs. We want to look at and categorize a lot of objects in order to identify attitudes, trends, and/or representations. This will manifest in a collaborative essay of 6-10 pages.

Past projects have looked at the covers of games, looked at the credits to analyze whose making games, looked at the costumes/characters in games, looked at the character creation process, looked at marketing for games (youtube vids, for instance), looked at Metacritic scores or STEAM ratings for games with female protagonists, etc. The idea here is to develop a machine that can “process” a bunch of different games, looking at one or two specific things, in order to identify a larger trend.

This project is an example of research more common in the social sciences–qualitative research that requires you to establish a research methodology, what I affectionately call a “meat grinder” (in place of articulating a critical lens).

Project Three: Choose Your Own Adventure
LAC Course Content Criteria: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b

Our third project will be more open-ended. I will ask you to develop your own research question centered around a particular game or gaming community. This paper will incorporate 100-150 pages of research (whether a book or books chapters and articles) on a game as well as your own contribution. We’ll work on a proposal project in which you identify a game you would like to study, scout out some preliminary perspectives on the game, and hypothesize what you think you’ll find (or something like that, I tend to give a lot of latitude to design your own project here). Gamers–this is your opportunity to write about that game you love (first surveying what other scholarship is out there on that game). Or to write about that game you hate. However–as with our first project–I will emphasize the importance of knowing a game’s “time to beat.”

Surveying recent projects:

• What the hell is Blaseball? (funky collaborative online story-telling and decision-making)
• Ethical and Pro-Social Decision-Making in Detroit: Become Human (Taking time to apply Sicart to a longer game)
• Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey and Last of Us II
• Dealing With Toxicity: Looking at the Lack of Prosocial Behavior in EVE Online
• Humans vs. Zombies: The Benefits of Campus Wide Alternate Reality Games (Grows out of Bogost’s work on procedurality)
• Testing the Promise of SuperBetter: Can we gamify our daily lives?
• Exploring the Application of Video Games to the Music Classroom to Increase Good Performance Behaviors in Students

Note to Non-Gamers

You’d be surprised how many students ask me whether they have to play video games to succeed in this class. Let me answer that one as best I can. TL;DR: yes, you have to play video games, but not as much as you might think.

I have had people who weren’t gamers succeed in this class, people who maybe played a little Candy Crush or other mobile game. You don’t have to be a Twitch streamer to take–and enjoy–the class. And some of the most interesting contributions come from people who aren’t gamers, who aren’t already familiar (or desensitized) to the genres.

But you will have to play games for at least the first project (which calls for 6-10 hours of gaming). If this were a literature class, you’d be reading novels. You can’t take a literature class without doing the reading. Similarly, you can’t take a gaming class without playing games.

However, as I indicate above, the second project does not require you to play games. Nor does the third project. This is primarily a class on writing and research methods.

Text and Materials

There is no required text for this class. However, there is one required game:

• Skybound Games. (Developed by Telltale Games). Walking Dead: The Game (Season 1), Episodes 1 & 2

The Walking Dead is available in a wide range of places. As of this morning, it is $14.99 on Steam (a video game service for PC and Mac). The Walking Dead is also available on iOS and Android: Episode 1 should be free, I am unsure the cost of episode 2.

Additionally, you will need a gmail account for this class, since most assignments will be turned in via Google Docs.

Labor-Based Grading

Following contemporary research on assessment and student learning, this course eschews a traditional evaluative grading system (one in which I use a rubric in order to judge the quality of your work) in favor of a labor-based system (one in which you earn a grade through the consistency and quantity of your effort). Research on traditional grading shows that it often rewards students from more affluent backgrounds and penalizes students from marginalized backgrounds and/or those who enter a class without foundational prior knowledge. Given the myriad (and often insufficient) ways writing gets taught in many secondary schools, and the wide range of literate experiences y’all might have had growing up, I want to provide an environment that let’s everyone succeed regardless of their previous preparation. My understanding of “success” is built around individual growth and development–this course is successful if you leave it a more proficient and confident writer.

Research on writing studies also tells us that the most important component of learning to write is consistent effort and investment. Thus, assessment in this class aims to measure how hard you try more than whether your writing is “good.” If you pass in all assignments (relatively) on-time (and they address the baisc concerns of the project’s rubric), maintain solid attendance, and receive positive assessments from group mates on Project 3, then you are assured a “B” in the course.

To earn an “A,” you will have to invest extra effort. This includes:

• Resubmitting Project 1 until it reaches a 90% on the rubric and/or address instructor comments (2 extra points)
• Expanding the sample size for Project 2 (doing extra work, 1-2 extra points)
• Conducting extra secondary research for Project 3 (1-2 points
• Visiting office hours in order to share drafts or ask meaningful questions about a project/reading/work (1 point per visit, maximum of 3 points per semester)
• Bringing drafts of your paper to the Writing Center (1 point per visit, maximum of 3 points per semester)
• Making consistent and meaningful contributions to class discussions (especially when we are reviewing scholarship or are grade norming, 2 points)

I recognize that some of these criteria might seem ambiguous. The last thing I want to do is to stress you out about whether or not you are doing well in this class. In fact, I’m aiming for exactly the opposite. The gambit I am playing here, backed by contemporary scholarship, is that your writing will improve if you aren’t concerned about your grade. Do the things that we know tend to make you better writers and your grade will take care of itself. Do the things! You will complete a Google form in the final week of class that includes a self-evaluation.

I am trying to set up an environment that rewards you for your labor. Writing studies scholarship consistently shows that the most significant factor in learning to write is simply investment. The more writing you do, the better writer you will become. I believe that moving to a labor-based system makes writing classes less stressful, since you do not need to be overly concerned that your lack of expertise or experience will doom you to a poor grade.

However, effort alone will not necessarily make you better–we need to focus that effort. Class assignments will often come with rubrics that identify key concepts, genre conventions, strategies, or content that has to be included in a project. If you miss something, you will have the opportunity to revise and resubmit until you get it down. We will familiarize ourselves with project rubrics by grading past projects together as a class. This should help familiarize you with some key genre conventions for academic writing so you better understand my expectations. We will also use the rubric during peer reviews.

TL;DR: I assign *a lot* of work. If you do all the work, then you are assured a B. If you do all the work and some more work, then you are assured an A. I do this because decades of research in writing studies tell us that the more work you do, the better a writer you will become.

Assessment

The course will be evaluated based on the following scale:

A+: 97-100% A: 93-96% A-: 90-92% B+: 87-89% B: 83-86% B-: 80-82% C+: 77-79% C: 73-76% C-: 70-72% D+: 67-69% D: 63-66% D-: 60-62% F: 0-59%

All minor and major assignments turned into Canvas will be awarded an 8.5, so long as they are turned in (relatively) on-time. Assignments turned in more than 7 days after the initial due date will receive a 7.5 and will not receive a rubric score or detailed feedback. I will not accept minor assignments after their corresponding major assignment’s completion.

Rubric revisions must be completed within 2 weeks of when I hand back final drafts.

Student/Office Hours

Student hours are on Friday afternoons from 2:30 until 4:00. Additionally, I am available on Tuesday afternoons by appointment (send me an email to set up a time; meetings are generally 15-30 minutes).

What’s the point of office hours? Mostly preparation or review.

• If we are starting a project, then you can come in and just brainstorm. Most of my best ideas come from just talking to people–ideas just emerge. The dialectic process (fancy speak for asking “what about” kinds of questions) has been around for a few millennia because it works.
• If I’ve handed back a project, then office hours are a great way to ask questions about my feedback. I try to put meaningful comments in the margins of your work. I also recognize that you might not understand my comments. Likewise, you might not understand why you got a lower score on a rubric grade. If you pop into office hours, we can review your work before you revise it. I can highlight what revisions should take priority and make sure you are working efficiently
• Also, if you are interested in becoming a Writing Minor or an English Major, I am more than willing to provide an overview of the programs and answer any questions you might have. If you are looking for an internship, then I can help you get course credit.
• Just talking. Much of the University experience involves being exposed to difference. Different ideas, disciplines, terminologies, people, attitudes. It is natural to have questions. “Hey, you mentioned this thing in class.” Or, hey, this idea came up in another class–but it seems to contradict what you said the other day. Or, hey God of War is a pretty great video game, but why do you think they made Atreus such a jerk in the middle? Or, hey, have you seen/read/played [insert name of television show, movie, book, graphic novel, video game, DnD module]? It seems like you’d be into it because [reasons]?

You are not bothering me when you come to office hours. I do not offer them simply because the University orders me to (and, um, pays me to). I authentically enjoy helping people develop ideas, explore the strange and unfamiliar, and share cool stuff.

Liberal Arts Core & Gt Pathways Student Learning Outcomes for Area 1

The Liberal Arts Core Area 1 requirement in Written Communication is designed to help students develop the ability to use the English language effectively, read and listen critically, and write with thoughtfulness, clarity, coherence, and persuasiveness. In order to fulfill Area 1 students are required to take 6 credit hours in written communication coursework, 3 credit hours in area 1a (ENG 122) and 3 credit hours in area 1b (e.g. ENG 123 or ENG 225). Each course in the Written Communication sequence assumes that writing is a recursive process. UNC’s LAC outcomes are aligned with the State of Colorado’s Gt Pathways student learning outcomes, competencies, and content criteria for written communication.

Core Competency: The Colorado Commission on Higher Education defines competency in written communication as a student’s ability to write and express ideas across a variety of genres and styles. Written communication abilities develop over time through layered, interactive, and continual processes and experiences across the curriculum. (All outcomes listed below are for GT-CO1 and GT-CO-2.)

Students Learning Outcomes
Students Should Be Able To:

1. Employ Rhetorical Knowledge
   • Exhibit a thorough understanding of audience, purpose, genre, and context that is responsive to the situation
2. Develop Content
   • Create and develop ideas within the context of the situation and the assigned task(s)
3. Apply Genre and Disciplinary Conventions
   • Apply formal and informal conventions of writing, including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistics choices, in particular forms and/or fields
4. Use Sources and Evidence
   • Critically read, evaluate, apply, and synthesize evidence and/or sources in support of a claim.
   • Follow an appropriate documentation system
5. Control Syntax and Mechanics
   • Demonstrate proficiency with conventions, including spellings, grammar, mechanics, and word choice appropriate to the writing task

Course Content Criteria

The Colorado Commission on Higher Education requires that any course which receives approval as GT-CO2 must adhere to the list of course content criteria articulated below. This course shall be designed to:

1. Deepen Rhetorical Knowledge
   • A. Focus on rhetorical situation, audience, and purpose
   • B. Use voice, tone, format, and structure appropriately, deepening understanding of relationships between form and content in writing
   • C. Write and read texts written in several genres, for specified discourse communities. These communities may include professional or disciplinary discourse communities
   • D. Practice reflective strategies
2. Deepen Experience in Writing
   • A. Develop recursive strategies for generating ideas, revising, editing, and proofreading for extensive, in-depth, and/or collaborative projects
   • B. Critique one’s own and other’s work
3. Deepen Critical and Creative Thinking
   • A. Evaluate the relevance of context
   • B. Synthesize other points of view within one’s own position
   • C. Reflect on the implications and consequences of the stated conclusion
4. Use Sources and Evidence
   • A. Select and evaluate appropriate sources and evidence
   • B. Evaluate the relevance of sources to the research question
5. Deepen Application of Composing Conventions
   • A. Apply genre conventions including structure, paragraphing, tone, mechanics, syntax, and style to more extensive or in-depth writing projects
   • B. Use specialized vocabulary, format, and documentation appropriately

Attendance

First, this is a “hands-on” course, and much of the learning you will do in here comes from trying (and failing) to do things in class. I don’t lecture much, but class discussions are meant to explicate how to think like a professional writer. Essentially, there is no way to “teach” writing; writing is learned through trial, disequilibrium, struggle, failure, breakthrough, and perseverance. Class is a way for me to attempt to structure these experiences. And, as I’ve already pointed out, much writing studies scholarship emphasizes the importance of effort and labor; you need to be here and be working.

However, even in the best of times, it is simply unrealistic to demand someone show up to every class. Life happens in myriad unpredictable ways. And, of course, these are not the best of times. I will not be grading attendance this semester. Not only are you paying to be here, but also you are risking your health to be here. I figure you are pretty motivated to come to class if you can. If I believe your lack of attendance is interrupting your learning, then we’ll have a conversation. Essentially, I’m trusting you to be honest and responsible. If someone tests positive for COVID or is placed on quarantine, then I will record Tuesday classes on Zoom as needed. Please do NOT come to class if you are feeling symptomatic–send me an email and let me know if you would like a Zoom link.

Writing Center

The Writing Center offers three kinds of sessions to meet your writing needs: In-Person, Email, and Zoom Sessions. Trained Writing Center Consultants can assist you with writing assignments from any course or subject. Even if you think your writing is pretty good, it’s always nice to have another reader look over your work.
To guarantee a session time, make an appointment using our online scheduling system by visiting our website. We also have walk-in session times available during our scheduled open hours, Monday – Friday 9:00 am – 4:00 pm in the Writing Center, Ross Hall 1230 as well as walk-in sessions in the library (first floor) Monday – Thursday evenings, 5:00 pm – 8:00 pm.

If your instructor requires you to visit the Writing Center, make sure to alert your Consultant, and/or check the box on the appointment form, and we will send an email confirmation of your session to your instructor.

For more information, email the Writing Center at writingcenter@unco.edu or visit our website.

Student Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity

All members of the University of Northern Colorado community are entrusted with the responsibility to uphold and promote five fundamental values: Honesty, Trust, Respect, Fairness, and Responsibility. These core elements foster an atmosphere, inside and outside of the classroom, which serves as a foundation and guides the UNC community’s academic, professional, and personal growth. Endorsement of these core elements by students, faculty, staff, administration, and trustees strengthens the integrity and value of our academic climate.

The Department of English at UNC has adopted the following policy regarding plagiarism. Pretending that another¹s work is one¹s own is a serious scholarly offense known as plagiarism. For a thorough discussion of plagiarism, see the Dean of Students website:
http://www.unco.edu/dos/academicIntegrity/students/definingPagiarism.html

Students who are caught plagiarizing will receive a final grade of “F” in the course. In addition, they will be reported to the Chair of the Department of English and the Dean of Students office for possible further disciplinary action. If you need help with understanding documentation systems and avoiding plagiarism beyond the instruction given in class and as seen in the UNC Code of Conduct, speak with the instructor or visit the UNC Writing Center’s web site for a series of PowerPoint tutorials at http://www.unco.edu/english/wcenter/academicintegrityindex.html. Instructors use experience and a plagiarism detection service, Safe Assignment, sponsored by the University, to aid in spotting cases of plagiarism. Plagiarism will not be tolerated.

Some but not all UNC instructors regard double or repeat submissions of one¹s own work as a form of plagiarism. If you intend to use in this course written material that you produced for another course, please meet with me first. Otherwise, you may be guilty of cheating. I am open to remediating and expanding previously completed work in this class.

Disability Accommodations

Any student requesting disability accommodation for this class must inform the instructor giving appropriate notice. Students are encouraged to contact Disability Support Services (www.unco.edu/dss ) at (970) 351-2289 to certify documentation of disability and to ensure appropriate accommodations are implemented in a timely manner.

Parental Accommodations

As a parent, I understand that life can come at you fast. If you would miss a class session due to babysitting issues, please don’t. Feel free to bring your child to class.

Title IX Resources

The University of Northern Colorado is committed to providing a safe learning environment for all students that is free of all forms of discrimination and sexual harassment, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. Students who have experienced (or who know someone who has experienced) any of these incidents should know that they are not alone. UNC has staff members trained to support students to navigate campus life, to access health and counseling services, to provide academic and housing accommodations, to help with legal protective orders, and more.

Please be aware all UNC instructors and most staff members are required to report their awareness of sexual violence to the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance (OIEC). This means that if students tell an instructor about a situation involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, the instructor must share that information with the Title IX Coordinator, Larry Loften. Larry or a trained staff member in OIEC will contact the reporting students to let them know about accommodations and support services at UNC as well as their options to pursue a process to hold accountable the person who caused the harm to them. Students who have experienced these situations are not required to speak with OIEC staff regarding the incident. Students’ participation in OIEC processes are entirely voluntary.

If students do not want the Title IX Coordinator notified, instead of disclosing this information to the instructor, students can speak confidentially with the following people on campus and in the community. They can connect you with support services and help explore options now, or in the future.

• UNC’s Assault Survivors Advocacy Program (ASAP): 24 Hr. Hotline 970-351-4040 or http://www.unco.edu/asap
• UNC Counseling Center: 970-351-2496 or http://www.unco.edu/counseling
• UNC Psychological Services: 970-351-1645 or http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psych_clinic

Students who are survivors, who are concerned about someone who is a survivor, or who would like to learn more about sexual misconduct or report an incident, can visit www.unco.edu/sexual-misconduct. Students may also contact OIEC at 970-351-4899 or email titleix@unco.edu.

Equity Inclusion

The University of Northern Colorado (UNC) embraces the diversity of students, faculty, and staff. UNC honors the inherent dignity of each individual, and welcomes their unique perspectives, behaviors, and world views. People of all races, religions, national origins, sexual orientations, ethnicities, genders and gender identities, cognitive, physical, and behavioral abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, regions, immigrant statuses, military or veteran statuses, sizes and/or shapes are strongly encouraged to share their rich array of perspectives and experiences. Course content and campus discussions will heighten your awareness of others’ individual and intersecting identities.

For information or resources, contact Chief Diversity Officer, Dr. Tobias Guzman, at 970-351-1944. If students want to report an incident related to identity-based discrimination/harassment, please visit www.unco.edu/institutional-equity-compliance.

Food Insecurity

Research shows that college students experience food insecurity at higher rates than the American household rate and that food insecurity can negatively impact academic performance and persistence. In recognition of this problem, UNC offers assistance to students facing food insecurity through an on- campus food pantry. The Bear Pantry is located in University Center 2166A and is open for regular hours throughout the semester. Please visit www.unco.edu/bear-pantry for more information.

Students who face challenges securing their food or housing and believe this may affect their performance in this course are also urged to contact Student Outreach and Support (SOS), which is part of the Dean of Students Office. SOS can assist students during difficult circumstances, which may include medical, mental health, personal or family crisis, illness, or injury. The Dean of Students Office/SOS can be reached at dos@unco.edu or via phone at 970-351-2001.

Land Acknowledgment

The University of Northern Colorado occupies the lands in the territories of the Ute, Cheyenne, and Arapaho peoples. The University acknowledges the 48 tribes that are historically tied to the state of Colorado. Thus, the land on which UNC is situated is tied to the history and culture of our native and indigenous peoples. UNC appreciates this connection and has great respect for this land. Additionally, the University community pays its respect to Elders past, present, and future, and to those who have stewarded this land throughout the generations.

As part of the learning and reflection process please visit https://native-land.ca/ or call the Office of Equity & Inclusion at 970-351-1944.

Name in Use/Pronoun in Use/Name Change

Some students may have changed their names to better reflect their gender identity or for other reasons. The process to request that the University change the name that appears on Canvas and on the course roster is available here: https://www.unco.edu/registrar/name-change.aspx

Calendar

A brief sketch of our first five weeks.

Week One: Sicart’s Theory of Ethical Gaming (Concepts We Can Use to Analyze Game Play)
Monday:

• Welcome!
• Trolley Problem
• Quick Hit #1: Reading an Academic Article
• Quick Hit #2: What are we looking for?
• HW: Read Sicart, “Moral Dilemmas” (sicart-moral-design.pdf in Files section of Canvas). Complete Sicart, “Moral Dilemmas in Computer Games” graded survey in Canvas.

Wednesday:

• Syllabus Review
• Discuss Sicart “Moral Dilemmas”
• Homework: Read Sicart pages 5-29 (.pdf in Files section of Canvas). Complete Sicart, 5-29 Canvas Discussion Post

Friday: ROSS 1240 Computer Lab

• In-class writing exercise about Sicart
• Homework: Read Sicart 62-77, 91-101, 104-110. As you read, identify quotes that can be used for our 3 major components of an ethical game. Add these quotes to our collaborative Google Document.

Week Two: Sicart Summary Paper, Fundamentals of Academic Writing
Monday:

• Two Assignments: Sicart Summary Paper and Walking Dead Ep1
• Academic Writing Crash Course
• HW: Work on your paper for 45 minutes

Wednesday:

• Sicart Questions (Final Edition)
• Paper Rubric and Grade Norming
• HW: Draft the section of your paper dealing with player complicity (if not already done). By this point you should have spent at least 2 hours working on your paper.

Friday: ROSS 1240 Computer Lab

• Draft Progress Check
• In-class writing time
• Peer Reads
• Homework: Sicart Summary Paper due Sunday at midnight

Week Three: Moving From Summary to Analysis
Monday: No Class (Labor Day). Remember to finish playing Walking Dead Ep1 (Approximately 2-3 hours) before Wednesday’s class!
Wednesday:

• A couple of Google Forms
• Walking Dead episode 1: How Can We Put Sicart to Work?
• Crash Course on Ethics
• HW: Think about a game you would like to play for this class. (Marc: share list)

Friday:

• Sicart Analysis Paper and
• Gaming Journal
• Game Ideas
• HW: Start playing your game and writing in your gaming journal

Week Four: Play and Analyze Your Game

Monday:

• How to Analyze a Game Using Sicart (Again)
• Grade Norm a Paper or Two
• HW: Play your game for 1 1/2 hours. Write for 30 minutes on any decisions you had to make (and why/how you made your choice), anything the game did to build (or interrupt) player complicity, and moment the game caused you to pause and reflect on a choice.

Wednesday:

• Sentence Syntax #2
• HW: Play Your Game for 1 1/2 hours, write for 1 hour

Friday: No Class. In place of class, I’d like you to play your game for 2 hours and write for at least an 1/2 hour. At this point, you will have played your game for 5 hours total and written for 1 and 1/2 hours. Now it is time to start drafting your paper.

If you haven’t played your game before, then you should Google and read a plot summary (in order to analyze the effects choices you have made might have down the line).

Your homework for the weekend is to start drafting your paper. A rough draft of the paper is due Tuesday at midnight.

Week Five:

Monday:

• APA Paper Format
• Grade Norming
• HW: Paper Draft is due Tuesday at midnight

Wednesday:

• No Class: Santos Feedback-athon

Friday: ROSS 1240 COMPUTER LAB

• Paper Review Session
• HW: Final Paper due to Santos Sunday at midnight

Week Six
Monday:

• Qualitative Research Methodologies
• Homework: Choose one article from the list to read and annotate

Wednesday:

• Discuss research articles
• Homework: read and annotate a second research article

Friday:

• Drafting a research methodology part one (collecting objets)
• Joining a research team: race, gender, or sexuality
• Homework: work with your group mates to develop a research methodology

Week 7
Monday:

• Refining methodologies
• From data collection to analysis
• Homework: final methodology due before Friday’s class

Wednesday:

• Characters and Actions / Better Sentence Syntax

Friday:

• Analytical Test Runs
• Homework: Analyze those Objects!

Week 8
Monday:

• Why We’re Not Writing a Report: The Project 2 Memo Assignment
• Intellectual Meandering Session #1
• Homework: Start memo, talking points assignment

Wednesday:

• Intellectual Meandering Session #2: Share Talking Points
• Homework: Complete Project 2 Memo

Friday:

• Intellectual Meandering Session #3: Proposal Free Write
• Homework: Develop your free write into a more formal research proposal