Go to the Morphing Textbook Home Page

Go to the University of Iowa Rhetoric Department Home Page
A 10:002 or 10:003 Unit ~ The Myth of the Model Family

Schedule
Formal Assignments

Note: The semester began with an introductory week: diagnostic essays and other moments of taking stock, chances for the students to get to know each other, an introduction to Rhetoric and the expectations for this class. The class plan below assumes that week has already occurred.

Note: DAY = HOUR

Week 1

Day 1:

Analyze the portrait of the Donna Reed Show family in Rereading America (What can you tell about them? The relationships between them? What class cues do you see? Why is the picture posed the way it is? Etc.)

Assign: E.J. Graff, “What Makes a Family?”

Reader response questions: 1. Graff argues _______. 2. What’s the purpose of using historical evidence in such detail?
Note: Question 1 checks for the ability to ferret out the argument. Question 2 checks whether, as readers, they’re able to get over the sheer volume of evidence and critique its usefulness.

Notes: This activity introduces students to the idea of visual rhetoric: that what’s depicted and how helps subtly manipulate viewers. The students were astute about calling out class markers and relationships among the family depicted. Things really took off when I asked them to imagine a typical weekend in this household, and kept asking “What makes you say that?”  They read more and more of the visual cues in response.

Day 2:

Discuss Graff piece: What is Graff arguing? How does the historical detail work as evidence? What other strategies were particularly effective? What strategies weren’t so strong? What are the potential benefits and dangers of Graff’s approaches? Who’s she writing for? Who’s likely to agree/disagree? Who’s represented in this piece? Who’s not? Describe Graff’s strategy in the conclusion. Why quibble over the definition of family, anyway?

Collect reader responses.

Notes: I think it’s important to do the first few episodes of Rhetorical Analysis as a group. Though students have had practice doing this already, analysis seems to still be a murky concept. Students frequently doubt their ability to do it, and/or they’ve developed some mental blockage about its importance. I keep reframing “Rhetorical Analysis” as “Stuff You Can Steal.” Look at how other writers do this, I keep encouraging them. You can use those same techniques, unless you think they’re lame, in which case you can make sure to avoid those techniques in your own writing. We’re focusing here on what makes readers keep reading, and what makes their arguments compelling.

Day 3:

Discuss Ethos, Logos, Pathos, and Mythos

Pathos: Appeal to Emotion. The author uses examples or language designed to stir up feelings of compassion, fear, anger, etc. in the audience.

Logos: Appeal to Logic. The author uses facts and figures, the testimony of witnesses or experts, or some other logic-based argument to appeal to readers’ logical minds.

Ethos: Appeal to Ethics (Author’s  Credibility). The author clarifies herself as someone who knows her stuff: she has specific subject knowledge, experience, or other forms of credibility applicable to what she’s writing. Or she associates herself in some way with other authorities on the subject.

Mythos: Appeal to Tradition. The author attempts to convince readers that “that’s just the way we’ve always done it,” and violating tradition is just not appropriate.

Notes: I add Mythos as the fourth appeal because it’s frequently invoked in arguments about the family: for instance, gay and lesbian families can’t be legitimized because, well, a family’s always been heterosexual parents and their kids—that’s just how it oughta be.

Assign: An impromptu speaking assignment for tomorrow. (In this exercise, students are asked to apply strategies of ethos, logos, pathos, or mythos to accomplish one of three tasks: sell us something we don’t need, propose a new Olympic event, or talk their way out of a parking ticket.)

Notes: Odds are you’re wondering about how this exercise connects to The Myth of the Model Family. The answer: very loosely. It teaches students to recognize and use those four appeals, important analytical skills that will help them approach the readings. But in class, I let this exercise feel like a fun departure. Focusing too explicitly on seven weeks of family issues would be exhausting for me, and for my students.

Day 4:

Impromptu Speaking:  Students each perform one of their 1-2 minute scripts. For this first impromptu speaking opportunity, reading is allowed.

Notes: This day is one of my favorites. It’s time for students to get brave and playful in front of each other. I have the students perform only one of the scripts they’ve written, then have the class identify the appeal that script used. The goals here: demonstrate knowledge of the appeals, and experience, for the first time and under friendly circumstances, the frightening front of the room.

Week 2

Day 1:

Show video excerpts from movies depicting 1950s families, including “Seeds of the 60s” (50s propaganda films about how to be a good family member.)

Notes: This film is available from the public library: the PBS video series is called “Making Sense of the 60s,” and this particular volume is called “Seeds of the 60s.” It’s shelved with the nonfiction videos in the “History” section. The Dewey number: VIDEO/973.92. The footage is great: especially creepy is a section called “A Date With Your Family,” which advises teens to greet their father as though they are happy to see him, and not burden him with troubled moods. The students crack right up. It’s important to contextualize the film: films like this used to be shown in schools to students who, apparently, were hungry for documentaries. These movies were consistent with our society’s willingness to offer broad prescriptions for behavior.

Assign: Stephanie Coontz, “What We Really Miss About the 1950s”

Reader response questions: 1. What role did the US government play in making the 50s what they were?  2.  Do some research: compare at least one of these government-sponsored programs from the 50s with its present-day incarnation. For instance, does today’s GI bill offer benefits comparable to post WWII benefits?

Notes: The reader response questions are particular favorites: they encourage the students to think about the vast array of government-funded programs that play a role in families’ lives (helping fund mortgages, offering student loans, supporting programs in public schools...). The second question helps me see how dexterous students are with doing research—do they know where to go to get stats on current governmental spending levels? I leave them entirely to their own devices on this—no helpful website tips, no visits to the library just yet. I let them struggle with the questions. It’s not always pretty, but it helps them assess their skills as researchers.

Day 2:

Discuss Coontz piece, focusing on the impact of governmental funding. Introduce narrative (in general discourse, what factors do people frequently blame for our departure from 50s family values?) and counternarrative (what does Coontz say?).

Notes: This has been a mind-blowing discussion in my sections, looking at how the government previously funded more family-focused programs...and how now, those funding levels are greatly reduced. It seems now that society frequently blames individual moral character for problems like poverty and divorce, when in fact many of those outcomes are based on socioeconomic conditions.

Day 3:

Continue discussing Coontz’ piece. Focus especially on the introduction—how does this one work? What should an introduction accomplish?

Assign: Paper 1, “Selves and Stereotypes”

Notes: In this assignment, students consider the experience of having larger cultural expectations applied to them. The paper becomes a narrative, usually a familiar form. This paper assignment is loosely tied to the “family” theme, but more explicitly tied to the “myth” theme—it’s a chance to encourage students to “read” the larger culture, reflecting on their own identity and how outside perceptions impact their experience. How it feels to be misread, given an ill-fitting “myth” or set of expectations. This one’s frequently a difficult assignment for white students, or anybody who considers himself part the majority culture—these students often can’t think of times they were misread in a way that was consequential. Those students might find material if they focus on gender-based expectations—ie, because I’m a guy, people expect me to be stoic, or because I’m female nobody ever thought to nurture my interest in carpentry. Those same students might also look at the way people from their socioeconomic position are read.

Day 4:

Discuss eight points of rhetorical analysis. Apply the eight points to Coontz and Graff.

Notes:Again, making rhetorical analysis tangible is always helpful. Here, we just go point by point: Who’s Coontz’s audience? Graff’s? What appeals does each author use? How effectively? Expect this class to drag a bit: again, students frequently have certain impatiences and dicey investments in skills of analysis, so they might look a little saggy. You may have to pull answers out of them, be comfortable with silence, rephrase the questions in innovative ways.  I also call on students by name. That stimulates some answers.

Assign: Speech 1, “Lead Class Discussion”
In this assignment, students work in pairs (or groups of three or four) to lead discussion on a reading. Their analysis includes

1. Arriving at a firm understanding of the piece

2. Analyzing key rhetorical strategies

3. Discussing the controversy addressed in the piece.

The presenters meet with the instructor at least a week before their discussion takes place. Speech 1 happens during the course of the next 10 weeks.

Notes: Let’s debunk one myth here: that  the instructor’s workload decreases when students lead class discussions. It actually becomes more work than leading discussion yourself: you have to read the articles well, meet with the students, help them find their way through the articles, and help guide their ideas about how to teach the piece to the rest of the class.
As an instructor, you could reduce your workload somewhat by having students lead in groups of three or four, instead of pairs—thereby cutting in half the number of groups you need to meet with. I’ve never tried this approach—I think it would complicate the dynamic between the group members, since so much of this assignment involves thinking on your feet. Pairs seem to be able to accomplish that better than groups of four, in my experience. Also, groups any larger than two run into difficulties scheduling time to work together.
However you choose to execute this, it’s a big investment of your  time and energy, but the payoff is huge. First, it’s a chance to teach your students in smaller groups (pairs, threes, fours), so the instruction is much more individualized, and students are more accountable. Second, it shifts the burden of engaging their classmates off you and onto them. Third, the classmates are often sympathetic, because they know that eventually it’ll be them up there. Fourth, the presenters are also responsible for the Reader Response question (with guidance, of course), which can lead to new and innovative questions. Overall, this assignment also helps students realize how much work goes into teaching, and that this is the work you do for them every day. It’s an important realization.

This assignment must be accompanied by the Reader Response assignment—that ensures that the students have read the piece, which ensures that the panel leading the discussion will have some live minds to work with.

top of page