rhetorical responsibility & feedback loops: testing ideas
test
To Test the Prototype is the 5th step in the Design Process.
In terms of aligning the Design and Writing Processes, the Testing step is critical to the ultimate “success” of the project. When students hypothesized solutions to problems, they had to also solicit input from their peers. Had they developed a viable solution? Was their proposed project an effective means to communicate their solution and make an impact on their audience? Using the example of a ceramist making a mug, this step asked that users test the mug. Was it comfortable to drink from? Did the mug fulfill its intended function?
Both the designing and writing processes create supports where creators can determine strategies to allow them to represent themselves throughout their work- make it their own. Of course, students had to write with purpose in their ENG 1020 projects, but they had to also find a way to be present in their writing. Ideally, student writers should effectively express themselves by working in personal perspective, lived experience and responses to the environment they inhabit. However, the craft of writing especially that which is meant to be rhetorically responsible, requires that the student writer think carefully about their audience. How will personal elements be received by their audience? What effect will this have? What does this do for the purpose of their writing? These questions were addressed during previous steps of the writing process (especially Ideating and Planning in Design Journals 2 & 3) in ENG 1020, but actually getting answers did not happen until the testing step. This was prompted during feedback activities wherein students shared their work with me and their peers for review.
Students were expected to submit 1st drafts (Project Builder 1) to me and then circulate to their peers. I was able to get eyes on student projects first in order to provide feedback specific to the objectives outlined in the assignment descriptions. I was diligent about making certain students were working toward the goals of the project. I also emphasized the importance of ideas and organization over conventions in the spirit of decentering standard white English in favor of inclusive language practices. The second set of feedback was provided to students by their peers. Feedback was generated through Project Builder 2. As stated earlier, the test step was meant to determine how effective the student writer was in making connections with their audience (in this trial run the audience was their peers). Although peer review and feedback loops took place during each of the 4 large scale projects, the tasks changed with each (one-on-one, group, discussion boards, whole class discussion).
Beyond peer review tasks, students were also responsible for Design Journal 4. It fell within the testing phase of the design process; however, the journal did not perform testing in the conventional sense. Students had already shared their projects for feedback in both Project Builders 1 and 2. Here, in DJ-4, they had to think about what they wanted as designers or makers. I asked that students craft an artist’s statement to share information about their project. The artist’s statement is a specific genre written in 1st person to summarize, and therefore make more accessible, the artist’s work for audiences. I especially like that this represents the intentions of the maker and captures their thought process, often describing materials, methods, and complications. The artist statement written for DJ-4 would “test” student’s ability to sum up their work much like a pitch. I wanted students to practice talking about their projects with an emphasis on concision (word count) and identifying their positionality. How were they making valid contributions to larger conversations through their projects?
More On Project Builder Scaffold
More On Design Journal Scaffold