User:VA ESK104/sandbox

Week 2: (Discussion) Article Evaluation: Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy
 * the article offers an inside look at contemporary forms of rhetoric and how new theories and applications have been used, and have also expanded from Aristotle principle theories of rhetoric
 * Throughout the article it lists new forms of pedagogy and also on how it relates to "rhetoric"
 * Some issues with the article can be seen in the form that it was written, in which can be seen with the articles sub-heading mentioning that it was written not in 'Encyclopedia form'
 * The article does provide a neutral stance on the subject matter, and is more focused on being accurate with the facts.Though based on the analysis by Wikipedia, the article as a whole is written as an essay and does not follow Wiki-Media guideline. Furthermore, with the article some of the points are underrepresented, mainly with the reference points to older known knowledge of rhetoric, it only references Aristotle whereas the art of rhetoric does back even further than that era. Granted, with ideas that are underrepresented, the article is up-to-date with edits that are seen in 2018. In addition to the to the edits that were made this year, I did check some the the references, and they ere from neutral, academic based, and appropriate sources.
 * In the talk page of the article there is little to no discussion throughout the article in its talk page, though in this section there are suggestions for improvements. In addition, to the talk page, and the article is note rated, and has no suggestion that it is apart of the Wikipedia project.

Week 3:

References for articles:

Colby, Rebekah Shultz. “Game-Based Pedagogy in the Writing Classroom.” Computers and Composition, vol. 43, 2017, pp. 55–72. WorldCat [OCLC], doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2016.11.002.

Wechsung. “An Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Interaction Determining Quality Aspects and Modality Choice.” Springer, XIII, 2014, pp. 9–22. WorldCat [OCLC].

Thorngate, Warren. “Simulation, Rhetoric, and Policy Making.” SAGE Publications, vol. 40, no. 4, Aug. 2009, pp. 513–527. Sage Pub, doi:10.1177/1046878108330539.

Copy & paste citation

Week 4:

Procedural Rhetoric Assignment: (2/17/18_1:11p.m.)[time-stamp] Citations of Sources for Assignment:
 * 1) Manners the article can be improved:
 * 2) Examples of Procedural Rhetoric: From the article one of the base testaments are being seen with video games and how the rhetoric seen in these games has form a new form of " "digital literacy"
 * 3) Citing other discoveries: The last edit of the article was seen in June of 2017, in which shows that the article is a bit outdated and also can show at the possibility that nesw content could have been published which can make room for new additions and edits to the article.
 * 4) New Sources: Additional Sources that can be helpful to the article

Bogost, Ian. "Procedural rhetoric." Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames (2007): 1-64.

Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities, edited by Jim Ridolfo, and William Hart-Davidson, University of Chicago Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umdcp/detail.action?docID=1912031.

Week 5: Drafting Article (Jordan, Ed, Eric, Erica: Shared Work) Procedural Rhetoric: "Video Game Theory"

Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct (current lead section). The term was first coined by Ian Bogost in his 2007 book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.

Bogost is a professor in the School of Literature, Media, and Communication and in Interactive Computing in the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts Distinguished Chair in Media Studies (from Ian Bogost Wiki page).

The theory argues that games make strong claims about how the world works by the processes they embody. Procedural rhetoric analyzes the art of persuasion by rule based representations and interactions rather than spoken or written word. Procedural rhetoric focuses on how gamemakers craft laws and rules within a game to convey a particular ideology.Rhetoric of Gaming:

Rhetoric is the art of discourse wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade or motivate particular audiences in specific situations (site Rhetoric Wikipedia article). Procedural rhetoric focuses on the composition of gameplay, more specifically how simulation games (i.e. video and computer games) are constructed to make claims about how the world should work (Bogost, 2007).

Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that examines the expression of rhetoric through interactive rules and systems. This can include everyday interactive systems such as the internet and operating systems, as well as systems designed for play such as videogames and other interactive media. The theory argues that interactive systems can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct. Wrixan (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

James Gee, Professor at University of Wisconsin - Madison outlined the importance of video games for learning. In his essay Why Video Games are Good For Learning, Gee describes commercial games as “worlds in which variables interact through time” (http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/MacArthur.pdf). Gamemakers compose video games with a series of predetermined rules and processes that the play must follow. The player must learn the rules of the virtual world and deduce what is possible and impossible in order to solve problems and carry out the ultimate goal of winning. The requirement of learning the rules of video games is the baseline of the procedural rhetoric theory.

Researchers Jens Seiffert and and Howard Nothhaft found that computer games are powerful persuasive tools that act as a manipulating force for society (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811114001830). One study conducted in 2009 found that military computer games transfer to the players understanding of warfare. In particular, the logic of the game revealed by the procedural and structural rules guided players with a deeper comprehension of the rules of warfare and tactics. Through the processes and rules of a simulation, gamemakers have the ability to persuade players to view the world according to the procedures of a particular game. While contemporary rhetorics focuses on discourse as the art of persuasion, procedural rhetorics focuses on the gaming system, processes, rules, and procedures as a mean to persuade the audience, that being players.

Kst96 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC) I think that your adjustments to Procedural Rhetoric are very informative and help the page greatly. There are a couple of things I think can be adjusted, however. First, the paragraphs can be connected and don't need to be as spread out as they are. Instead of multiple smaller paragraphs, some of these paragraphs can be put together such as the first four paragraphs. Also, it seems like the first and fourth paragraph are repeating themselves. The sources can also be incorporated into the sentences instead of in parentheses.

Week 6: -peer review -article selection -> Wikipedia Draft: Section