Assignments
Reading Roles
Each student must read the assigned readings carefully before class. In addition, you will take on one of the following roles as part of a team. Your role determines how you prepare notes and what perspective you bring to discussion.
- Argument Analyst: Evaluate the reading’s central claims and reasoning
- Concept Keeper: Identify and define key concepts and terms
- Connector: Map relationships to other course materials
- Design Translator: Extract implications for technology design
Argument Analyst
Goal
Your goal is to identify and evaluate the reading’s central argument. Humanities and disability studies texts often make normative claims, challenge assumptions, or reframe how we understand a phenomenon. Your job is to surface the argumentative structure beneath the prose.
How to Do It
Thesis statement: What’s the main claim?
- What is the author arguing? (Not just “what is this about” but “what position is the author taking?”)
- What would someone who disagrees with this author say?
Evidence assessment: What is the evidence and reasoning that supports the main claim?
- What examples, cases, or evidence does the author use?
- What theoretical frameworks or prior scholars does the author draw on?
- What assumptions does the argument depend on?
Critical evaluation: Does the argument make sense and is it well-supported?
- What makes this argument compelling?
- Where is it vulnerable to critique?
- What questions does it leave unanswered?
What to Submit
A reading response with that addresses the following prompts for each reading (a few sentences per prompt):
- Thesis Statement: State the author’s main argument in 1–2 sentences.
- Evidence Assessment: What types of evidence are used? How persuasive are they?
- Critical Evaluation: What are the argument’s strengths and limitations?
- Open Questions: What questions does this reading raise for you?
Rubric
Each element is graded: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fine = 1, Not present = 0.
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Thesis identification | Accurately captures the central argument; distinguishes argument from topic |
| Evidence assessment | Evaluates the types and quality of support; notes gaps |
| Critical evaluation | Offers thoughtful critique; avoids surface-level praise or dismissal |
| Open questions | Raises genuine questions that could advance discussion |
Concept Keeper
Goal
Your goal is to identify, define, and contextualize the key concepts in the reading. Many readings introduce specialized terms, redefine familiar words, or use concepts that connect to broader theoretical traditions. Your job is to make these concepts accessible and show how they relate to other ideas in the course.
How to Do It
Identify key concepts:
- Terms the author defines explicitly
- Words used in specialized or technical ways
- Concepts that carry significant argumentative weight
- Ideas that connect to other course readings
Define each concept:
- How does this author define or use it?
- Does the definition differ from everyday usage or other scholars?
- What work does this concept do in the argument?
Make connections:
- Do other course readings use this concept differently?
- What concepts from other readings are in conversation with these?
- Are there tensions between how different authors use similar terms?
What to Submit
A reading response addressing the following for each reading:
- Concept Entries: For each concept:
- The term
- The author’s definition or usage
- Why this concept matters to the argument
- Synthesis: A couple sentences on how these concepts relate to each other and to the course’s broader themes.
Rubric
Each element is graded: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fine = 1, Not present = 0.
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Concept selection | Chooses concepts central to the reading; appropriate scope |
| Definition accuracy | Captures how the author uses the term; notes nuance |
| Argumentative role | Explains why the concept matters to the reading’s claims |
| Synthesis | Offers insight into how concepts relate to course themes |
Connector
Goal
Your goal is to situate the reading within the broader context of the course. Readings don’t exist in isolation—they respond to, extend, or challenge other ideas. Your job is to map how this reading relates to what we’ve read before and the course’s central questions.
How to Do It
Identify resonances:
- What themes from earlier readings appear here?
- Does this author cite or respond to others we’ve read?
- What shared concerns or questions connect this reading to others?
Identify tensions:
- Does this reading challenge or contradict earlier readings?
- Where do authors disagree—explicitly or implicitly?
- Are there concepts used differently by different authors?
Identify extensions:
- Does this reading take a familiar idea further?
- Does it apply a concept to a new domain?
- Does it fill a gap left by earlier readings?
What to Submit
A reading response containing:
- Connection Map: Identify connections to other course readings. For each:
- What is the connection? (shared theme, tension, extension, response)
- Why does this connection matter?
-
Course Themes: How does this reading contribute to or complicate the course’s central questions about disability and technology?
- Discussion Questions: 2–3 questions that could spark productive discussion by drawing on multiple readings.
Rubric
Each element is graded: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fine = 1, Not present = 0.
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Connection identification | Finds substantive (not superficial) links to other readings |
| Connection analysis | Explains why connections matter, not just that they exist |
| Theme integration | Relates reading to course’s broader questions |
| Discussion questions | Questions are generative and draw on multiple sources |
Design Translator
Goal
Your goal is to extract implications for technology design from the reading. Even when readings aren’t explicitly about design, they often contain insights that should inform how we build, evaluate, or critique technology. Your job is to translate critical and theoretical ideas into design-relevant terms.
How to Do It
Read for design implications:
- Does this reading challenge common assumptions in technology design?
- What does it suggest about who technology is designed for—and who it excludes?
- Does it offer criteria for evaluating whether a design is good or just?
- Does it suggest what designers should attend to, value, or avoid?
Develop design provocations:
- Can you articulate a design principle inspired by this reading?
- Can you identify a design pattern this reading would critique?
- Can you imagine a design exercise or method based on these ideas?
Ground in examples:
- What existing technologies would this reading praise or critique?
- Can you sketch a design concept that embodies the reading’s values?
What to Submit
A reading response addressing the following:
- Key Implications: For each reading:
- State the implication for design practice
- Explain how it follows from the reading
- Give a concrete example (existing technology to critique, or design idea to propose)
- Design Provocation: One specific design principle, critique, or exercise inspired by one of the readings. This could be:
- A “design guideline” phrased as a directive
- A critical question designers should ask themselves
- A brief design concept or sketch
- An analysis of an existing technology through the reading’s lens
Rubric
Each element is graded: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fine = 1, Not present = 0.
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Implication clarity | Design implications are clearly stated |
| Grounding in text | Implications demonstrably follow from the reading’s arguments |
| Concrete examples | Examples are specific and illustrate the implications well |
| Design provocation | Provocation is creative, grounded, and useful for design thinking |