Predator Pitch: Rhetoric Unmasked

Learning Goals & Products

Learning Goals

Students will be able to analyze gaming-app advertisements to identify point of view, persuasive techniques, and omitted information about spending, data collection, and odds.

Students will be able to compare articles, charts, videos, and consumer-protection sources about predatory gaming marketing to determine which claims are best supported by evidence.

Students will be able to write an evidence-based argument about whether a gaming-app ad is misleading using valid reasoning and relevant text evidence.

Students will be able to synthesize complaint trends and advocacy guidance to define a consumer-protection problem around predatory marketing in NYC gaming apps.

Students will be able to define a user-centered problem statement for parents and students served by a local consumer advocacy nonprofit using evidence from interviews and ad analysis.

Students will be able to design and justify an ad-rating system that helps users evaluate gaming-app advertisements for misleading tactics and missing information.

Students will be able to prototype and test a parent-student resource pack component, revising the tool based on peer and partner feedback.

Products

individual

Annotated Gaming-App Ad Analysis and Evidence-Based Recommendation Memo

Each student submits one annotated ad analysis plus a short recommendation memo that identifies persuasive tactics, missing information, and the ad’s likely impact on families. The memo must use evidence from ad text and at least two outside sources to justify one clear consumer-protection recommendation.

team

Parent-Student Gaming Ad Safety Resource Pack with Tested Ad-Rating Tool and Explainer

Teams create a shared problem statement, an evidence-based ad-rating system, and a concise parent-student resource pack that includes annotated examples, discussion prompts, and a short explainer. The final package must show how individual research shaped the group’s solution and what changed after usability testing.

Rubric

Mastery-Based Rubric Standards-first rubric

Category	Standard	Beginning (1)	Developing (2)	Proficient (3)	Exceeding (4)
New York	9-10SL4 - Present claims, findings, and supporting evidence clearly, concisely, and logically; organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.	I can present a clear claim about whether a gaming-app ad is misleading and support it with at least one piece of evidence from the ad, using simple, relevant details I can organize my points in a basic structure so my audience can follow my reasoning.	I can present a claim about how a gaming-app ad uses persuasive choices (like rewards, scarcity, or social pressure) and support it with evidence from multiple parts of the ad (words and visuals) and/or missing information I can explain my reasoning step-by-step and keep my writing focused on the purpose and audience of a parent-student resource.	I can present findings from my ad analysis in a logical order by connecting specific evidence to my claim and noting how the ad’s point of view and omissions may affect teen/family decisions I can use clear language, appropriate transitions, and a consistent structure to make my argument easy to understand for parents and students.	I can present a well-developed, evidence-based argument about which claims in a set of ads are most supported and which are not, using valid reasoning and relevant/sufficient evidence from ad examples, comparisons, and consumer-protection sources I can adjust organization and style for my audience, concisely address counterpoints or uncertainties, and present my findings clearly and persuasively.
New York	9-10W1 - Write arguments to support claims that analyze substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.	I can identify whether an ad makes a claim and list the main pieces of information it includes (and what seems missing) with basic evidence from the text, image, or audio.	I can make a clear argument about whether an ad is misleading using a few relevant details from the ad and/or consumer-protection guidance, and I can explain my reasoning in simple terms.	I can write and revise a logically organized argument that analyzes how the ad’s persuasive choices (rewards, scarcity, social pressure, repetition, and omissions) support or weaken its claims, using relevant and sufficient evidence.	I can craft and strengthen a precise, evidence-based argument that analyzes the ad’s point of view and potential bias, compares multiple sources (including claims and counterclaims), and justifies my ad-rating decision with valid reasoning and well-supported conclusions appropriate for a parent-student audience.
New York	RH.6 - Identify aspects of a text that reveal an author's point of view, stance, or purpose (e.g. rhetorical language, inclusion or avoidance of particular facts, images, visuals, etc.).	I can identify the author’s point of view or purpose in a gaming-app ad by naming one obvious persuasive choice (like reward/scarcity language or a repeated message) and quoting or describing one piece of evidence I can point to.	I can explain how specific parts of a gaming-app ad reveal the creator’s stance or purpose by listing multiple persuasive choices (text, images, sounds) and the missing or avoided information those choices suggest.	I can compare how different gaming-app ads (and/or consumer-protection sources) communicate purpose and point of view by using evidence from both what is included and what is omitted, and I can justify which claims are most supported.	I can evaluate and synthesize how an ad’s rhetorical language, visuals, and repeated tactics work together to express a clear point of view and to influence decisions, and I can explain—using multiple sources—how omissions or framing may mislead teens and families.
New York	RST.6 - Identify purpose and/or point of view when an author is presenting information, describing a procedure, discussing an experiment, etc. Compare and contrast the information gained from two or more experiments, simulations, videos, multimedia sources, readings from texts, graphs, charts, etc. on the same topic.	I can identify the purpose or point of view of an ad or information source and name one detail (text or visual) that supports my idea.	I can identify the purpose and/or point of view in an ad and explain how at least two features (e.g., wording, images, sounds, or missing details) help persuade the viewer.	I can compare and contrast the information in two or more ad/media examples on the same topic and explain how differences in evidence or omissions change the message and credibility.	I can evaluate and synthesize multiple sources (ads, videos, charts, and complaint/guidance materials) to justify which persuasive claims are most supported, which points of view are most likely, and what information is intentionally omitted or repeated to influence decisions.