Last time thloggin'

Last thlog ever! Our Monday class was pretty interesting and helpful. I really found it helpful to read everyone’s comments for my question, and I liked the anonymity of the entire assignment. I also found that in helping others with their questions and skimming through some other people’s responses, it taught me how to approach certain questions in different ways. For instance, a few people asked about how to improve upon their hooks, and one memorable comment from another student was that hooks don’t always have to be academic.

This class and DePiero are definitely going to be missed. I have such a strong appreciation for DePiero and his passion for teaching and helping about students. Taking a class photo was a cool way of showing he cares about us J From this class I have learned much more than I had anticipated I would learn. Writing the portfolio, although a significant amount of work, forced me to reflect on specific details from week one all the way to week ten. It reminded me of everything I learned—and more importantly, how much I learned. The survey was something else that made me reflect on the class. From the surveys, it’s amazing to see how much DePiero wants to improve his class and how motivated he is to do so. I really liked the survey not only because we could convey what we liked and disliked about the class, but being forced to reflect on the class reminds me of certain details that I may have forgotten about. It brings that much more significance to my takeaway of the class. Overall, thanks for the best first quarter I could have, Z.

Thlog

Thlog

While this week’s class was very different, it was still very valuable in terms of what I learned. I really enjoyed seeing other group presentations because it is always interesting to see how different people have different ways of presenting ideas. Some groups were very creative and smart, which made the information they were trying to teach very memorable. I really like how the Zack Attackers decided to incorporate our daily journals into their presentation, telling us to type out our journal questions for “lesson plan 9.1.” While they weren’t 100% serious about it, it was funny and made me want to interact with the presentation more. I noticed that most groups included a Youtube video to assist with their presentation. I could tell the group members put in considerable thought and effort into choosing the videos because the videos were very engaging and unique. They were also a good amount of time—not too long nor too short. Adding a video in the presentations was a good way of switching up the powerpoint presentation. I am emphasizing the use of videos in other group’s presentations because my group did not show a video. We linked a video as reference, but I feel like if we incorporated the video into the presentation, it would have created a more engaging effect. We did have Starbursts to encourage our peers to participate in our questions though. Overall, I think every group did an excellent job, and while many of the topics were already familiar to me, the interaction with the groups and examples that were provided helped refresh my memory and cleared up any little bits of confusion I may have previously had.

Thlog

This week’s WP3 was pretty fun. It was one of the most unique projects in an English class that I have done. At first I started out rocky, proposing ideas that weren't that great. However, I am so thankful we were able to receive feedback before starting our project officially. I definitely changed my topic and  think it worked out significantly better than my initial topic. I struggled the most with the self analysis part when explaining why I made certain moves. I was just kind of like… well I did it because I did it. I think the course readings from McCloid really helped me out with that though. I loved that the comics were so informative and helpful, as it was presented in an untraditional manner. I'm relieved  we are done with writing but at the same time I'm thankful for all the unique writing tips we learned. 

Thlog Week 7

This week I started out thinking I had a plan for my WP3 but ended up very unsure about what I want to write about. I did like reading what others’ proposals were. It shows that we have a very creative class. I definitely am planning on changing my initial proposal, after seeing some feedback from Z. While I want to change my topic, I do want to keep my idea of transforming one of the genres into a Buzzfeed article. I want to show how a scholarly article can be transformed into something more casual and engaging. While I like the freedom of the prompt for WP3, too much freedom often confuses me about what to write. From the class on Monday, after discussing how one can transform a genre and what the big ideas in an article can be, it seemed like there were too many options for me to choose from. The big ideas in articles are specific to each article, so essentially the big ideas can be anything, including citations. I think it's the hardest to choose a topic when there aren't that many boundaries because it means I have to choose wisely. I'm glad we got to first propose our idea, read others, and get feedback on it. If we did not, I could have almost completed my WP3 before realizing that my choice of genre transformation was not ideal. Hopefully I can come up with something good! 

PB3A

For my final writing project, I want to base my transformations off of the scholarly article Relationship Quality, Commitment, and Stability in Long-Distance Relationships by Gretchen Kelmer, Galena K. Rhoades, Scott Stanley, and Howard Markman. This article first establishes the factors of long distance relationships and geographically close relationships. After the comparison of the two, the article proposes the hypotheses that would be tested, followed by the methods and the discussion. While the article is a research paper, it can still be transformed into other genres geared towards both an older and a younger audience.

For a younger audience, I wanted to take into account the constant use of technology and social media in our current generation. The increasingly popular website, Buzzfeed, presents many articles and posts that are relatable to the readers. Therefore, for my genre transformation, I want to write a post that is titled “10 Signs You Know You’re in a Long Distance Relationship.” I would include a short sentence in a bold font that briefly summarizes the “sign” that shows you are in a long distance relationship. I would then use a regular font to elaborate on it, and I would also include a picture or .gif image that relates to the sign. The picture or visual will help make the post more memorable and can often add humor to the post as well. I would make sure the format of my wannabe-Buzzfeed post is similar to that of an actual post. Therefore, I would include hyperlinks that allow readers to be able to easily share the post, as publicity from the audience is an important factor in the success of popular Buzzfeed posts. This post serves to remind the audience that many people out there are in long distance relationships, and there are many factors, often pros, that exist in long distance relationships that do not exist in geographically close relationships.

I want to transform the article into a brochure for an older audience. I’d imagine these brochures to be sitting by the front desk at some office, waiting to be read. The brochure would be a type of self-help or reevaluation for individuals in long distance relationships. It would introduce by defining what a long-distance relationship is. I would provide the reasons that long distance relationships exist. Listing a few reasons can give people perspective that they are not alone in their situation, and that long distance relationships exist for a variety of reasons. I would then list out benefits—based on what the article says, because “challenges and deprivations that come with long distance relationships may influence individuals to filter out less satisfactory partners.” Benefits such as less difficulty sustaining positive connections together, being able to more easily make the most of their time, and having repeated honeymoon effects can remind the audience that they have pros that close-proximity relationships do not necessarily have. The brochure serves to lighten the mood of the struggling individual and to provide them with hope. The brochure would contain possible problems that the couple may be experiencing and how it can be tackled.

The two transformed genres are still based off of the same content but are now executed in different manners. The genres are tailored towards the age of the audience, taking into account how different generations retain information differently. Since the younger audience is arguably more technologically advanced and the older generation is slightly more used to concrete paper, I decided to transform my scholarly article into a Buzzfeed post and self-help brochure, respectively. 

Thloggin' Week 6

My biggest takeaway from Monday’s class regarding how to improve my paper was when we each counted the number of words in our longest and shortest sentences. I realized I did not have much of a varied sentence structure, so it was something I tried to work on. I had not really thought about how different lengths can affect the work as a whole. But it can. However, I definitely struggled with my WP2, much more than I did with my WP1. I think the root of my problem was my lack of a strong thesis. My argument was not as clear as I would have liked, but I couldn’t really quite come up with something better. I wish I had a more “arguable” thesis. My thesis argued that the non-academic source took the most different approach towards persuading the readers because of how a non-academic audience responds. I felt that both scholarly and non-academic sources were equally effective because they utilized different conventions to portray their message. Had the scholarly articles used the techniques from the non-academic source, or vice versa, it would not have been effective. But I just feel like my essay is missing something.

The online class. It was definitely a bit confusing in the beginning. I liked it. But it’s not something I’d really want to keep doing. I think the interactivity in class is really important towards our retention of information. However, it was a cool experience and definitely very unique. The class really forced me to pay full attention in order to not get behind or get off track. I liked responding to others’ posts right after we posted ours because what we wrote was still freshly in our heads, so we could really compare what we wrote. Now, I’m just scared for WP3. Let’s see how it goes!

Bob Ross & Artists

Across all of these videos, the artists walk us through their process, emotionally and physically. They let us know what they are thinking, how they interpret the image, and then how they proceed to execute it on the painting. They describe how they envision the painting to be based on what features attract them the most. For example, Josh believed that trees were inhabited by spirits, and thus he wanted to reflect this idea in his painting by working quickly to capture the vitality and life of the tree. He directs our attention towards the most significant steps he’s taking. In other words, he does not say “I am going to dip my brush in the paint now,” as that is not important. However, he does point out which details he is adding to amplify the texture of the painting. The artists also describe the medium they use and their reasoning behind their approaches/materials.

Bob Ross’s paintings are pretty hazy. They clearly depict what he is painting, but it is not in HD. Meanwhile, Ivan has a very specific style of painting. His focus on only the tree trunk demonstrates his keen eye for details. The Disney artists emphasize making everything flow because that is important for animations. Mark thinks a lot about the physical structure of the tree, as he notes the bony build of the tree and how the branches go up and out, which parallels his belief that the tree is an explosive force. The artists all paint based on their first impression of the subject.

Online Meeting Journal Freewrite

I was satisfied with my WP2, but I definitely know there is room for improvement, especially in terms of organization. I struggled with the structure because I felt like each paragraph had to directly relate to the thesis. So when I was simply explaining conventions and moves, I found it challenging to make it weave in with the thesis. I think the reason for this is because my thesis is not as strong as I would have liked it to be, but I struggled with coming up with something better. However, I was decently happy with the moves that I chose to compare and contrast and my integration of some quotes from the course reader.

The comments from the peer review that helped me the most was the suggestion to integrate more direct evidence. I talked about the structure often and found that somewhat difficult to quote--since I’m just describing the layout/format. However, I think I was able to incorporate course reader quotes. I also found it helpful that my peers suggested I break down my paragraphs into smaller ones. I struggled with having large one-page chunks of paragraphs, so I definitely needed to separate it more effectively.

Thlog Week 5

Talking about moves this week honestly confused me a bit. Initially, on the first day we started talking about moves, I had the perception that a person’s move was unique to that person. The example I thought of was Michael Jackson’s lean-forward-dance-move-thing. Whenever one thinks of that move, Michael Jackson is what comes to mind. However, after the project builder this week I realized that a move can really be anything, and authors across the board can share these moves. Something as simple as parallelism can be a move. But if everything can be a move, then what is not a move then? Where do you draw the line between what makes a move a move and what is not qualified as a move? How nitpicky and detailed can you get?

One writing tip I really found interesting was the idea of changing the font of the text in order to try to trigger new ideas. I am a visual learner, and this writing tip is definitely something I want to try out. It stood out to me that something so simple could actually be helpful to a writer.

Brainstorming for WP2 ideas was also really interesting and helpful. It was interesting to see everyone else’s opinions and how they view certain disciplines. Everyone’s topic of interests vary, and some people are so creative. It’s cool to see how everyone in the class thinks differently and can come up with such great ideas.

The last thing I want to point out is that I realized how amazing and smart it is that Zack uses Google docs to teach this course. I love having the lesson plans there during class, and I love it even more that we can view the lesson plan even after the class is over. This accessibility is what reminds us about what we learned, so that we won’t forget it. It is such a great resource to refer back to. I realized that this week when looking back to previous weeks lesson plans to trigger some ideas for WP2.

Movin'

                Each work of writing has its own unique “moves” that the author intentionally utilizes for various reasons. Examining the course reader makes it apparent that each author’s moves were implemented in hopes of making the audience more conscious readers and writers. From the book They Say, I Say by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst, the index of templates provides many examples of common moves. While the same types of moves may be used by multiple authors, it is not uncommon if each author has his or her own take on the execution of the move. “Introducing what “they say”” is a move that is discussed in They Say, I Say. This move makes a good introduction because it essentially leads into a topic by generalizing something that other people believe—making it more relatable. For example, an author can introduce something by saying “A number of _____ have recently suggested that ___” (Graff 681). By mentioning how others are in agreement with the idea, the credibility of the topic at hand is immediately more reliable. In Alex Reid’s “Why Blog? Searching for Writing on the Web” essay, Reid utilizes this move when he says “Of course, most students aren’t interested in becoming expert writers” (Reid 303). Talking about most students adds the element of relatability, which can capture the readers’ attention. Another move discussed in They Say, I Say is “Making what “they say” something you say.” An example of this move is evident in Reid’s essay when he says “The specifics of my experience starting out as a blogger…” (Reid 309). This is a move where the author puts in his or her own beliefs, often making use of the first person. The impact this type of move has on the readers is that it prompts them to compare their own experience, opinions, or beliefs to that of the author. Something as simple as introducing quotations can also be known as a move. In Janet Boyd’s essay “Muder! (Rhetorically Speaking),” Boyd uses quotes from outside sources to back up her thoughts. For instance, she introduces a quote by saying “perhaps these words came easy for Kirstin Flynn who writes…” (Boyd 94). Providing context before a quote is always vital in ensuring that readers understand the flow and sequence of the content. Adding metacommentary is another common move that authors incorporate in order shed light on what is more significant. In Kerry Dirk’s “Navigating Genres,” he demonstrates this metacommentary when he says “But above all, …” (Dirk 250) to effectively redirect the reader’s attention to what the focus is.

There are also many other moves that authors implement to better portray their message across to the audience. Alex Reid demonstrates the use of charts and tables to show the types of course-assigned blogs and their characteristics. These charts are to help clearly separate the types and characteristics by making it more visually obvious that there’s a difference. It also prompts the audience to compare the types, ultimately effectively attracting more attention towards the content. In “So What? Who Cares?,” the author uses the move that I call “The Author is Talking to You.” The author uses words such as “let’s” to make the readers feel more interactive in order to maintain the attentiveness of the audience by lowering the level of formality. Saying “let’s” makes the reader feel as though the author is a friend wanting to do something fun together with the audience. This move is an effective way to make the essay feel more personalized, as the purpose of the piece is not for a formal setting but rather a guidance for the readers. Anne Lamott demonstrates her own unique move that I call “But.” She starts sentences with conjunctions to effectively decrease the formal tone. For instance, Lamott says “But this is just the fantasy of the uninitiated” and “But this is a very hostile and aggressive position.” By making these clauses its own stand-alone sentence, there is a pause in the reader’s voice when reading the sentences. “But” is a good substitute for “however” because “but” is at a lower register than is “however” in terms of formality. Since the overall tone of Lamott’s essay “Shitty First Drafts” is clearly not a formal one, the use of “but” successfully engages the readers in a casual manner. Janet Boyd’s essay “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” uses italics pretty often. Italicizing words such as, “jargon, slang, au courant, diction, tone, colloquial, dysphemisms,” emphasizes the key terms of the essay and points out the focus of the essay. While the italics does hone in the audience’s attention, there may be too many words that are italicized, which can cause the italics to lose its effect. Another common move is the use of questions. Rhetorical questions used in Dirk’s “Navigating Genres” also helps capture the reader’s attention. Asking the reader “So why was I talking about country songs?” makes the essay feel more like a conversation, and therefore attracting the reader’s attention. The moves that these authors make are all intended to improve the quality and effectiveness of the essays or articles.

Thlog Week 4

I loved the freedom we were given in this week’s PB. When I first learned that the PB would still be about genres and conventions, I was a bit hesitant because I was unsure about how much more we could write about. We had already approached the topic of genres and conventions from so many different angles, I did not know if there would be another approach. But, behold! There was. I chose a research article on the effects of MDMA on social behaviors. While examining the conventions of this scholarly article and comparing it to SCIgen was the purpose for this writing class, I was also able to kill two birds with one stone and learn about the research/experiment itself. I also loved reading other students’ PBs, as it gave me insight on what each student is interested in.

The class activity we did on the five facts about a murder was really interesting. I liked how each approach was given to two groups of students in the class because we were able to compare the differences in approaches within a genre. The genre I found most interesting was the Facebook post. It was interesting to see one group take the role of the parent of the deceased and another group assume the role of a casual friend of the person who passed away. I did not previously realized there could be such a difference in tone within the same genre.

The free-write about defining what “move” meant was a bit difficult at first. I knew what it meant but I realized I didn’t know how to word it. I found it difficult to elaborate on the word, but I guess that’s what the journals are for! The journal is definitely something that is going to be helpful in the long-run. 

PB2A - Rollin'

Margaret Wardle and Matthew Kirkpatrick’s scholarly piece “‘Ecstasy’ as a social drug: MDMA preferentially affects responses to emotional stimuli with social content” contains many factors that are important for the audience’s understanding of the work. One of the first conventions demonstrated in the article is the hypothesis that is weaved into the introduction. Their hypothesis that “MDMA would dose-dependently increase reactivity to positive emotional stimuli and dampen reactivity to negative stimuli, and that these effects would be most pronounced for pictures with people in them” is intended to peak the audience’s curiosity. The brief explanation of the experimenters’ hypothesis filters out the uninterested audience. Throughout the paper, the authors also incorporate many facts from other sources. The citations add credibility, or ethos, by showing that the idea is not just one person’s opinion. Other citations are just basic facts and definitions that help establish the foundation and basis of the paper. These references to other works are also important because it can set the formal tone of the situation. For instance, the jargon in this sentence, “brain imaging reveals similar modifications in neural responses to emotional expressions, with MDMA (1.5 mg/kg) increasing ventral striatum response to happy facial expressions and decreasing amygdala response to angry facial expressions (Bedi et al., 2009)” informs the reader about the background information of the paper. Similar to references from other sources, many statistics and concrete numbers are included in this scholarly article. The solid numbers are what makes the experiment an experiment, as it provides evidence and results. The charts and visuals that accompany the statistics is also another important convention that validates the research. Another aspect that is significant in this work is how the procedure is written in paragraph form instead of a numbered list. It is also important to note that the procedure is written in past tense. The reason is that this experiment is not a simple experiment that anyone can repeat, as it poses health risks on the participants. The past-tense paragraph form makes the procedure seem more like a fluid explanation of the series of events that occurred in the experiment, rather than a recipe that one could follow. Towards the end, the discussion section of the article also proves to be important. With minimal jargon, this section relates the research to real-world experiences by making comparisons to previous experiments. The discussion also mentions limitations within the experiment to ensure the audience does not feel as though the experimenters believe their conclusions and results are indefinitely accurate. These limitations act as a disclaimer. All of the aspects within these types of scholarly articles are intentionally placed and utilized to assist with the reader’s comprehension of the work.

When comparing legitimate articles such as Wardle and Kirkpatrick’s piece on the effect of ecstasy on human responses to meaningless articles generated on SCIgen, it becomes evident that there are certain features that are common throughout most scholarly works. The most obvious similarities are the subheadings—introduction, methods, results, conclusion, references, etc. Since there is typically a significant amount of length in the paper, the breakdown of all the content is vital for the sake of clarity and ease. The evidence in these papers are almost always backed up with visuals, graphs, or charts. These types of representation for the results can make an illegitimate article, such as the ones on SCIgen, seem authentic. One feature that articles from the SCIgen website do not contain is the relationship of the experiment to real-world examples. Since relating the research to something that is applicable in everyday life can be extensive and broad, it is more difficult for the SCIgen website to create default phrases that is relatable to the outside world. Comparing the research to reality can be considered to be analysis, and analysis is very unique and varies from topic to topic. In other words, it is difficult for computerized systems to provide relatable analysis, hence the lack of such analysis in SCIgen articles.