Monday, September 24, 2007
research topic
One of the newest, as well as one of the biggest phenomenons in mass communication seems to have erupted into every home, college, and office in the world. These new forms of mass communication are http://www.myspace.com/ and http://www.facebook.com/. These web pages allow users who create a "profile" which gives them the ability to publicly post a picture of themselves and gives out as much personal information that they choose. Web pages like this are in large demand and have given people a chance to list whom ever they please to their "friends" list. People choose to portray themselves and control their ethos to anyone who wants to look. How do people portray themselves online and how does this affect their everyday lives? I hope to look at the age groups that use these sites, will their sites show the places they live? If so does their economic situation have any pattern to others of the same age with these types of accounts? How do people display themselves? Do people have pictures that might display them in a negative light? These are very simple questions, I hope to put a little more thought into them to create a more in depth paper. I am very open to criticism and suggestions on other directions I could take this paper. thanks!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Chapter 15
Summary:
Chapter 15 starts off by stating that every writing class is going to be different. Even if the same sylabus was used and the same book was assigned, the class would still end up in a different direction. The chapter says that this is mainly due to the teacher, as well as the students in the class. The teacher is said to be just as much a student as the studetns are teachers due to the way that a general writing class is run. One of the first things that needs to be looked at by a teacer in designing a successfull class is the sylabus and where the teacher wants to take the class. The teacher can take a class in whatever direction she wishes. Although the class my not follow the sylabus exactly, planning is key to a successful class. The chapter lookss at collaborative learning and sharing students sharing work with one another as well as the teacher sharing her work with the rest of the class. This gives the students a class to look at eachothers works and give their input, which may be different from the teacher alone.
Personal Response:
The overall chapter was fantastic. I thought the way it started was awsome. The fact that the book looks at the students being teachers as well the teachers being students sometimes was a good fresh look on teaching. It is often said, but I have never seen a book that actually has it in writing.
Chapter 15 starts off by stating that every writing class is going to be different. Even if the same sylabus was used and the same book was assigned, the class would still end up in a different direction. The chapter says that this is mainly due to the teacher, as well as the students in the class. The teacher is said to be just as much a student as the studetns are teachers due to the way that a general writing class is run. One of the first things that needs to be looked at by a teacer in designing a successfull class is the sylabus and where the teacher wants to take the class. The teacher can take a class in whatever direction she wishes. Although the class my not follow the sylabus exactly, planning is key to a successful class. The chapter lookss at collaborative learning and sharing students sharing work with one another as well as the teacher sharing her work with the rest of the class. This gives the students a class to look at eachothers works and give their input, which may be different from the teacher alone.
Personal Response:
The overall chapter was fantastic. I thought the way it started was awsome. The fact that the book looks at the students being teachers as well the teachers being students sometimes was a good fresh look on teaching. It is often said, but I have never seen a book that actually has it in writing.
Blog Prompt II
English classes prepare the average student for writing papers in other classes in many ways. The English class research paper that is usually assigned is more detailed and usually the requirements are greater in an English class rather than an average history or science class. If a student can learn how to properly meet the requirements for an English class research paper, then most other class research papers. The down side to English research papers is that many teachers have different requirements. After many English classes and numerous research reports I am still astounded of the many ways teachers can come up with to have more requirements in different ways than my previous teachers. While I have enjoyed to the perks of knowing how to please every teacher that isn't closely tied with English. The downside is that I have still not figured out how to meet every English teachers requirements.
English teachers prepare students to know the proper way to format citations in MLA format as well as APA format. With no knowledge of how to do these things students would constantly be caught for plagiarism. Teachers who take the time to sit down with a student will show them how to organize their thoughts and make sure the paper makes sense. Simply writing facts down on note cards and taking those note cards and inserting them onto a piece of paper does not mean a student has written a research paper. That would be copying facts on a piece of paper. The right teachers will sit a student down and show then what paraphrasing is and how it can be properly used without plagiarising. In this sense, teachers prepare students well for writing in other concentrations. But students need the right teachers to do all these things, without these teachers the student will not only be ill-prepared to write in other concentrations, but will struggle in the working world as well.
English teachers prepare students to know the proper way to format citations in MLA format as well as APA format. With no knowledge of how to do these things students would constantly be caught for plagiarism. Teachers who take the time to sit down with a student will show them how to organize their thoughts and make sure the paper makes sense. Simply writing facts down on note cards and taking those note cards and inserting them onto a piece of paper does not mean a student has written a research paper. That would be copying facts on a piece of paper. The right teachers will sit a student down and show then what paraphrasing is and how it can be properly used without plagiarising. In this sense, teachers prepare students well for writing in other concentrations. But students need the right teachers to do all these things, without these teachers the student will not only be ill-prepared to write in other concentrations, but will struggle in the working world as well.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Summary:
Reither's article, "Writing and knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Process" brings up many good questions. Questions that I have personally never thought of, and yet the questions are very simple. Reither also looks at how writing is viewed generally and says that these are misconceptions. The delusion that the writing process is an individual effort is not true in the since that many the work was inspired through the world and not conceptualized in the writers mind or own actions, but in actions of the world around the writer. Reither says in order for writing to develop even farther we, as writers, need to ask new questions that will give us more knowledge than what we now have. "How do writer acquire the authority that impels them to write?" This is just one example of how Reither gives questions to the reader to spark more questions that will help understand the writing process by acquiring more knowledge. This is Reither's way of challenging the writing community and future writers to be. He challenges the way things are in the writing community by saying that we don't know near as much as we need to know. He goes on later to state similar ways that the writing world needs to push itself to know more about writing before we feel as though we are comfortable with what we already know
Response:
This personally felt like a weak attempt at inspiration. Yes, we need to ask more questions, but we always need to be asking more questions! Thats nothing new. There were some good points made, and there were some questions that he brought up that personally I found interesting. The questions he gave in the text were simple but afgfective. Having read the Emig jounal first, i have to admitt i was a little tired of reading. This may be the reason why I am being so critical of Reither. I don't feel there is too much to write about this journal. I am sure many of my classmates and probably Dr. Fornes will disagree, but I am cutting this response short on account that, I just couldnt find this journal interesting enough to write about.
Reither's article, "Writing and knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Process" brings up many good questions. Questions that I have personally never thought of, and yet the questions are very simple. Reither also looks at how writing is viewed generally and says that these are misconceptions. The delusion that the writing process is an individual effort is not true in the since that many the work was inspired through the world and not conceptualized in the writers mind or own actions, but in actions of the world around the writer. Reither says in order for writing to develop even farther we, as writers, need to ask new questions that will give us more knowledge than what we now have. "How do writer acquire the authority that impels them to write?" This is just one example of how Reither gives questions to the reader to spark more questions that will help understand the writing process by acquiring more knowledge. This is Reither's way of challenging the writing community and future writers to be. He challenges the way things are in the writing community by saying that we don't know near as much as we need to know. He goes on later to state similar ways that the writing world needs to push itself to know more about writing before we feel as though we are comfortable with what we already know
Response:
This personally felt like a weak attempt at inspiration. Yes, we need to ask more questions, but we always need to be asking more questions! Thats nothing new. There were some good points made, and there were some questions that he brought up that personally I found interesting. The questions he gave in the text were simple but afgfective. Having read the Emig jounal first, i have to admitt i was a little tired of reading. This may be the reason why I am being so critical of Reither. I don't feel there is too much to write about this journal. I am sure many of my classmates and probably Dr. Fornes will disagree, but I am cutting this response short on account that, I just couldnt find this journal interesting enough to write about.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Fulkerson 4 Philosophies
OUTLINE:
Fulkerson touches on his four different philosophies of composition style. He has broken his philosophy into mimetic, expressive, rhetorical, and formalist. Fulkerson's mimetic style is writing on "reality". This basically includes writings where the facts and style of the piece is kept in focus. Another type of writing that Fulkerson's philosophy includes is expressive. The expressive writing style is a style of writing that a typical "writer" might use. This is a very creative form of writing and gives the writer free reign over his or her ideas. The rhetorical philosophy includes putting more emphasis into persuading the reader and using more personal input into a piece. Last but certainly not least is the Formalist style, which Fulkerson said was a way to focus more on the actual structure of the work. Fulkerson goes on to give writing example of these styles to show the reader just how these philosophies are put into work. Fulkerson also says that each one of these styles should only be focused on one at a time to make sure each style is used to its full potential.
RESPONSE:
Personally I founnd the chapter interesting but more wordy than anything. Fulkerson put very simple concepts and stretched them out into something that lost my attention. Although I did enjoy seeing the writing examples and seeing how each part of his philosophy worked, by the time I got to the example I was already tired of reading about the concept itself. Overall it was a decent chapter. Maybe its just the fact that I hate reading, but the chapter just seemed to go on forever. Fulkerson has great ideas in the chapter and I agree with many of the things he says although I might not like the fact that the writer is only supposed to focus on one at a time. I feel that formalist is an important part in any paper and should be looked at all the time.
Fulkerson touches on his four different philosophies of composition style. He has broken his philosophy into mimetic, expressive, rhetorical, and formalist. Fulkerson's mimetic style is writing on "reality". This basically includes writings where the facts and style of the piece is kept in focus. Another type of writing that Fulkerson's philosophy includes is expressive. The expressive writing style is a style of writing that a typical "writer" might use. This is a very creative form of writing and gives the writer free reign over his or her ideas. The rhetorical philosophy includes putting more emphasis into persuading the reader and using more personal input into a piece. Last but certainly not least is the Formalist style, which Fulkerson said was a way to focus more on the actual structure of the work. Fulkerson goes on to give writing example of these styles to show the reader just how these philosophies are put into work. Fulkerson also says that each one of these styles should only be focused on one at a time to make sure each style is used to its full potential.
RESPONSE:
Personally I founnd the chapter interesting but more wordy than anything. Fulkerson put very simple concepts and stretched them out into something that lost my attention. Although I did enjoy seeing the writing examples and seeing how each part of his philosophy worked, by the time I got to the example I was already tired of reading about the concept itself. Overall it was a decent chapter. Maybe its just the fact that I hate reading, but the chapter just seemed to go on forever. Fulkerson has great ideas in the chapter and I agree with many of the things he says although I might not like the fact that the writer is only supposed to focus on one at a time. I feel that formalist is an important part in any paper and should be looked at all the time.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Blog Prompt 1
The book that I read over the past week was entitled "Writing: a Workshop Guide". After reading Chapter 4 in our book, I was able to see the writing styles portrayed in our personal reading assignment. In Chapter 4, both Fulkerson as well as Berlin break down the different styles of writing. Although the personal reading could be closely related to Fulkerson's description of Rhetorical, Formalist, and some Expressive characteristics. The Formalist style of the book as discribed by Fulkerson focuses on format of a writing, such as the margin size and font size. The first couple chapters of the book touch on organization of thoughts as well as organization of paragraph form. The expressive portion of the book comes towards middle and end of the book when examples are given of personal writings about life and inspirational figures. Expressive writing according to Fulkerson is writings about an internal voice and personal journals. The final chapters of the book show examples of what Fulkerson refers to as Rhetorical writings. These are writings that deal with persuasion and reader responses. The "writing" book covers multiple writing styles but in general, the book an expressive book with examples of writing samples.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Chapter 4 summary
Chapter 4 Summary:
This chapter answers the basic questions about rhetoric, what it is, where it came from, and how it’s used. The chapter first starts off by stating that rhetoric is used “as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation.” The chapter also says that rhetoric is “flowery figures of speech and double-talk give the appearance of substance but leaves the real question unanswered.” This begins the argument that many people have made, from Aristotle to Plato that rhetoric is nothing more than the use of words used to gain an unfair advantage over someone. One of the first and more convincing arguments that the book makes for this argument is the example of “Corax of Syracuse used rhetoric as a tool for help Sicilian land owners an advantage to win land in property disputes”. This starts the many different ways that rhetoric has been broken down over centuries of time.
Later on, the book goes to describe rhetoric as an “art” and gives examples and shows arguments of how rhetoric was used in a positive way. Philosophers such as St. Augustine who used this art in a positive way. The book gives the example of how people like Augustine as well as graduate students use rhetoric as a tool for writing the bible and preaching as well.
Today the word rhetoric is used as a general term that has anything to do with educating people. Rhetoric can be used to describe a text book and can be used as a general term for communication. Even today, the art of rhetoric is being broken down by people like James Kinneavvy into different styles and forms. James gives a good example in the book by saying that rhetoric is a “general science or art of communication”.
Personal Response:
This chapter was more of an eye opener to me. Going into the chapter I thought that I had a clear idea of what rhetoric was and how I felt about it. This chapter gave a history of rhetoric and clearly stated what it actually was. The chapter gave a great history on it and I could really appreciate how it gave the opinions of great historical thinkers opinions on the subject. Although I hold the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle in high regards, this was one of the few times I disagreed with what the two philosophers had to say about rhetoric. I could see what they meant about how it was a way of manipulating someone and that it was mostly "filler" to an argument. Personally I feel that rhetoric is indeed an art, as it is referred to later on in the chapter. Can it be used in a negative way to give someone an advantage over a weaker party? Of course, but then again that is one of the great things about it. One of the things that was somewhat confusing in the chapter though was the many different ways that rhetoric was broken down. So many people have broken in down into so many different forms and sections, it gets confusing to the reader which way is the correct way to break it down. While Plato gives rhetoric different sections and so does Aristotle, later on in the chapter Kinneavy and Corax do the same thing, and all of these men have different interpretations of rhetoric. Coming to a conclusion of which way was correct was a little confusing, but over all I felt that the chapter gave the reader a clearer idea of what rhetoric actually was.
This chapter answers the basic questions about rhetoric, what it is, where it came from, and how it’s used. The chapter first starts off by stating that rhetoric is used “as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation.” The chapter also says that rhetoric is “flowery figures of speech and double-talk give the appearance of substance but leaves the real question unanswered.” This begins the argument that many people have made, from Aristotle to Plato that rhetoric is nothing more than the use of words used to gain an unfair advantage over someone. One of the first and more convincing arguments that the book makes for this argument is the example of “Corax of Syracuse used rhetoric as a tool for help Sicilian land owners an advantage to win land in property disputes”. This starts the many different ways that rhetoric has been broken down over centuries of time.
Later on, the book goes to describe rhetoric as an “art” and gives examples and shows arguments of how rhetoric was used in a positive way. Philosophers such as St. Augustine who used this art in a positive way. The book gives the example of how people like Augustine as well as graduate students use rhetoric as a tool for writing the bible and preaching as well.
Today the word rhetoric is used as a general term that has anything to do with educating people. Rhetoric can be used to describe a text book and can be used as a general term for communication. Even today, the art of rhetoric is being broken down by people like James Kinneavvy into different styles and forms. James gives a good example in the book by saying that rhetoric is a “general science or art of communication”.
Personal Response:
This chapter was more of an eye opener to me. Going into the chapter I thought that I had a clear idea of what rhetoric was and how I felt about it. This chapter gave a history of rhetoric and clearly stated what it actually was. The chapter gave a great history on it and I could really appreciate how it gave the opinions of great historical thinkers opinions on the subject. Although I hold the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle in high regards, this was one of the few times I disagreed with what the two philosophers had to say about rhetoric. I could see what they meant about how it was a way of manipulating someone and that it was mostly "filler" to an argument. Personally I feel that rhetoric is indeed an art, as it is referred to later on in the chapter. Can it be used in a negative way to give someone an advantage over a weaker party? Of course, but then again that is one of the great things about it. One of the things that was somewhat confusing in the chapter though was the many different ways that rhetoric was broken down. So many people have broken in down into so many different forms and sections, it gets confusing to the reader which way is the correct way to break it down. While Plato gives rhetoric different sections and so does Aristotle, later on in the chapter Kinneavy and Corax do the same thing, and all of these men have different interpretations of rhetoric. Coming to a conclusion of which way was correct was a little confusing, but over all I felt that the chapter gave the reader a clearer idea of what rhetoric actually was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)