As you finish up your VoiceThreads for your Unit 3 Projects, I thought it might be helpful for you to see the rubric by which I'll evaluate your work. Note: since we won't meet again after these are graded I won't be able to hand these back to you, but if you're curious about your detailed grade feel free to email me after the close of the semester.
Unit 3 Evaluation Rubric
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Instructions for Putting Together Your VoiceThread
1. Once you have your soundtrack completed in Audacity, export your work as an mp3 just like you did in Unit 2.
2. Open a new Audacity project, go to File > Import > Audio and open up the mp3 you just exported.
3. In your browser, go to voicethread.unc.edu and log in.
4. Click on the "Create" tab and then click the button that says "Upload." Upload each image that will appear in your VoiceThread.
5. Go back to Audacity and highlight the section of your mp3 that goes with your first image. Once it is highlighted, go to File > Export Selection and save that chunk of your audio track as a separate mp3 (you may want to name it something like "section 1.").
6. Go back to VoiceThread and click the "Comment" button. Your first image should show up in a larger window to the right. Under the image, click the button that says "Comment," then click the up arrow that appears. Point VoiceThread to the file in which you exported the first section.
7. When you're ready to move to the next image / section, click the big arrow at the right of the VoiceThread or the thumbnail next to the arrow and repeat steps 5 and 6.
8. For the sections of your VoiceThread in which you annotate the image, you will need to record the audio live. In the VoiceThread window, click "comment" and then click "record." Give the program permission to access you microphone, and it will record what you say. As you are recording you can draw on the image; you can change the color with the palette on the VoiceThread.
2. Open a new Audacity project, go to File > Import > Audio and open up the mp3 you just exported.
3. In your browser, go to voicethread.unc.edu and log in.
4. Click on the "Create" tab and then click the button that says "Upload." Upload each image that will appear in your VoiceThread.
5. Go back to Audacity and highlight the section of your mp3 that goes with your first image. Once it is highlighted, go to File > Export Selection and save that chunk of your audio track as a separate mp3 (you may want to name it something like "section 1.").
6. Go back to VoiceThread and click the "Comment" button. Your first image should show up in a larger window to the right. Under the image, click the button that says "Comment," then click the up arrow that appears. Point VoiceThread to the file in which you exported the first section.
7. When you're ready to move to the next image / section, click the big arrow at the right of the VoiceThread or the thumbnail next to the arrow and repeat steps 5 and 6.
8. For the sections of your VoiceThread in which you annotate the image, you will need to record the audio live. In the VoiceThread window, click "comment" and then click "record." Give the program permission to access you microphone, and it will record what you say. As you are recording you can draw on the image; you can change the color with the palette on the VoiceThread.
Make Your Own Draft Workshop: Unit 3 Project
At this point in the semester, each of you should be self-sufficient with your writing. You know best what issues you are struggling with in your current draft, so I would like you to compose your own draft workshop forms. You are welcome to copy and paste questions from forms earlier in the semester if you found a particular question helpful or if it focuses on an issue you're currently dealing with, but your draft workshop form should meet the following two criteria:
1. It should contain at least four questions
2. It should not include any open-ended questions (i.e. "please point out anything that can be improved"), but rather each question should focus on a particular issue in your draft. If you need help thinking of what these issues might be, refer to the assignments (remember, it's always good to make sure you do everything the assignments ask!) and/or your notes and my presentations from earlier this semester.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Feeder 3.2 Workshop
1. Last class we talked about the relationship between facts--or evidence--and more complex claims in the humanities. Do you think the author has done an adequate job of supporting his or her claims with objective facts about the piece(s) discussed? Point out at least two claims made about the piece(s) in the draft and explain how each of these claims is explicitly supported by reference to facts. If you think the claim could be better supported, suggest a fact about that painting that might help.
2. Does the draft adequately contextualize the piece under discussion? What kind of context (e.g. historical, aesthetic, etc.) does it provide? Does the contextual information seem more important than the discussion of the actual piece? If so, what might the author add or cut in order to put the focus back on the main piece?
3. Does the author explain how s/he will use VoiceThread's visual annotation tools in order to help guide the reader through the image? Suggest ways in which the author might better use visual annotations in order to help convince the reader of his or her claims about the piece.
4. Do you think the audio track will hold the reader's attention? Has the author explain how s/he will use music and other sound effects in order to break it up and make the information more digestible for the reader. Give any suggestions you might have for improving the audio track.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Feeder 3.1 Draft Workshop
1. Paraphrase the thesis statement of the scholarly article your partner wrote about. Has your partner made the scholar's argument clear in the paper? Is it clear where the scholar's argument ends and your partner's argument begins? How might your partner make this relationship between their and the scholar's ideas clearer?
2. When workshopping similar assignments earlier this semester we concentrated on how the author makes an argument intended for scholars accessible for your blog's wider audience. Has the author explained why this research matters? Do you think the author makes a substantive and powerful connection between audience and subject matter? Do you think your blog's audience REALLY wants to read this post? Explain your answer, pointing to specific details in the draft.
3. In today's discussion we talked about the relationship between facts (observations) and opinions (claims) in the humanities. Has the author drawn a clear relationship between the claims and the observations that support them in the original article? What kinds of evidence does the scholarly author cite in support of his or her claims? How might your partner make the relationship between the original author's claims and observations clearer in the draft.
4. What constitutes "original research" is a little more difficult to determine in the humanities than it was in the natural or social sciences. Are you confident that the article summarized is a scholarly article? How can you tell? How might the author make it clearer that s/he is summarizing scholarly research?
Homework: Bring a script for your Feeder 3.2 VoiceThread to class on Tuesday. Your script should explain not only what you will say in your VoiceThread, but what images you use and how you plan to annotate and explain them to your audience. Unit 2 Project podcasts are also due by class time on Tuesday.
VoiceThread
Put on your headphones and click the link below to watch a VoiceThread about what VoiceThreads are:
Once you understand the principles behind VoiceThread (listen at least to the part where the "happy mother" introduces herself), click here to check out a VoiceThread in which an art history teacher speculates about how students might use the tool in her class:
You might also want to play around with creating your first VoiceThread. To do so, go to http://voicethread.unc.edu/ and sign in with your ONYEN and Password. This will give you access to VoiceThread's web site where you can begin playing around with the software.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Unit 2 Project Workshop
1. As you listen to your partner's podcast for the first time, compose a DETAILED retrospective outline of the draft. Your outline should be about half a page long (single-spaced) and should contain at least three "levels" (I'll explain what this means in class).
2. How easy was it for you to compose the outline? Were the transition moments clearly signaled to the listener? How were the signaled? Were there any transitional moments that need additional clarification? In general, does the podcast feel organized? Explain your answer.
3. How has the author handled the results section? Does it feel like a barrage of numbers, or is the information easy to digest? Do you have a sense of which bits of information are the most important and which are less important? How might the author highlight the most pertinent info in the results section more clearly?
4. Does the author adequately address the strengths and weaknesses of his or her study? Does the author reformulate the hypothesis or propose how the experiment might be conducted differently next time? Do you have a sense of what the author learned from the study and why that information is valuable to the listener?
5. Last week we talked about how the Discussion section of a research report should gradually "zoom out" from the narrow conclusions drawn from the study itself. Summarize briefly how the author accomplishes this task of "zooming out." Is it clear what the reader should take away from the study and the report? How might the author highlight this information more clearly in order to leave the reader feeling more satisfied?
After you have answered the questions please leave around 5 minutes to chat with your partner about your podcasts. This is a good point at which to point out any other concerns you might have with the current draft and offer suggestions about how things might be improved for the final version.
2. How easy was it for you to compose the outline? Were the transition moments clearly signaled to the listener? How were the signaled? Were there any transitional moments that need additional clarification? In general, does the podcast feel organized? Explain your answer.
3. How has the author handled the results section? Does it feel like a barrage of numbers, or is the information easy to digest? Do you have a sense of which bits of information are the most important and which are less important? How might the author highlight the most pertinent info in the results section more clearly?
4. Does the author adequately address the strengths and weaknesses of his or her study? Does the author reformulate the hypothesis or propose how the experiment might be conducted differently next time? Do you have a sense of what the author learned from the study and why that information is valuable to the listener?
5. Last week we talked about how the Discussion section of a research report should gradually "zoom out" from the narrow conclusions drawn from the study itself. Summarize briefly how the author accomplishes this task of "zooming out." Is it clear what the reader should take away from the study and the report? How might the author highlight this information more clearly in order to leave the reader feeling more satisfied?
After you have answered the questions please leave around 5 minutes to chat with your partner about your podcasts. This is a good point at which to point out any other concerns you might have with the current draft and offer suggestions about how things might be improved for the final version.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Unit 2 Project Script Podcast
1. How has the author summarized the data that she or he collected in the experiment? Does this summary feel like an onslaught of numbers? Is it disorienting, or do can you process them all as the author is explaining them? How might he or she deal with this material more clearly?
2. Does the author restate clearly the original hypothesis and how the data proved or disproved that hypothesis? How could this information be better highlighted so that the listener will be sure not to miss it?
3. How does the podcast end? Is the ending effective? Why or why not?
4. How might the author interject another voice in a way that would make the podcast both clearer and more interesting?
5. What parts of the podcast do you think will be essential to highlight with music, sound effects, etc.? In other words, what are the most important transitional moments in the podcast? Does the author indicate how s/he will deal with these effectively? Suggest ways in which the use of music and sound effects might be improved.
2. Does the author restate clearly the original hypothesis and how the data proved or disproved that hypothesis? How could this information be better highlighted so that the listener will be sure not to miss it?
3. How does the podcast end? Is the ending effective? Why or why not?
4. How might the author interject another voice in a way that would make the podcast both clearer and more interesting?
5. What parts of the podcast do you think will be essential to highlight with music, sound effects, etc.? In other words, what are the most important transitional moments in the podcast? Does the author indicate how s/he will deal with these effectively? Suggest ways in which the use of music and sound effects might be improved.
Posting Feeder 2.2 Podcasts
Exporting Your Podcast as an MP3
Mac: GarageBand
At the top of your screen, click “Share” and then “Export song to disk.”
Make sure the box next to “Compress” is checked, and change “AAC Encoder” to “mp3 Encoder.” Change “High Quality” to “Good Quality.” Click Export and choose a location for your file.
Windows: Audacity
Click this link for an explanation of how to install the MP3 codec:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq?s=install&i=lame-mp3
This is a little more complicated! But if you run into problems you can rely on me and your group members.
Getting Your MP3 on Your Blog
1. Go to www.divshare.com and sign up for an account.
2. Once you’re in your dashboard click the big green button that says “upload a new file.
3. Click the “Choose File” button, locate your mp3 on your computer, and upload it to divshare (note: you’ll have to click the green “upload” button once you’ve chosen your file)
4. Once your file is done uploading, click “Dashboard” at the top of the page, and your mp3 file should be listed near the bottom of the page. Click the link that says “embed” under your file name. Scroll down to the box labeled “embed code.” Copy this code and paste it into the “create post” window on your blog. Make sure you’ve clicked the tab that says “Edit html,” otherwise it won’t work.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Unit 2 Project Pre-Writing
Once you finish the draft workshop, you can use the remainder of the class period in one of two ways:
1. You can implement the feedback you received on your Feeder 2.2 podcast.
2. You can begin pre-writing for your Unit 2 Project podcast. If you choose this route, I suggest that you work in pairs. Begin by explaining the results of your study to your partner and showing him or her the data that you collected. From there, return to your notes on today's PowerPoint presentation and work with your partner to begin figuring out what information will go in your results section and what you will say in the discussion portion of your podcast. After doing this, you should have a rough outline of your podcast. If you get this far, begin thinking about how you will frame this information and how you will present it to your listener clearly and succinctly. As you make decisions about these aspects of your podcast, begin transforming the rough outline of your podcast into a more detailed script.
Homework: You should have a detailed script for your Unit 2 Project, which we will workshop on Thursday. Also, your Feeder 2.2 podcast should be ready to post by class time on Thursday. On Thursday we will talk about how to export your podcast as an mp3 file and upload it to the internet.
Feeder 2.2 Draft Workshop
Listen to your partner's podcast at least once without stopping, then answer the following questions on a new Google Doc titled "[your name]'s feedback on [partner's name]'s podcast:"
1. Describe the author's implementation of the middle style. Is it a higher or lower take on the middle style? Does the author come off as a credible scientist? What aspects of the podcast contribute most to the author's voice? Be as specific as possible.
2. Do you zone out or become disoriented at any point in the podcast? At what point does the author lose your attention? Does s/he read too slowly or too quickly? Is the recording clear and easy to understand?
3. Describe how the author has implemented post-production techniques such as the addition of music, sound effects, etc. Do these help you to understand the content of the podcast or do they distract you from it?
4. Has the author done everything required for both the Introduction and Methods and Materials sections? Is this information clearly highlighted? Does the author do a good job of explaining the experiment without summarizing the results? Does the podcast sound too much or not enough like a proper scientific research report? What changes might the author make in order to enhance his or her credibility or come off as more approachable?
Now, read these questions and then listen to the podcast again, thinking about how you will answer each question. If you need to listen again, rewind and listen to part of the podcast again. When you're done, answer these questions:
1. How does the author attempt to grab the reader's attention? Do you think the reader will be "hooked" within 10-15 seconds? Can the author's attention-getter be described as one of the more or less effective introductions we talked about? Explain your answer.
2. At what point does the author transition from the Introduction section to the Methods and Materials section? Describe how this transition takes place and how the author signals to the reader that s/he should be listening for a new idea. Identify any other transitions that are unclear or confusing.
3. Is the hypothesis highlighted clearly? Can the author be absolutely sure that even a casual listener will understand the experiment's hypothesis? How does the author highlight this information? How might it be highlighted more clearly?
After you have answered all of these questions in the Google Doc, take 5 minutes to converse with your author, explaining both your answers to the questions as well as any more general or specific comments that didn't come up in your written feedback. Also, feel free to share any tips for using the recording software that the author might find helpful.
1. Describe the author's implementation of the middle style. Is it a higher or lower take on the middle style? Does the author come off as a credible scientist? What aspects of the podcast contribute most to the author's voice? Be as specific as possible.
2. Do you zone out or become disoriented at any point in the podcast? At what point does the author lose your attention? Does s/he read too slowly or too quickly? Is the recording clear and easy to understand?
3. Describe how the author has implemented post-production techniques such as the addition of music, sound effects, etc. Do these help you to understand the content of the podcast or do they distract you from it?
4. Has the author done everything required for both the Introduction and Methods and Materials sections? Is this information clearly highlighted? Does the author do a good job of explaining the experiment without summarizing the results? Does the podcast sound too much or not enough like a proper scientific research report? What changes might the author make in order to enhance his or her credibility or come off as more approachable?
Now, read these questions and then listen to the podcast again, thinking about how you will answer each question. If you need to listen again, rewind and listen to part of the podcast again. When you're done, answer these questions:
1. How does the author attempt to grab the reader's attention? Do you think the reader will be "hooked" within 10-15 seconds? Can the author's attention-getter be described as one of the more or less effective introductions we talked about? Explain your answer.
2. At what point does the author transition from the Introduction section to the Methods and Materials section? Describe how this transition takes place and how the author signals to the reader that s/he should be listening for a new idea. Identify any other transitions that are unclear or confusing.
3. Is the hypothesis highlighted clearly? Can the author be absolutely sure that even a casual listener will understand the experiment's hypothesis? How does the author highlight this information? How might it be highlighted more clearly?
After you have answered all of these questions in the Google Doc, take 5 minutes to converse with your author, explaining both your answers to the questions as well as any more general or specific comments that didn't come up in your written feedback. Also, feel free to share any tips for using the recording software that the author might find helpful.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Example Podcasts
I know some of you were having trouble getting started, so it might be helpful to listen to what past students have done. Here are a few links:
These podcasts aren't perfect by any means, but they might help you get started and realize what's possible with the tools you have at your disposal. One thing I will say is that I think most of these could have been more ambitious in the ways the authors used effects to signal transitions; so these aren't the target, they're a jumping off point. I want you to wow me!
Feeder 2.2 Podcast Workshop
Today we will begin recording the Feeder 2.2 podcasts that you scripted last week. PC users will want to begin by downloading and installing the Audacity recording software:
Mac users will have an easier time with GarageBand, which is probably already installed on your computer. If you don't have GarageBand, there is a version of Audacity available for Mac as well.
Once you have the software up and running, you may want to begin by recording your own voice and using some of the program's effects to manipulate the sound wave by cutting and pasting, overdubbing, or transforming it through effects. As we talked about during our discussion of the RadioLab podcast, these bells and whistles can be useful tools for orienting your listener, but remember that you want your listeners to pay attention to WHAT is being said, not HOW you're saying it.
As you get going, you may find yourself in need of sound effects and/or background music. As we discussed in class, you should be sure to obey the rules about intellectual property that we talked about. The following web sites provide free, legal samples that you can use in your podcast (note: some may require registration in order for you to download):
Once you download these sound files to your computer, you can drag them directly into GarageBand or add them into your Audacity project by going to File > Import > Audio. Once the sound is in your project you can use the program's tools to move it around and manipulate it just like you did with your voice.
We'll spend the entirety of today's class working on your podcasts, and you can rely on me and your group members for help realizing the ideas you spelled out in your scripts. In addition, during Thursday's optional class I will be available to help you troubleshoot any problems you run into. You can also search the web for general tutorials on podcasting or specific tutorials about making a particular sound or effect.
You will need to bring a draft of your Feeder 2.2 podcast (i.e. something for your workshop partner to listen to) to class on Tuesday, November 9. NOTE: Please bring a set of headphones to EVERY class meeting from now on; you will need these in order to workshop your podcasts.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Feeder 2.2 Script Workshop
1. How does the author attempt to grab the reader's attention? It will be helpful to think not just about what the author is saying--i.e. the words s/he is using them--but HOW s/he says them. Will there be music? Sound effects? Will these methods work? If we assume that a potential listener is going to give us 10 seconds of devoted attention before making up his or her mind about whether to listen, do you think this author will have grabbed the listener by that time? Why or why not?
2. When we listened to the RadioLab podcast we talked a lot about the ratio of scripted vs. unscripted content. What do you think that ratio will be in your partner's podcast? Do you think that ratio is appropriate given the tenets of the middle style? How might the author work in more unscripted content? How might the author integrate different voices, sounds, and other effects that might add dynamism to the finished product?
3. How does the author explain the experiment in the Methods and Materials section? How does the author deal with the problem of representing quantitative data orally? Do you think the listener will be able to understand precisely how the experiment works? Do you think the listener could repeated the experiment precisely him or herself? Suggest ways in which the author might make this Methods and Materials section clearer.
4. Your finished podcast will contain at least two main sections: Introduction and Methods and Materials. How does the author signals the transition between those two sections (or any others the podcast might include)? Do you think these transitions will be effective? Why or why not?
5. How has the author attempted to establish and maintain his or her scientific credibility? We noted on Tuesday that there is a fine line between being accessible and losing one's credibility; where does the author's voice and content reside on this line? If the author were to shoot for a slightly "higher" take on the middle style, how might the script change? Conversely, how would it change if the author were to go "lower?"
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Draft Workshop: Feeder 2.1
1. The assignment asks you to take a piece of scientific research and make it meaningful to your audience. This involves a unique answer to the "so what?" question. How does the original article answer the "so what?" question? In other words, why does this research matter to psychologists? (note: you might have to ask the author or look up the original article to find out.) Now, explain why this research matters to your blog's audience… has the author explained and supported this answer adequately? Do you think your readers will really value this research in the way the author has proposed?
2. Many of your summaries for Feeder 1.2 were too long, too detailed, and too closely mimicked the structure of the original article. Does it feel like the author has fully digested the research he or she is presenting? Are the key terms explained vividly, simply, and in ways that your audience can understand clearly? Go through the draft and strike out any information that you think is too detailed for the needs of your audience.
3. Is the essay organized? Evaluate the author's paragraphing skills; does each paragraph have a clear topic sentence and stick to only one topic without wavering? Is each paragraph's idea fully developed? Identify any potential problem paragraphs and note how the author might revise them.
4. Evaluate the writer's introduction. Does s/he grab the reader's attention quickly? Does s/he transition quickly and effectively to the thesis statement? Does the author follow the pattern of one of the more or less effective introductions we talked about in class? Note any ways in which you think the introduction might be improved.
Workshop on Unit 2 Data Sheets
What data you choose to collect and how you collect it is the backbone of your experiment; you won't be able to prove your hypothesis unless you collect your data in a way that is clear and consistent. Form yourselves into groups of 2 or 3, and after you have examined your partners' data sheets discuss the following questions aloud:
1. Your hypothesis should have identified a relationship between an independent and a dependent variable. How does the author measure changes in the independent variable? What about the dependent variable? Is the scale sensitive enough to measure subtle changes? Is it flexible enough to track unexpected changes?
2. We noted in class that the biggest danger to experiments of this nature is the confounding variable. What confounding variables do you anticipate might get in the way of proving the author's hypothesis? Are these variables accounted for in the data sheet? How might the author use the data sheet to keep track of these confounding variables and prove definitively that they have not shaped the relationship between the independent and dependent variables?
3. What other kinds of data might it be useful for the author to collect? Suggest at least two piece of data that the author might consider adding to his or her data sheet.
4. Is the data collected on the sheet adequately quantified? While there might be some space devoted to more open-ended, narrative responses, is the data predominantly in the form of numbers that can be quickly and easily analyzed? If not, how might the author collect the data in a way that is more quantitative and less qualitative?
If you find weaknesses in your data sheet, go ahead and revise them. At the bottom of your document (which you should have posted to Google Docs), write a short paragraph explaining what changes you made as a result of the draft workshop.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Composing a Hypothesis Statement
Last week you began brainstorming the behavior you will modify for your Unit 2 Project. Now I would like you to work with your group members to compose a hypothesis statement for your project. As we noted last week, a hypothesis statement usually is formatted into an "if-then" statement that explains the relationship between an independent and dependent variables. In addition, a good hypothesis statement will be specific both in its identification of these variables and how it describes the relationship between them. Begin by composing a rough hypothesis statement, then work in pairs to critique one another's statements. Answer the following questions aloud:
Is each statement specific enough?
Do you know exactly what the variables are and how they are being manipulated?
Do you know exactly what will happen to the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated? Is this relationship described fully and clearly?
Do you suspect that confounding variables may exist? Should the author revise the thesis statement in order to assuage readers' suspicions about these confounding variables?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Unit 2 Pre-Writing Exercise + Homework for 10/19
Hopefully all of you have had time to think about what behavior you will modify for your Unit 2 Project. Begin by sharing your behavior with your group members; let them know why you're choosing to change this behavior and why you think it will be appropriate for the assignment. (Note: you may want to look over the Unit 2 assignment sequence to make sure you've chosen a behavior that will work for this study.) Once everyone has talked about his or her behavior, collaborate with your group members to build the following chart in a new Google Doc titled "[your name]'s Unit 2 Pre-Writing." After you create the Google Doc, click on "Table" and then "Create Table" and make a table containing 3 columns and 1 row.
In column 1, spend at least two minutes listing everything you think you know about your behavior. These things don't have to be verifiable scientific fact; for instance, if you're trying to drink more water, you might write down that being properly hydrated gives you more energy, even though you'd probably want to do research to verify this fact. In listing everything you know about your behavior, you want to consider what kinds of things trigger your behavior, what happens after you do your behavior, how it makes the people around you feel, etc. There are no boundaries here… just get as much down on the page as you can.
In column 2, spend at least five minutes listing everything you are wondering about your behavior. This is the place for unanswered questions: you might question some of the things you assumed in the first column, you might wonder about previous research into your behavior, you might think about the consequences of changing your behavior… you chose to modify this particular behavior for a reason, so hopefully you are curious about many different aspects of it.
In column 3, spend at lest five minutes write down (as specifically as possible) how you will find out the answers to the questions you are curious about in column 2. Do you expect that some of your questions will be answered in previous research? How will you find this research (i.e. in popular sources, scholarly sources, etc.)? Will you be able to answer some of the questions with your own study? If so, how will you design your experiment so that it gives you a definitive answer to your question?
If you finish before the end of class you can either begin work on the homework assignment (please use headphones if you begin listening to the podcast) or begin research for your Feeder 2.1 assignment.
Homework:
We'll be working with the RadioLab podcast titled “Lucy.” You can hear it here:
or you can download the mp3 directly here:
Read through these questions before you listen to the podcast, but answer them after you listen. As you are listening, compose a retrospective outline of the podcast. Post this outline along with your answers to the following questions in a new Google Doc titled "[your name]'s RadioLab assignment." Share this Google Doc with me.
1. What kind of “hook” do they use to draw in the listener? (Note: ignore the plea for money that precedes the podcast.)
2. Estimate what proportion of the program is based on extempore speech and what seems to be read from a script. How can you tell?
3. Note any background music or sound effects that seem to have been added in post-production. Why were these things added? How do they make the podcast clearer or more interesting?
4. Note any terms or concepts that you learned about from listening to the podcast. How were these explained? How did the authors make these complex ideas and terms easy to understand?
Unit 1 Assessment
Take a moment to look back at the earliest drafts of your Feeder 1.1 and 1.2 assignments. Think about how you have grown as a writer over the past 8 weeks. Next, answer each of the following questions with a short paragraph of 3-4 sentences.
1. Which class lessons have had the most impact on your writing? Which ones have had the least? Why?
2. Have you found the draft workshops helpful? Why or why not? Do you have any suggestions about how the peer review process can be more efficient or productive?
3. Do you feel like the in-class assignments and draft workshops helped to move your writing through the conceptual, organizational, and surface-level stages? Did you get stuck at any one of these stages during any of the assignments? If so, explain why.
4. Do you think any of the concepts or lessons covered in the course so far need additional clarification? How will this clarification help?
When you're done please email your responses to me. Please place your responses in the body of the message rather than as an attachment.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Editing: The Paramedic Method
1. Circle the prepositions (of, in, about, for, onto, into)
2. Draw a box around the "is" verb forms
3. Ask, "Where's the action?"
4. Change the "action" into a simple verb
5. Move the doer into the subject (Who's kicking whom?)
6. Eliminate any unnecessary slow wind-ups
7. Eliminate any redundancies.
Perform the paramedic method on at least one paragraph (preferably the first) of you partner's paper. If you finish the paragraph before the end of class, proceed to the next one.
Homework: No class on Tuesday; Post Unit 1 Project to blog by class time next Thursday; re-read Unit 2 assignment sequence and decide on the behavior you want to modify
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Unit 1 Project Draft Workshop
Part 1
In this first part of the draft workshop we will ensure that the author has dealt appropriately with the parts of the draft associated with the conceptual and organization stages of revision. For your partner's draft, answer the following questions:
Conceptual Stage
1. Does the thesis statement accomplish all three things that, according to our lessons, a thesis statement should accomplish? Briefly summarize how the thesis statement makes a substantial claim about the essay's topic, lays out a roadmap for the rest of the essay and explains why the audience should care about the topic.
2. What kinds of evidence does the author cite in support of his or her claim? Is this evidence compelling? Is it enough to make you believe the claim put forth in the thesis statement? Why or why not?
3. What kinds of appeals does the author make to his or her audience (e.g. logical, emotional, ethical)? Are these appeals appropriate or convincing for the blog / essay's audience? Why or why not? Could the author effectively employ any other types of appeals?
4. Briefly describe the general tone of the essay. Does it seem to you to be written in high, low, or middle style? Does the author's tone come off as credible given the topic and the paper's audience? Has the author established a solid, reliable persona? Explain your answer.
Organizational Stage
1. In what order does the author present his or her supporting evidence (e.g. chronological, process order, cause-and-effect, etc.)? Is this the most appropriate order given the audience's level of understanding? Suggest at least one alternative way in which the essay might be organized.
2. Is there a sense of balance to my essay? Do I spend too long on any single point, or do I seem to rush through important parts? Does any section feel either redundant or underdeveloped?
3. Does each paragraph have a clear topic sentence? Does each topic sentence relate clearly back to the thesis? Does each paragraph deal with one idea and one idea only? Point out any points in the essay at which the paragraphing seems weak or confusing.
4. Does the essay have transitions that move the reader clearly from idea to the next? Does the writer make the relationship between the ideas clear with words that emphasize the essay's organization scheme (e.g. time-related words of the essay is organized chronologically, etc.)?
5. Does each paragraph fully explain its main idea? Do any paragraphs feel thin or under-developed? Point them out.
Assessment
If you did not identify any major conceptual or organization issues in your answers to the above questions, let the author know that s/he can move on to Part 2. If you did identify any issues, explain as clearly and specifically as possible what you think the author needs to do in order to get this draft to the "surface-level concerns" stage. Try to format these instructions as a plan, e.g. "Your road map doesn't match the organization of the essay as a whole. Once you make those match by revising your thesis statements or re-ordering your paragraphs, you should look at paragraphs 3 and 5 because they each seem to deal with several ideas rather than one."
Part 2
1. All of your drafts are probably aiming for a middle style. Go through your partner's draft and highlight any words, sentences, or passages in which you think the essay deviates from a middle style (either by being too formal or too informal). If you have time, suggest ways in which the author might revise these sections in order to achieve a more appropriate tone for the assignment.
2. Since writing in the middle style is targeted at a fairly wide audience, unfamiliar terms and concepts need to be defined. Examine the essay and point out any terms that aren't defined that probably should be. For the terms that are defined, are these definitions clear and concise? Does the reader understand everything s/he needs to in order to understand the author's point?
3. Another aspect of the middle style is that it employs concrete nouns (rather than abstract nouns) and action verbs (rather than "to be" verbs). In general, does this essay feel concrete (that is, grounded in things you can see and touch) or abstract (that is, in the world of ideas) to you? Do you think the essay's level of abstraction is appropriate given the audience and the topic? Point out any specific passages in which you think the paper gets too abstract. If you have trouble locating these passages, try searching for "to be" verbs; they often cluster around these types of passages.
4. Did you notice any examples of contentious terms or insensitive language in the draft? If so, point them out and suggest how the writer might replace this with more sensitive language.
Homework: By Thursday your draft should be at the point where you're ready to deal with the real nitty-gritty of sentence-level concerns; not only should the conceptual and organizational aspects of your paper be in order but you should also feel fairly confident about the tone of your writing and how it functions on a sentence level.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Critiquing a Professional Model Text
Up this point we've mostly looked at other students' writing, but from time to time it's helpful to remember that professionals still rely on the same fundamental writing skills that we learn about in this class. For this assignment, each group will read the assigned editorial from the New York Times:
Within your groups, discuss your answers to the following questions and record your answers in a Google Doc. Each group need only create one document.
Within your groups, discuss your answers to the following questions and record your answers in a Google Doc. Each group need only create one document.
1. What is the article's thesis statement? Where does it appear? Does the thesis statement do the three things that we said all thesis statements should do? Explain your answer fully, noting in detail how the author fulfills each of these requirements. If you think s/he does not fulfill these requirements in the thesis statement, speculate as to why this is the case.
2. What kinds of appeals does the author make to his or her audience? Identify at least two specific appeals. Do you think the audience find these appeals convincing? Why or why not?
3. What kinds of research does the author employ to support his or her claim? Does this research come from popular, professional, or scholarly sources? If the author does not rely on research, how does s/he establish authorial credibility within the article?
4. Does the author employ strong paragraphing skills? Does each paragraph contain a topic sentences that expresses a single idea? Do all sentences in the paragraph explain that idea (and that idea only) fully and completely?
5. How does the author grab the reader's attention in the introduction? Can you categorize the introduction into one of the types we talked about in class?
6. Does the author employ a variety of different sentence types? Does the writing seem dynamic and powerful to you? Support your answer with specific details from the text.
At the end of the period I will ask each group to summarize their answers briefly for the rest of the class.
Grading Process
This sheet will be updated with new assignments, workshops, and skills as they are assigned. Note: homework assignments and draft workshops are due 24 hours after the end of class unless I state otherwise. In order to receive full credit for a draft workshop, you must both submit the required draft on time and complete all of the workshop form questions for one of your groupmates' drafts.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Unit 1 Project Group Assessment
Read each of your group members' drafts. Once you have read everyone's draft, decide on which stage of the revision process each one of your groupmates should focus his or her attention in the next few days. Write a paragraph in your groupmates' Google Doc supporting your answer with specific reference to the draft (i.e. "paragraphs 3 and 4 seem off-topic, so Student X should focus on ensuring each paragraph's topic sentence relates directly to the thesis statement").
Homework: Continue working on your Unit 1 Project; you should bring a substantially revised draft to class next Tuesday. Try employing multiple revision sessions in order to deal with several different concerns relating to your draft.
Unit 1 Project Self-Assessment
We just finished learning about three stages of revision: conceptual concerns, organizational concerns, and surface-level concerns. Which of these stages is your primary concern for your Unit 1 Project at this moment? Post a comment here explaining where you will focus your attention during your next round of revisions, noting which specific questions you will focus on and why you believe dealing with these questions will be the most efficient use of your time.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Activity: Critiquing Paragraphing Strategies
Together with your group, examine each paragraph in the model draft for its relationship to the thesis, unity, coherence, and adequate development of the paragraph's main idea.
Create a new Google Doc in which you explain briefly how each paragraph might be improved. You can be as brief as possible, but more complex problems might require a bit more explanation. Each group need only create one document.
Activity: Composing a Working Thesis Statement
If you haven't done so already, composing a working thesis statement for your Unit 1 Project. Don't worry if you don't feel ready; thesis statements always change--sometimes drastically--before the final draft. If you're having trouble getting started, identify the 3 or 4 pieces of most interesting or compelling information you have found during your research and think about what kind of claim that might lead you to make about your topic. You might also ask your groupmates for help.
Remember, your thesis statement should make a claim about your topic, it should give a road map to how your argument will unfold, and it should explain why your argument matters to your audience. You may not have made up your mind about all of these things yet, but do your best to provide this information anyway. If you change your mind you can simply update your thesis statement later.
After everyone in your group has a working thesis, have each person read the thesis statement aloud twice, speaking slowly and clearly. As your groupmates read their statements, jot down your reaction in simple words or phrases. You might use words like "interesting," "complicated," "disorienting," etc. Try to give the author a sense of the audience's immediate reaction to the topic and/or argument. Once everyone has read their thesis statements relay your reactions to their respective authors. Add the reactions about your thesis statement to your Google Doc.
Activity: Adapting to Your Audience
In the Google Document where you've been collecting your research, respond briefly to each of the following questions.
- Who is your audience?
- What does your audience need? What do they want? What do they value?
- What aspects of your topic are most important to them?
- What aspects of your topic are they least likely to care about?
- What kind of organization would best help your audience understand and appreciate your argument?
- What do you have to say (or what are you doing in your research) that might surprise your audience?
- What do you want your audience to think, learn, or assume about you? What impression do you want your writing or your research to convey?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Activity: Brainstorming / Preliminary Research
Within your groups, form yourselves into smaller groups of two or three. Begin by summarizing for your group members what you did in the class's previous activity. Try to be brief (1 or 2 minutes at most), but do your best to get across the gist of the author's argument, the main evidence s/he relies on, and where you think your research might take you from here. Let each person explain his or her work before you move on to the next step.
1. Based on your reading so far, come up with a list of three key words or concepts that are central to your project. Write these three words in the middle of a sheet of paper and circle each one.
2. Working with your partner, for each term create a web around it by identifying as many related topics, concerns, or ideas as you can. Try to do this quickly and constantly… your pen should always be moving.
3. Once you have completed the initial brainstorming session for each member of your group, work on "deepening" your web by performing some preliminary research on the ideas that you brainstormed. For instance, if you are researching how the proposed highway through the Serengeti desert will affect the wildebeest, you might read more about wildebeests and their habitat or you might look for information about existing desert highways and their environmental impacts. As you skim these sources add new terms and concepts to your web to make it comprehensive. If you find a source that it might be helpful to return to later, be sure to bookmark it or make a note of how to find it again.
4. Hopefully by now you have an extremely messy sheet of paper in front of you. Working with your partner(s), compose a list of topics or ideas from your web that you want to research further. Order this list by priority, beginning with the ideas you think are most promising. At this point feel free to discard ideas that you're relatively sure are dead ends.
5. If you finish this task before class time is over, feel free to get started on your homework for Thursday.
Homework:
Find at least three sources (they can be from any kind of publication, including scholarly journals, blogs, or newspapers) in which authors make an argument relating either to your main topic or one of the related ones that you brainstormed in your web. For each of these three sources, identify the author's thesis statement or central claim and quickly compose a retrospective outline of the article. Add this information to the Google Document you created in class on Tuesday.
Activity: Reading Sources Critically
Begin by composing a retrospective outline of your article from Nature. Follow the procedures we talked about in class last week, beginning by identifying the author's thesis statement or central claim and identifying the central claim or idea in each paragraph. Put your reverse outline on Google Docs, share it with me and your group members, and in the same document complete the following tasks:
1. Describe, in a few words, the article's organizational scheme. Is there an order or a logic to the way the article unfolds? Why do you think the author chose to present the information in the order s/he did?
2. Identify at least three or four SPECIFIC places in which the author makes an appeal to his or her audience. For each appeal, note whether the author relies on ethos, pathos, or logos, and briefly explain why this appeal would be convincing for Nature's audience.
3. Note any places in which the author addresses a counter-argument to his or her thesis. Summarize both the counter-argument and how your author responds to it. Does this counter-argument prompt your author to limit his or her claim in any way? If so, how?
4. In order to write authoritatively about the subject you have chosen you will probably have to do more research on the topic. Jot down some notes about where you think this research might take you. Are there any specific references in the article that you should track down? Will you be looking for scholarly sources or popular ones? What kinds of search terms might you use? How will the research you find help to shape your argument and make it convincing?
5. Finally (and this is a tough one!) ask yourself, "what is missing from the article?" Are their any ideas, opinions, arguments, or references that seem to be missing, left out, avoided, or not addressed? Is there any aspect of the topic that the author just doesn't want to deal with, at least not in depth? Speculate as to why the author made these omissions, and how exploring these areas might be useful to you as you develop your own counter-arguments.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Feeder 1.2 Workshop 2
Begin by composing a retrospective outline of your partner's paper, using the outline we composed of the Huckleberry Finn paper as a model. Once you have completed the outline, examine it for coherence, repetition, orderly logic and transitions, and whether it fulfills the demands of the prompt. Suggest any changes that you believe would improve the paper's sense of organization.
After you're finished, answer the following questions at the bottom of the draft:
1. Briefly describe the current draft's organizing principle. Could the information be organized in another way? Suggest a different organizing principle that would change the draft radically while still making sense, and revise the thesis statement to reflect this new organizing principle.
2. The prompt asks you to make the argument that the information summarized is relevant or interesting to your blog's audience. What kinds of appeals--ethos, pathos, or logos--does the author use to convince his or her audience of this? Are these appeals effective? Suggest a way that the author might employ a different kind of appeal.
3. Describe the draft's introduction, concentrating on the first sentence. How does the author attempt to "hook" the reader? Does s/he begin by telling the reader something she doesn't know? If not, scan the body of the draft and/or the original article for an interesting fact that the author could place at the beginning of the essay.
After you're finished, answer the following questions at the bottom of the draft:
1. Briefly describe the current draft's organizing principle. Could the information be organized in another way? Suggest a different organizing principle that would change the draft radically while still making sense, and revise the thesis statement to reflect this new organizing principle.
2. The prompt asks you to make the argument that the information summarized is relevant or interesting to your blog's audience. What kinds of appeals--ethos, pathos, or logos--does the author use to convince his or her audience of this? Are these appeals effective? Suggest a way that the author might employ a different kind of appeal.
3. Describe the draft's introduction, concentrating on the first sentence. How does the author attempt to "hook" the reader? Does s/he begin by telling the reader something she doesn't know? If not, scan the body of the draft and/or the original article for an interesting fact that the author could place at the beginning of the essay.
Activity: Identifying Appeals
Read the following article from slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2267094/pagenum/all/#p2
This article contains appeals of all three types: ethos, pathos, and logos. Work in your groups to identity at least one of each type of appeal in the article. Which of these appeals is most persuasive to you? Why do you think that is the case? In which order does the author present these appeals? Why do you think he chose that order?
http://www.slate.com/id/2267094/pagenum/all/#p2
This article contains appeals of all three types: ethos, pathos, and logos. Work in your groups to identity at least one of each type of appeal in the article. Which of these appeals is most persuasive to you? Why do you think that is the case? In which order does the author present these appeals? Why do you think he chose that order?
Posting to Your Blog
Work together with your group members to post your Feeder 1.1 assignment to your blog. If you need help posting pictures, links, or any other hypertext ask me or one of your group members for their help.
Once everyone has posted their assignment, check the blog to make sure that the formatting (font style, size, spacing, image placement, etc.) is consistent from post to post. If there are discrepancies in formatting, discuss them with your groupmates. From now on all of the posts on your group's blog should follow the same clean, consistent, and readable visual style.
Once everyone has posted their assignment, check the blog to make sure that the formatting (font style, size, spacing, image placement, etc.) is consistent from post to post. If there are discrepancies in formatting, discuss them with your groupmates. From now on all of the posts on your group's blog should follow the same clean, consistent, and readable visual style.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Activity: Determining Your Blog's Citation Style
Using the blogs we just examined as well as the formal APA, MLA, and Chicago styles (refer to the relevant sections on the Library's Citation Tutorial (http://www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/citations/) for details), work with your group members to draft a rationale for how and why you will cite your sources on your blog. Compose a short, 2-3 paragraph essay that explains:
1. Why your group thinks that citing sources is important.
2. How citations will be implemented on your blog. This should take the form of a rough style guide like this one for MLA format: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/06/. You need only explain the format for the types of references you anticipate using most on your blog.
3. A short rationale for how and why you chose the citation style you agreed upon.
Post this essay to your blog by class time on Thursday, September 16.
1. Why your group thinks that citing sources is important.
2. How citations will be implemented on your blog. This should take the form of a rough style guide like this one for MLA format: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/06/. You need only explain the format for the types of references you anticipate using most on your blog.
3. A short rationale for how and why you chose the citation style you agreed upon.
Post this essay to your blog by class time on Thursday, September 16.
Feeder 1.2 Workshop 1
1. Look up the article on which the draft is based. Based on our discussion from Thursday, is this a scholarly article in the natural sciences? Explain your answer.
2. On Thursday we also talked about how thesis statements aimed at different audiences must address the "so what?" question differently. How does the original article answer the "so what?" question? (In other words, why does the research matter to scientists?) How does the draft answer the "so what?" question? (In other words, why does the research matter to your blog's audience?) If you have trouble with these questions you may want to consult the original article and/or discuss your thoughts with the draft's author.
3. Does the essay seem organized to you? Does the author present the information in a manner that is clear, logical, and easy to read? Do you feel more knowledgable after reading the draft, or do you feel slightly confused? Explain your answer in as much detail as possible and suggest at least one change the author could make to improve the readability of his or her essay.
2. On Thursday we also talked about how thesis statements aimed at different audiences must address the "so what?" question differently. How does the original article answer the "so what?" question? (In other words, why does the research matter to scientists?) How does the draft answer the "so what?" question? (In other words, why does the research matter to your blog's audience?) If you have trouble with these questions you may want to consult the original article and/or discuss your thoughts with the draft's author.
3. Does the essay seem organized to you? Does the author present the information in a manner that is clear, logical, and easy to read? Do you feel more knowledgable after reading the draft, or do you feel slightly confused? Explain your answer in as much detail as possible and suggest at least one change the author could make to improve the readability of his or her essay.
Citation Conventions
Go to the library's tutorial on citations and complete the section "Why We Cite:"
http://www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/citations/introduction/index.html
Good citations accomplish the following goals:
• They allow you to show how your argument is built upon the ideas of others.
• They allow you to indicate which ideas are taken from others, and from whom those ideas were taken; in other words, to give credit where it's due.
• They allow the interested reader to follow your argument and confirm its logic by investigating the ideas on which the argument is built, or to further explore those ideas on their own.
The problem is that there are no established standards for how to cite references in blog posts, though there are generally accepted guidelines. Return to the science blogs we looked at a few weeks ago and note how each of these cites the material they reference in their posts:
http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/
http://science.blogdig.net/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog
After you've looked at each blog, discuss your answers to the following questions with your group:
1. Many of the posts that appear on these blogs, like your Feeder 1.2 assignment, are summaries of single articles that appeared in another journal. How do the authors of these blogs cite the articles on which their posts are based? Is there a standard format? If so, what is it?
2. How do the authors credit other material they reference (i.e. images, background reading, etc.)? Do these follow a standard format? What is it?
3. According to the standards outlined in the UNC Library's tutorial, are the citation conventions employed by each of those blogs ethical? Why or why not?
4. How do you think you should cite sources on your blog? Which aspects of the above blogs do you want to emulate? What mistakes do you want to avoid?
http://www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/citations/introduction/index.html
Good citations accomplish the following goals:
• They allow you to show how your argument is built upon the ideas of others.
• They allow you to indicate which ideas are taken from others, and from whom those ideas were taken; in other words, to give credit where it's due.
• They allow the interested reader to follow your argument and confirm its logic by investigating the ideas on which the argument is built, or to further explore those ideas on their own.
The problem is that there are no established standards for how to cite references in blog posts, though there are generally accepted guidelines. Return to the science blogs we looked at a few weeks ago and note how each of these cites the material they reference in their posts:
http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/
http://science.blogdig.net/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog
After you've looked at each blog, discuss your answers to the following questions with your group:
1. Many of the posts that appear on these blogs, like your Feeder 1.2 assignment, are summaries of single articles that appeared in another journal. How do the authors of these blogs cite the articles on which their posts are based? Is there a standard format? If so, what is it?
2. How do the authors credit other material they reference (i.e. images, background reading, etc.)? Do these follow a standard format? What is it?
3. According to the standards outlined in the UNC Library's tutorial, are the citation conventions employed by each of those blogs ethical? Why or why not?
4. How do you think you should cite sources on your blog? Which aspects of the above blogs do you want to emulate? What mistakes do you want to avoid?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Feeder 1.1 Workshop 2
Before you exchange drafts, at the bottom of your document write a quick summary of the revisions to your draft since Tuesday. Explain, in a few sentences, the goals of your revisions and whether you think you achieved them. Then exchange papers and answer the following questions about your partner's draft:
1. We just finished talking about several different types of effective and ineffective introductions. What type of introduction does the current draft have? Is it one of the effective or ineffective introductions? Explain how you determined which category the introduction fits into.
2. How does the author answer the "so what?" question? In other words, why does the author's argument matter to his or her readers? At what point in the draft does the author establish this answer to the "so what?" question? Could it come earlier? Explain your answer.
3. Examine the summary of the author's revisions posted at the bottom of the draft. Do you think the author was successful in achieving his or her goals with these revisions? Do you think s/he could go further? Explain your answer with as much detail as possible.
4. We've noted several times that the thesis statement should serve as a roadmap for the rest of the essay. Does the current thesis statement provide a vivid roadmap? Does the body of the essay follow this roadmap closely without deviating or digressing? Explain your answer in detail.
5. Rewrite the first paragraph of the draft, using one of the other types of effective introductions we talked about in class. Note: you may have to consult the author's sources in order to find an anecdote, dilemma, etc. relating to the essay's topic.
Once your groupmate has answered these questions about your paper, read his or her feedback and answer the following question at the bottom of the document: do you think your introduction is effective? Is the introduction your partner wrote more or less effective than your original introduction? Why?
1. We just finished talking about several different types of effective and ineffective introductions. What type of introduction does the current draft have? Is it one of the effective or ineffective introductions? Explain how you determined which category the introduction fits into.
2. How does the author answer the "so what?" question? In other words, why does the author's argument matter to his or her readers? At what point in the draft does the author establish this answer to the "so what?" question? Could it come earlier? Explain your answer.
3. Examine the summary of the author's revisions posted at the bottom of the draft. Do you think the author was successful in achieving his or her goals with these revisions? Do you think s/he could go further? Explain your answer with as much detail as possible.
4. We've noted several times that the thesis statement should serve as a roadmap for the rest of the essay. Does the current thesis statement provide a vivid roadmap? Does the body of the essay follow this roadmap closely without deviating or digressing? Explain your answer in detail.
5. Rewrite the first paragraph of the draft, using one of the other types of effective introductions we talked about in class. Note: you may have to consult the author's sources in order to find an anecdote, dilemma, etc. relating to the essay's topic.
Once your groupmate has answered these questions about your paper, read his or her feedback and answer the following question at the bottom of the document: do you think your introduction is effective? Is the introduction your partner wrote more or less effective than your original introduction? Why?
Activity: Identifying Scholarly Sources
Read the Feeder 1.2 assignment. Log in to Academic Search Premier (the first item on the list here) and try to find an article you might want to write your Feeder 1.2 assignment about. Once everyone in your group has found an article, exchange with one another. Determine whether your groupmate's article is a scholarly, professional, or popular source. Discuss your answer with the person who found the article.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Feeder 1.1 Workshop 1
Identify your partner's thesis statement. Copy and paste it into the bottom of the Google Doc and then answer the following questions about the thesis statement. Please be as clear and as detailed as possible:
• Does the thesis statement answer the question posed by the assignment?
• Has the author taken a position others might challenge or oppose?
• Is the statement specific enough?
• Does the statement pass the “so what?” test? Are you telling your audience something they don’t already know?
• Does the thesis pass the “how and why” test?
Once your partner finishes reviewing your thesis statement, work together to revise both of your thesis statements. Once you have finished revising both of your thesis statements, answer the following question about your own draft. Type your answer at the bottom of the document.
We have noted several times that the thesis statement provides a roadmap for the rest of your essay. Thus, revising your thesis statement often entails revising the rest of your essay as well. Think about the model Feeder 1.1 essay we looked at; how would the body of that author's essay change in light of the revisions we made to his thesis statement? As you revised your own thesis statement, did your roadmap change? If so, explain in 3 or 4 sentences how you will need to revise your essay in order to make it consistent with your new thesis statement.
• Does the thesis statement answer the question posed by the assignment?
• Has the author taken a position others might challenge or oppose?
• Is the statement specific enough?
• Does the statement pass the “so what?” test? Are you telling your audience something they don’t already know?
• Does the thesis pass the “how and why” test?
Once your partner finishes reviewing your thesis statement, work together to revise both of your thesis statements. Once you have finished revising both of your thesis statements, answer the following question about your own draft. Type your answer at the bottom of the document.
We have noted several times that the thesis statement provides a roadmap for the rest of your essay. Thus, revising your thesis statement often entails revising the rest of your essay as well. Think about the model Feeder 1.1 essay we looked at; how would the body of that author's essay change in light of the revisions we made to his thesis statement? As you revised your own thesis statement, did your roadmap change? If so, explain in 3 or 4 sentences how you will need to revise your essay in order to make it consistent with your new thesis statement.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Model Workshop: Feeder 1.1
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1P_8taEIo-SLtF9Nqdw1AzC4hT-0oPzOJgmsj30ihRXM&hl=en
1. Summarize, as briefly as possible, how the two articles summarized in the draft fit together. How are they in conversation? Is this connection clear in the draft, or could it be clearer?
2. Does s/he summarize the other authors' arguments adequately? Does the draft highlight each article's central claim? After reading the draft, were you surprised by anything in the two articles? Why?
3. Does the draft seem to approve of one of the articles, or does it take one of the articles more seriously than the other? Is this preference justified? Does the author make this justification clear in the draft?
4. How has the author attempted to grab the reader's attention? Do you think this strategy is effective? Think back to your reaction when you read the first few sentences of the draft… did you groan or were you pulled in? Explain your answer in as much detail as possible.
Intro Post Workshop
Read all of your group members' drafts. Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Do all of the posts follow the same format? Are they of comparable lengths? Do they employ a similar authorial voice?
2. Are all of the posts consistent with the blog identity you talked about on Tuesday? Why or why not?
3. Did you notice any grammatical, spelling, or formatting errors in your or any of your groupmates' drafts?
Spend a few minutes thinking about your answers to these questions, then quick fix up any problems you noticed with your draft. If yours is fine, perhaps you can help one of your groupmates fix theirs?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Brainstorming: Intro Post Assignment
In your groups, start the conversation about what you want your blogs to look like. Please brainstorm on paper… it helps get ideas out without judging them. Here are some places you might start:
Who are you as authors? What do you and your group-mates have in common that might give the blog a coherent identity?
Who do you want to write to? What is this population like? What background information do they have? What assumptions or biases will they have?
How will you establish your credibility? Why should your audience trust you as authors? How will you convey this to your audience?
Activity: Locating a Dialogue
Using the internet, try to find another author who expresses a different view about the merits or demerits of the census. You might start with these resources:
Academic Search Premier (Scroll down and click the link for "Academic Search Premier")
Once you find an article or blog post, identify the author's main claim and what reasons s/he presents to support that claim.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Course Calendar
Week 1
Tuesday 8/24: Introduction; Arguments; Diagnostic Essay
Thursday 8/26: Group assignments; visual and textual conventions of blogs; thesis statements
Week 2
Tuesday 8/31: Locating an intellectual conversation; searching for non-scholarly sources; brainstorming: intro post assignment; homework: draft of your personal introduction for your introductory post assignment
Thursday 9/2: Introduction to Google Docs; Introduction to workshopping: Workshop: Introductory posts; Setting up your blogs; homework: draft of Feeder 1.1 due Tuesday
Week 3
Tuesday 9/7: Reading / writing thesis statements; draft workshop: Feeder 1.1; setting up your blogs; homework: revised Feeder 1.1 due Thursday; Introductory Post Assignment should be posted on your blog by 9/14
Thursday 9/9: Distinguishing between scholarly, professional, and popular sources; citation conventions; introductions; draft workshop: Feeder 1.1; homework: Feeder 1.2 draft due Tuesday; Introductory Post Assignment should be posted to your blog by class time on Tuesday
Week 4
Tuesday 9/14: Citation conventions; Draft workshop: Feeder 1.2; homework: bring your Feeder 1.1 to class on Thursday ready to post to your blog
Due date: Your group's Introductory Post Assignment should be posted on your blog by class time today
Thursday 9/16: Posting to your blog; Argument; Draft workshop: Feeder 1.2; homework: select the article you will write against for your Unit 1 Project
Due date: Your Feeder 1.1 assignment should be posted to your blog by the end of the day today
Week 5
Tuesday 9/21: Activity: Reading Sources Critically; Activity: Brainstorming / Preliminary Research; homework: Bring in 3 argumentative sources related to your topic with retrospective outlines of each
Thursday 9/23: Adapting to your audience's needs; composing a working thesis statement; paragraphing; homework: Draft of Unit 1 Project due Tuesday; Post your Feeder 1.2 assignment to your blog by class time on Tuesday
Week 6
Tuesday 9/28: Revision strategies; Unit 1 Project Workshop; Due date: Your Feeder 1.2 assignment should be posted to your blog by class time today
Thursday 9/30: Sentence variety; critiquing model texts; homework: updated draft of Unit 1 Project due Tuesday
Week 7
Tuesday 10/5: Lesson: Style; Unit 1 Project draft workshop (2 parts); homework:
By Thursday your draft should be at the point where you're ready to deal with the real nitty-gritty of sentence-level concerns; not only should the conceptual and organizational aspects of your paper be in order but you should also feel fairly confident about the tone of your writing and how it functions on a sentence level.
Thursday 10/7: Editing: the Paramedic Method; Unit 1 Project editing Workshop; homework: Your Unit 1 Project should be posted to your blog by class time on October 14
Week 8
Tuesday 10/12: University Day; no class
Thursday 10/14: Introduction to Unit 2; due date: your Unit 1 Project should be posted to your blog by class time today
Week 9
Thursday 10/21: Fall Break; no classWeek 10
Tuesday 10/26: Lesson: Writing a Research Report Part I; draft workshop: Feeder 2.2 data sheets; Homework: Draft of Feeder 2.2 script due Thursday
Thursday 10/28: Lesson: podcasting; Draft workshop: Feeder 2.2; in-class work on podcasts; Homework: conduct your self-study next week; draft of Feeder 2.2 podcast due 11/2
Week 11
NOTE: You should be conducting your Unit 2 self-study during this week; you should have collected all data for your experiment by Monday, November 8
Tuesday 11/2: In-class work on podcasts; Due date: Feeder 2.1 should be posted to your blog by class time today
Thursday 11/4: Optional meeting for in-class work on podcasts;
Week 12
Tuesday 11/9: Lesson: Writing a Scientific Research Report Part II; Draft workshop: Feeder 2.2; In-class revision of podcasts; Homework: Unit 2 Project script due Thursday; Feeder 2.2 podcast should be ready to go online by class time on 11/11
Thursday 11/11: Draft workshop: Unit 2 Project; In-class revision of podcasts; Homework: Draft of your Unit 2 Project podcast due Tuesday
Week 13
Tuesday 11/16: Draft workshop: Unit 2 Project; Homework: Feeder 3.1 draft due on Thursday
Thursday 11/18: Introduction to VoiceThread; Lesson: Arguments and Evidence in the Humanities; Draft workshop: Feeder 3.1; Homework: script for your Feeder 3.2 due Tuesday
Week 14
Tuesday 11/23: Draft workshop: Feeder 3.2; In-class work time for VoiceThread projects; Homework: Script of your Unit 3 Project due 11/30; Due date; Your Unit 2 Project should be posted to your blog by class time
Thursday 11/25: Thanksgiving; no class
Week 15
Tuesday 11/30: Draft workshop: Unit 3 Project; Due date: Your Feeder 3.1 assignment should be posted to your blog by class time
Thursday 12/2: Tutorial: posting VoiceThreads to your blog; Draft workshop: Unit 3 Project; Due date: Your Feeder 3.2 assignment should be finished and ready to post to your blog by class time
Week 16
Tuesday 12/7: Due Date: Unit 3 project should be posted by class time; all work for class should be submitted by today; no late work will be accepted after this date
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Do these blogs suck?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog
1. Write down at least five adjectives that describe your first impressions after the link loaded.
2. Who writes this blog? Do you trust their information? Why or why not? How does the author attempt to create this sense of trust, or, conversely, how does s/he lose it?
3. Who reads this blog? How do you know? How does the blog send signals to the audience to let them know that this is something they'll want to read regularly?
4. What is the balance of multimedia content (pictures, videos, etc.) and text on the blog's main page? How does it compare to the other blogs you scanned? What does this blog's particular balance say to its potential audience?
5. Write down at least five adjectives that describe the author's "voice." What does s/he sound like? What kind of person is s/he? What are his or her interests? Would you hang out with them? Why or why not?
6. Would you consider returning to this blog regularly? Why or why not?
Chalk Talk
This activity is completely silent; there should be no talking whatsoever. You may write whatever you like, and you may comment on others' writing by drawing connecting lines, changing, or otherwise annotating what they've written. There may be long silences, and there may be times when everyone is writing at once; just go with the flow. There is no right or wrong way to do this (other than talking, of course!).
First of all, I want you to develop a plan for how you will introduce the members of your group to the rest of the class. You can do anything you like, but no member of the group can introduce him or herself. You must work out your plan completely silently.
Once you've developed a plan for your introductions, answer the following question:
What are the elements of a strong student group? What does a group need in order to function well? What pitfalls must a successful group avoid?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Diagnostic Writing Assignment
Write about one page, addressed to me, detailing your personal history as a writer and your writing goals for this semester. I will use this document to form you into groups. Here are some suggestions of things you might write about and questions you might answer:
• What role does writing play in your life? Do you write daily? Just for school?
• Do you consider yourself a strong writer? What are your personal strengths and weaknesses?
• How do you think writing is important to your long-term academic and professional goals?
• What writing courses have you taken? What did they teach you? What do you wish they had taught you?
Before you begin writing, please stop for at least 90 seconds to think about your answers to these questions.
Discussion Questions for Katrina Article
Work together in groups of 4 or 5 to answer the following questions about this article:
- What is the article's main claim?
- What are the author's most important reasons presented in support of that claim? Identify at least 3.
- Does the author offer any qualifications of her claim?
- Can you identify any unstated assumptions that a reader might disagree with?
- is the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
Assign one person to jot down your group's answers on a sheet of paper. Write everyone's name at the top of the paper.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Introductory Post
For your first writing assignment this semester, your group will collaborate on an introductory post for your blog. Your post should accomplish 3 main goals:
1. Introduce each group member (including a photo of each person).
2. Establish the subject of your blog, i.e. give your readers a sense of what you will be writing about this semester.
3. Establish the tone and rhetorical style of your blog.
We will spend the first few days of class discussing a number of different blogs and what does and does not work about each. You will also engage in discussions amongst your group members, during which you will negotiate a coherent and appropriate rhetorical approach for your blog based on a target audience that you work together to identify. You should take into account each group member's interests as well as their strengths as writers, since you will be expected to adhere to this plan throughout the semester.
A successful post will (in order of importance):
1. Establish a rhetorical tone that is appropriate to the blog's subject matter and target audience. Not only will the post address this topic explicitly (i.e. a section of the post that will explain the authors' rhetorical approach), but also implicitly through the tone and style of the post itself.
2. Identify a subject for the blog that will serve to link all of the semester's posts. An outstanding post will also give a sense of the authors' unique approach to this theme.
3. Introduce each of the blog's authors in a manner that emphasizes their credibility as authors as well as the common ground they share with their audience.
4. Be free of errors in spelling and grammar.
5. Be formatted in an appealing and consistent manner.
Length: at least 5-6 paragraphs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)