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.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)