Brief Introduction:
This writing Gillam has done, unlike previous articulate articles, drives the point home in a short and concise manner. It has the usual case studies, examples of remedies, and enough information to support their claim.
Article Critique:
I entirely agree with this article because anything you do in writing is going to help you in your own skills. This reminds me of something that, while not pertinent to English, is almost exactly like this. In high school, my friends and I would play video games competitively, and I mean really competitively. I would record our matches on a VHS, and I would study players and review their plays, see where they were making flaws and mistakes, and report back to them on how to improve their game strategies. They would, in turn, do the same for me. Eventually we started attending tournaments, and needless to say, we were placing pretty high.
Just like this, reading and reviewing your peers writing will help you master the art yourself. You see where the mistakes are, you know what to avoid, and you know what you can indo to spice things up. What I found most interesting though was how a student at firsts stutters when reviewing, and then has to return to add or confirm his previous review. I now know it was to be expected, since as reviewing goes along, additional knowledge is gained which can make put the writing in a new light. I know I’ve done it myself as I’ve read the articles assigned.
My source has more than its eloquently concise pattern in common with the article by Gillam. It presents the same thesis, and gives even more data to further prove the point that Gillam is trying to get across to its viewer.
Brief Conclusion
These articles couldn’t be any closer to the truth, a universal truth. As the cliché goes, practice makes perfect, and since reviewing and revising is like practice, doing so can make anyone better. Whether it’s reviewing a paper or running combo drills with friends, revising and reviewing kicks in critical skills pertinent to the field and reinforces them.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. July 2009. Center for Excellence in Teaching at Georgia Southern University 9/17/2009 http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v3n2/articles/PDFs/Article_GunerselSimpson.pdf
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Rhetorical Reading Strategies and Information nodes and association
Haas & flower’s article on rhetorical reading gives some enlightening information that although obvious, showcases an aspect in reading and writing in a scholarly form. this information is almost ingrained into normal reading styles, but takes studying in order to master.
I found myself being constantly upraised as I read into this article, because most of the techniques described were rules I learned or picked up in school. I remember building correlations of the content in my head of personal experiences to the current selection I was reading, and I still do. I even built an imaginary character talking to me as I read this, as if I had a person talking to me 1 on 1. I am surprised that this is supposedly the higher form of reading, since I have always tried to truncate such thoughts because I believed my mind was wandering. Not only this, but the section of nodes of information got to me. I could especially relate to this because I learned of it in psychology, where the human brains makes nodes for information to remember later, and this fit so perfectly into what the article was talking about. I still remember some information from early childhood because of these nodes, although most of it is just Dr. Seuss.
My outside source was chosen on the basis that it packed all the information I needed into a concise and readily understandable way. It agreed on most points stated in the article, creating associations, finding more than one meaning, on finding purposes, it was basically the article, but the dummy version. I strongly agree with both sources, using rhetorical strategies will make critical writing a synch for anyone, I know from personal experience that it has for me.
I believe this article has only affirmed what I have already been doing for my school English carrier. I can’t help but remembering my high school English teachers as I read this, it brings back everything they have taught me.
UBC Writers’ Workshop 07-May-2007 The University of British Columbia 9/12/09 http://www.writingcentre.ubc.ca/workshop/tools/rhet1.htm
I found myself being constantly upraised as I read into this article, because most of the techniques described were rules I learned or picked up in school. I remember building correlations of the content in my head of personal experiences to the current selection I was reading, and I still do. I even built an imaginary character talking to me as I read this, as if I had a person talking to me 1 on 1. I am surprised that this is supposedly the higher form of reading, since I have always tried to truncate such thoughts because I believed my mind was wandering. Not only this, but the section of nodes of information got to me. I could especially relate to this because I learned of it in psychology, where the human brains makes nodes for information to remember later, and this fit so perfectly into what the article was talking about. I still remember some information from early childhood because of these nodes, although most of it is just Dr. Seuss.
My outside source was chosen on the basis that it packed all the information I needed into a concise and readily understandable way. It agreed on most points stated in the article, creating associations, finding more than one meaning, on finding purposes, it was basically the article, but the dummy version. I strongly agree with both sources, using rhetorical strategies will make critical writing a synch for anyone, I know from personal experience that it has for me.
I believe this article has only affirmed what I have already been doing for my school English carrier. I can’t help but remembering my high school English teachers as I read this, it brings back everything they have taught me.
UBC Writers’ Workshop 07-May-2007 The University of British Columbia 9/12/09 http://www.writingcentre.ubc.ca/workshop/tools/rhet1.htm
Monday, September 7, 2009
Theory of writing and where it should be taught
Brief Introduction
Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s “Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions” brings a valid and interesting point into the light of education in a bombarding yet thorough manner, if maybe in an intricate dictation that proved difficult for the majority of the intended audience. Their research is solid, and advocates several remedies to the transgressions made to the stereotype of the First year composition course.
Article Critique:
This articles main point was an eye opener for me. It demonstrated something to me that I had seen but never actually put thought to. In my previous English courses, all I was taught were syntaxes and proper methods of writing an essay, and only recently was I taught how to inject meaning into my words. This article proposes theory of writing, which I hadn’t fathomed until I trudged through its cryptic lines, which were worth doing so because I now know the dangers of using a single form of writing for all academic areas.
One thing I find myself questioning on this article is their claim that the form of syntax shouldn’t be taught in First year Composition. If it isn’t taught there, where would it be taught? My logical answer would be to take a day from the target course and teach it there, but would a biology teacher, or a psychology teacher, teach English? My English teacher taught me how to criticize a poem, but he didn’t prepare me how to write a lab report.
Brief Conclusion
This article has opened my eyes to a new view which would have bypassed me without a thought. On forward from today I shall think to myself as I write,” am I saying anything in this text, or am I just writing to fill the page?” I wont be shy about it, I’ll exhert myself to fill the pages with content, not syntax. Not only this, but i will do my part in dispelling the myth of FYC being a course to teach structure and not theory of writing.
Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s “Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions” brings a valid and interesting point into the light of education in a bombarding yet thorough manner, if maybe in an intricate dictation that proved difficult for the majority of the intended audience. Their research is solid, and advocates several remedies to the transgressions made to the stereotype of the First year composition course.
Article Critique:
This articles main point was an eye opener for me. It demonstrated something to me that I had seen but never actually put thought to. In my previous English courses, all I was taught were syntaxes and proper methods of writing an essay, and only recently was I taught how to inject meaning into my words. This article proposes theory of writing, which I hadn’t fathomed until I trudged through its cryptic lines, which were worth doing so because I now know the dangers of using a single form of writing for all academic areas.
One thing I find myself questioning on this article is their claim that the form of syntax shouldn’t be taught in First year Composition. If it isn’t taught there, where would it be taught? My logical answer would be to take a day from the target course and teach it there, but would a biology teacher, or a psychology teacher, teach English? My English teacher taught me how to criticize a poem, but he didn’t prepare me how to write a lab report.
Brief Conclusion
This article has opened my eyes to a new view which would have bypassed me without a thought. On forward from today I shall think to myself as I write,” am I saying anything in this text, or am I just writing to fill the page?” I wont be shy about it, I’ll exhert myself to fill the pages with content, not syntax. Not only this, but i will do my part in dispelling the myth of FYC being a course to teach structure and not theory of writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)