It's often difficult for students to get their heads around how powerful even the basic insights of rhetoric can be. Learning to think of the various facets of the rhetorical triangle--the author/audience/message--and how it can be used in a real world situation often helps.
I'd like you to spend some time thinking of the rhetoric of dating, and participate in a discussion of the subject via comments to this post. Comments are an odd rhetorical genre, and they lend them selves to short entries in which the various authors offer specific insight into the topic of a post or to the thoughts offered by others. The purpose for everyone in the comments is to gain or provide useful information and insights into the subject of the original post.
Let me help you get started.
If we think about rhetoric at all we're used to thinking about the rhetorical situation as static and too often from the author's viewpoint. Many of the most valuable insights of rhetoric, however, come from seeing how the roles of author/audience shift, how each achieves their rhetorical purposes, and how different kinds (genres) of texts are constructed in a dynamic, real world situation.
If you've never thought about the rhetoric of dating, it's a fun topic. To get started, ask your self the basic questions surrounding dating and rhetoric:
What are the purposes each party hopes to achieve?
What kinds of texts do the different parties construct to achieve their purpose?
How do the three appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos work in these texts?
How do the two authors learn about their audience?
What are the needs of the two parties as audience?
What interpretative rubrics do the parties use to get a handle on the other party as author/person?
Think for a moment of the various genres (kinds of repeating interactions which hold common expectations) which govern dating.
There's the first date. There's the first kiss. There's the car. There's dress. There's deciding on topics of conversations at various points in dating relationship. There's the second date and the third. There's the breakup. There's introducing the date to one's friends or to the ex. There's the problem of intimacy. The list goes on.
Think of how you develop ethos with your date. Think of how you use logos and pathos to make yourself appealing. Think of the various opportunities to loose ethos. Think of how you develop identification with your audience. Think of all of these as they apply to the genres of dating.
I think this is enough to get you started. As always...
Friday, December 7, 2007
"The Big Picture, the Rhetoric of Dating, and some logistics.
This afternoon, my wife and I are leaving for Baltimore to pick up a sail boat we bought. Since I don't know if we'll be able to get a room with internet access, I wanted to warn you I may be out of touch for much of the coming weekend.
I've been impressed by how the class has come together over the past week. I've had a chance to comment on almost everyone's work, and the central concepts underlaying the class are now in place. For the remainder of the class, you'll be working on revisions of your portfolio, and an initial draft of the portfolio cover letter is due this Sunday. As you write it, take a few hours to read through the various posts on the blog and to think about what I've said in these posts, in my comments on your papers, and in emails to you. Also, think of the work you've done and, in particular, the advice you've given and received through collaborating with your classmates. As you try to make connections between all of this discussion and work, reflect on how each applies to the outcomes and your inventory of yourself as a writer.
As we move into next week, I want you each to email me with questions you have about what the outcomes mean. I'm hoping to bring the various aspects of the class together over the next week and to provide you with a "big" picture of how you can use the knowledge from the class in your careers and lives. As part of this process, I'll be introducing a post on the the class blog on the rhetoric of dating, and I'd like the class to use the comment feature of the blog to discuss dating a rhetorical situation. Why dating? It's one thing to figure out the fairly straightforward rhetoric of the teacher/student rhetorical/writing situation, but rhetoric gets fun only when you begin working out some ways to make it do useful work for you. If you're married, think of how dating fits and fitted into your current relationship and provide advice for those in the class who aren't in a committed relationship. Finally, as you discuss the rhetoric of dating, spend some time thinking of how the rhetorical situation of dating is similar to those you find in other aspects of your life.
Steve
I've been impressed by how the class has come together over the past week. I've had a chance to comment on almost everyone's work, and the central concepts underlaying the class are now in place. For the remainder of the class, you'll be working on revisions of your portfolio, and an initial draft of the portfolio cover letter is due this Sunday. As you write it, take a few hours to read through the various posts on the blog and to think about what I've said in these posts, in my comments on your papers, and in emails to you. Also, think of the work you've done and, in particular, the advice you've given and received through collaborating with your classmates. As you try to make connections between all of this discussion and work, reflect on how each applies to the outcomes and your inventory of yourself as a writer.
As we move into next week, I want you each to email me with questions you have about what the outcomes mean. I'm hoping to bring the various aspects of the class together over the next week and to provide you with a "big" picture of how you can use the knowledge from the class in your careers and lives. As part of this process, I'll be introducing a post on the the class blog on the rhetoric of dating, and I'd like the class to use the comment feature of the blog to discuss dating a rhetorical situation. Why dating? It's one thing to figure out the fairly straightforward rhetoric of the teacher/student rhetorical/writing situation, but rhetoric gets fun only when you begin working out some ways to make it do useful work for you. If you're married, think of how dating fits and fitted into your current relationship and provide advice for those in the class who aren't in a committed relationship. Finally, as you discuss the rhetoric of dating, spend some time thinking of how the rhetorical situation of dating is similar to those you find in other aspects of your life.
Steve
Craft and Process: How to Enjoy Writing
I return to the idea of process so many times in 101, because shifting one's focus from product to process is at the heart of enjoying writing. Over the years, I've gotten used to students saying, "I hate writing," or "I hate English." Given the kind of instruction many have received and the scanty rewards students too often receive for very good, hard work, it's an attitude which is easy to understand. The attitude is only reinforced by the you're-either-good-at-math-and-science-OR-English rhetoric which exists in our society.
The truth is both math and English are the same craft. Once you've moved through the basics and laid a good foundation, both become ways of describing the world and making sense of it. The problem is, it's usually late in high school or in college where math or writing and communication get to be fun, and by this point, most are just ready to be done with both. For me, math didn't make much sense until I hit physics and learned that math can be used to describe and figure out the world. English didn't make much sense until I began to move beyond thinking that the only kind of writing which mattered was the rhetorical situation in which teacher=audience and purpose=grade.
It helped that I grew up among potters and other craftsmen. The model of work I learned wasn't that of getting the right grades to make it up to the next test. I learned early on that one gains a sense of purpose through one's work--one's craft, and the real challenge and satisfaction in the world is in getting better, not in being the best.
A response I wrote this morning to a near perfect student paper explains better what I mean by this connection between paying attention to process, craft, and enjoying one's work. Think of yourself as a craftperson writer, and writing and English become much more fun. Find my response below:
The truth is both math and English are the same craft. Once you've moved through the basics and laid a good foundation, both become ways of describing the world and making sense of it. The problem is, it's usually late in high school or in college where math or writing and communication get to be fun, and by this point, most are just ready to be done with both. For me, math didn't make much sense until I hit physics and learned that math can be used to describe and figure out the world. English didn't make much sense until I began to move beyond thinking that the only kind of writing which mattered was the rhetorical situation in which teacher=audience and purpose=grade.
It helped that I grew up among potters and other craftsmen. The model of work I learned wasn't that of getting the right grades to make it up to the next test. I learned early on that one gains a sense of purpose through one's work--one's craft, and the real challenge and satisfaction in the world is in getting better, not in being the best.
A response I wrote this morning to a near perfect student paper explains better what I mean by this connection between paying attention to process, craft, and enjoying one's work. Think of yourself as a craftperson writer, and writing and English become much more fun. Find my response below:
"We share a love of Tolkien. Over the years, as I ran out of his fiction to read, I’ve read his scholarship. If possible, he was an even better scholar of the Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Europe than he was a fiction writer. He’s among a handful of scholars, including CS Lewis and B. Russell, who I can read for fun. The kind of precision he showed in coming up with the languages for his fiction is present in all of his writing, and it's always a joy to read the writing of one who loved the craft as did Tolkien. (And, yes, I am an English geek.)"
"As you review this piece, try to figure out all the things you’ve done to make the text so successful, and I’d like to encourage you to think again about the process you used to create Rivendell. How did you learn to do the various tasks involved? What specific steps did you repeat over-and-over again? How did you organize your research? "
"The notion of Kaizen, making the processes you use more effective through continuous small improvements, as it applies to writing involves knowing how *you* create in the same detail as you know how you created Rivendell. To be an efficient writer as well as a good one, you’ve got to get to the point where you know the processes involved in writing. "
"I’d encourage you to look at the processes you used in creating your Rivendell and to find one aspect of a process to change. Let this one change be the start of a lifetime of learning and refining your knowledge of how to work more effectively. Try to identify the change you could make which would have the most impact either on the final product or on saving you work. Implement this change, and after you’ve used the new process, review again. This kind of continuous attention to the tools and processes you use in your craft pays off in having a flexible set of strategies you can use to create and which you can draw on to as you run into loggerheads as you work. With a nuanced understanding of how you work and the repertoire on which you have to draw, you can move around the problems which arise with alacrity. This ability to encounter problems and move around them with the same ease with which you normally create is the measure of a master craftsperson. Spend some time watching an old time craftsperson at work to get a handle on what I mean by an ease and alacrity with how one can work. Folks who have been at their trade for years are a joy to watch as they work. They move with the same practiced ease as an Olympic athlete, and you can find them around you every day. More importantly, you can become such a worker."
"The other main advantage to such an approach to one’s work is that one soon finds that there is always a way to make one’s process better. In fact, you begin to take a lot of pride in your knowledge of how best to work. As your work flows, you know you’re producing a good, solid, beautiful, and useful product. At this point you become a master of your craft."
"As always, write me at prof.brandon@gmail.com with questions,"
Steve
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Some further clarification...
A student wrote for clarification about two of the assignments on which you're working this week and when the last day of the course will be:
1. The last day of class will be the 19th. Next Sunday, the 16th, you'll have a draft put together of the *whole* portfolio, and you'll turn this draft in. This week you're working on a draft of the cover letter, which is due this Sunday. The last three days of class, you'll have a chance to proofread and polish your portfolio, and I'll have a chance to answer any last minute questions and provide clarification on concepts and assignments.
2. On the pre-writing exercise: you're to do the pre-writing exercise--the continuing assignment you do in your metadiscoruse blog--for the Sunday formal drafts; this includes the draft of the cover letter due this Sunday and the draft of the process paper you just completed.
3. On the peer editing assignment: I think you may be confusing proofreading with revision. In revision, you make changes to deep level content. Issues of voice, tone, paragraph development, paragraph arrangement, thesis, focus, citation, etc. all fall under revision. In proofreading, you are looking at surface level features, that is, the features of writing which have the least to do with meaning. Here, you look at issues of spelling, sentence structure, minor stylistic changes, and issues of grammar, punctuation, and usage. These changes should be the ones you're making in the peer-editing assignment. In the peer editing assignment you're doing this week, you're dealing with surface issues of the text, so you'll make changes in the sentences of the text instead of making comments at the top of the text. As you do you'll highlight the changes you make in your color. Please note the difference between this editing/proofreading exercise and the collaborative comments you've been making about each other's drafts.
The reason proofreading and revision are usually presented as two different stages of the writing process deal with how best to invest one's time. Think about it, it just isn't efficient to go through multiple revisions of a draft proofreading as you go; instead, you can learn a process to catch most surface level errors and go through the proofreading process once *after* you've stopped changing the text you'll proof.
1. The last day of class will be the 19th. Next Sunday, the 16th, you'll have a draft put together of the *whole* portfolio, and you'll turn this draft in. This week you're working on a draft of the cover letter, which is due this Sunday. The last three days of class, you'll have a chance to proofread and polish your portfolio, and I'll have a chance to answer any last minute questions and provide clarification on concepts and assignments.
2. On the pre-writing exercise: you're to do the pre-writing exercise--the continuing assignment you do in your metadiscoruse blog--for the Sunday formal drafts; this includes the draft of the cover letter due this Sunday and the draft of the process paper you just completed.
3. On the peer editing assignment: I think you may be confusing proofreading with revision. In revision, you make changes to deep level content. Issues of voice, tone, paragraph development, paragraph arrangement, thesis, focus, citation, etc. all fall under revision. In proofreading, you are looking at surface level features, that is, the features of writing which have the least to do with meaning. Here, you look at issues of spelling, sentence structure, minor stylistic changes, and issues of grammar, punctuation, and usage. These changes should be the ones you're making in the peer-editing assignment. In the peer editing assignment you're doing this week, you're dealing with surface issues of the text, so you'll make changes in the sentences of the text instead of making comments at the top of the text. As you do you'll highlight the changes you make in your color. Please note the difference between this editing/proofreading exercise and the collaborative comments you've been making about each other's drafts.
The reason proofreading and revision are usually presented as two different stages of the writing process deal with how best to invest one's time. Think about it, it just isn't efficient to go through multiple revisions of a draft proofreading as you go; instead, you can learn a process to catch most surface level errors and go through the proofreading process once *after* you've stopped changing the text you'll proof.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Knowledge of Conventions: Sources, Ethos, and Wikipedia
Ah, the Wikipedia question. Let me begin by saying, I use it, and it's a good source for starting research on fairly broad questions or for general questions which don't *have* to be right. I rarely use it alone, just as I rarely use the internet alone. Read: when an answer needs to be right, cross check it between several sources.
The problem many in the academy have with Wikipedia is they don't get the fact that Wikipedia is based on the same thing on which all research sources are based, namely, the informed opinion and judgement of the flawed human animal. It upsets some that those writing have agendas of their own. Of course, this never happens in the academy. (Please note the sacrasm.) It upsets some that those writing don't have the credentials to prove they are experts. It upsets some that what is said on Wikipedia isn't vetted by those with credentials given by the academy.
What many don't realize is that there's a marketplace for ideas just as there's a marketplace for other comodities. Academics often adopt the stance that they are above such mundane concerns as the give and take of the market place. In society, bad ideas will be identified, that is, if they are dangerous enough, if there's reward in such identification, or if there's self-worth to be gained.
The real question, however, isn't if Wikipedia is a good source or not, it's if you should use it and, if so, when. As always, the answer is, "It depends on the rhetorical situation." If you're writing for an academic audience, that is, a discouse coummity who doesn't accept Wikipedia as a valid source, then in almost all situations, you should conform to the expectations (the conventions) of your audience. Think of such a view of sources as an ethos appeal. One of these conventions of most in the academy is to reject Wikipedia as a valuable source.
In short, you use the sources your audience values. In the academy, the valued sources are those produced by, well, the academy. This means academic journal articles, the publications of academic and professional associations, and books produced by academic presses. The best of these souces have teams of editors and readers who act as a collective jury as to the value of an article or book. These folks are respected experts. The academy has developed this means of vetting the ideas which they palce into circulation over decades. Wikipedia, which might prove a better model, has only been around years.
The problem many in the academy have with Wikipedia is they don't get the fact that Wikipedia is based on the same thing on which all research sources are based, namely, the informed opinion and judgement of the flawed human animal. It upsets some that those writing have agendas of their own. Of course, this never happens in the academy. (Please note the sacrasm.) It upsets some that those writing don't have the credentials to prove they are experts. It upsets some that what is said on Wikipedia isn't vetted by those with credentials given by the academy.
What many don't realize is that there's a marketplace for ideas just as there's a marketplace for other comodities. Academics often adopt the stance that they are above such mundane concerns as the give and take of the market place. In society, bad ideas will be identified, that is, if they are dangerous enough, if there's reward in such identification, or if there's self-worth to be gained.
The real question, however, isn't if Wikipedia is a good source or not, it's if you should use it and, if so, when. As always, the answer is, "It depends on the rhetorical situation." If you're writing for an academic audience, that is, a discouse coummity who doesn't accept Wikipedia as a valid source, then in almost all situations, you should conform to the expectations (the conventions) of your audience. Think of such a view of sources as an ethos appeal. One of these conventions of most in the academy is to reject Wikipedia as a valuable source.
In short, you use the sources your audience values. In the academy, the valued sources are those produced by, well, the academy. This means academic journal articles, the publications of academic and professional associations, and books produced by academic presses. The best of these souces have teams of editors and readers who act as a collective jury as to the value of an article or book. These folks are respected experts. The academy has developed this means of vetting the ideas which they palce into circulation over decades. Wikipedia, which might prove a better model, has only been around years.
Your participation grades...
A student wrote to ask how I would be grading the 40% of the final grade which is tied to class participation in lew of the problems with my getting assess to the course in the first week and the subsequent problems we arose as a result.
With a few edits for the larger audience, here's my response:
"I rarely grade harshly in the first place."
"Considering the first week and subsequent problems in communication and getting the class going, I'm inclined to give everyone full create on class participation if they've done the formal assignments (the ones due on Sunday), helped each other via collaboration, and done the proofreading assignment this week."
"This means most everyone is at an "A" as of now. The rest of the class grade (60%) will be based on the portfolio you put together. Check the recent posts on the class blog for clarification of the portfolio assignment."
"The truth is, I feel somewhat guilty for the confusion at the beginning of class. Students not having access to the correct class shell was a mistake out of my control, but not communicating with the class as you struggled with the first assignment was a teaching tactic which may have worked well in past sixteen week sections; but, it definitely didn't help the learning environment in a five week course in which the first week was pretty much blown. I'm seasoned enough that I should have anticipated the effect of the changed rhetorical situation or, at the least, given it more thought. Instead, I went ahead and did what worked in the past.
Take the situation as a lesson, namely, you have to pay attention to every rhetorical situation, especially those with which you believe yourself so familiar you believe you can work by rote rather than conscious judgment. The other lessons? Own up to mistakes you make, and try your best to learn from them. This is the reason the last step in the rhetorical process is review. You look at what worked and what didn't, and you try to remember. By the way, it's easy to remember the screw ups, but also remember what worked well for use the next time. Just make sure you remember that every rhetorical situation is in some ways a new one.
It's a credit to the students at UAT and in the class that you were able to work under such difficult circumstances, and the class showed a degree of flexibility I've rarely seen among students anywhere else. In any event, I appreciate the class staying with me.
With a few edits for the larger audience, here's my response:
"I rarely grade harshly in the first place."
"Considering the first week and subsequent problems in communication and getting the class going, I'm inclined to give everyone full create on class participation if they've done the formal assignments (the ones due on Sunday), helped each other via collaboration, and done the proofreading assignment this week."
"This means most everyone is at an "A" as of now. The rest of the class grade (60%) will be based on the portfolio you put together. Check the recent posts on the class blog for clarification of the portfolio assignment."
"The truth is, I feel somewhat guilty for the confusion at the beginning of class. Students not having access to the correct class shell was a mistake out of my control, but not communicating with the class as you struggled with the first assignment was a teaching tactic which may have worked well in past sixteen week sections; but, it definitely didn't help the learning environment in a five week course in which the first week was pretty much blown. I'm seasoned enough that I should have anticipated the effect of the changed rhetorical situation or, at the least, given it more thought. Instead, I went ahead and did what worked in the past.
Take the situation as a lesson, namely, you have to pay attention to every rhetorical situation, especially those with which you believe yourself so familiar you believe you can work by rote rather than conscious judgment. The other lessons? Own up to mistakes you make, and try your best to learn from them. This is the reason the last step in the rhetorical process is review. You look at what worked and what didn't, and you try to remember. By the way, it's easy to remember the screw ups, but also remember what worked well for use the next time. Just make sure you remember that every rhetorical situation is in some ways a new one.
It's a credit to the students at UAT and in the class that you were able to work under such difficult circumstances, and the class showed a degree of flexibility I've rarely seen among students anywhere else. In any event, I appreciate the class staying with me.
Your personal, metadiscourse blog address.
In a comment, Robert made what I think is a brilliant suggestion, that is, getting your blog addresses all in one spot. The Q&A is getting somewhat difficult to navigate. If you would, enter your metadiscourse blog addresses in the comments to this post. I'll collect them and post them in a separate post. Remember, this is a fairly public forum, so edit out any information you don't want shared with the larger world.
Steve
Steve
Clarification on the Assignments for the Week
One of your classmates had a question about the assignments for the week. Since he was seeking clarification, I assume a number of you would like it as well. It follows:
There are three assignments going on: 1) by proofreading the papers of three or four of your classmates, you're to apply three or four of the techniques I described in the post on proofreading; 2) you'll be going back through your WPA inventory brining it up to date while looking at what you learned during the past week in the posts, discussion and in writing your process paper; 3) and, finally, you'll be drafting your cover letter for your portfolio and beginning to think about what to put in the evidence section. This last is the draft which is due Sunday.
The first assignment is designed to give you the chance to learn to practice different tactics for proofreading and to learn just how helpful others can be in the proofreading stage of writing. It's rare for a writer to be able to see the errors in their own writing without either the luck of an editorial eye, lots and lots of practice, or an outside reader. You should notice how this assignment continues the discussion of process writing and helps one get some experience with a few of the WPA outcomes. The best way to handle this assignment is to collaborate through google docs and highlight your work in a special color. This is why I asked for a key to the colors used in highlighting the changes made.
The second assignment is one you should try to do each week of the course following turning in your draft for the week on Sunday, that is, running back through your responses to the WPA outcomes and adding in new knowledge and insights you've gained through doing the writing for class, thinking about the posts I've made, and interacting with me and your classmates. In a previous post, I gave you some advice about how to structure each entry, that is, 1) you'll make a claim about your understanding of the outcome; 2) you'll clarify what you take the outcome to mean; and 3) you'll provide examples of your use of the outcome from daily life or, the best bet, from the writing you've done in for this course or elsewhere. Look at the post on opinion+support=good writing for an idea of what I have in mind.
The last assignment is the one due Sunday. It's a *draft* of the cover letter for your portfolio. Your cover letter will be divided into three parts: an introduction, the body, and a conclusion. In the introduction you'll make a claim for your grade in the course. You'll also provide a summary of your argument for this grade, and you'll introduce and transition into the body of your letter.
Since most of the outcomes I hope you'll gain from the course focus on learning desceibed in the WPA outcome, the inventory on which you'll be learning can literally be cut and pasted into your cover letter as the body of the letter. Also remember, the main insights I hope you'll gain are into how to make *yourself* a better writer and communicator over a lifetime investment in the craft. Your conclusion will consist of what you found valuable from the course, and I hope you'll take the opportunity to give me some advice on what worked for you and what didn't in how the class was taught. The focus in the conclusion should again be on what you learned, but you should focus on what you found valuable. While I want you to better understand the learning outcomes and how to apply them, the lessons from the course you value most may not come from the outcomes. In any case, it's more than likely that the value each of you place on the various outcomes will be different.
Your cover letter should be structured like a typical academic essay cum letter. Start with "Dear Steve" and end with the salutation of your choice. Double space the entire document, and it's OK to use sub-headings. Use "I" as you write, as in, "I learned...," etc.
I hope this helps. Do write with further questions.
Steve
There are three assignments going on: 1) by proofreading the papers of three or four of your classmates, you're to apply three or four of the techniques I described in the post on proofreading; 2) you'll be going back through your WPA inventory brining it up to date while looking at what you learned during the past week in the posts, discussion and in writing your process paper; 3) and, finally, you'll be drafting your cover letter for your portfolio and beginning to think about what to put in the evidence section. This last is the draft which is due Sunday.
The first assignment is designed to give you the chance to learn to practice different tactics for proofreading and to learn just how helpful others can be in the proofreading stage of writing. It's rare for a writer to be able to see the errors in their own writing without either the luck of an editorial eye, lots and lots of practice, or an outside reader. You should notice how this assignment continues the discussion of process writing and helps one get some experience with a few of the WPA outcomes. The best way to handle this assignment is to collaborate through google docs and highlight your work in a special color. This is why I asked for a key to the colors used in highlighting the changes made.
The second assignment is one you should try to do each week of the course following turning in your draft for the week on Sunday, that is, running back through your responses to the WPA outcomes and adding in new knowledge and insights you've gained through doing the writing for class, thinking about the posts I've made, and interacting with me and your classmates. In a previous post, I gave you some advice about how to structure each entry, that is, 1) you'll make a claim about your understanding of the outcome; 2) you'll clarify what you take the outcome to mean; and 3) you'll provide examples of your use of the outcome from daily life or, the best bet, from the writing you've done in for this course or elsewhere. Look at the post on opinion+support=good writing for an idea of what I have in mind.
The last assignment is the one due Sunday. It's a *draft* of the cover letter for your portfolio. Your cover letter will be divided into three parts: an introduction, the body, and a conclusion. In the introduction you'll make a claim for your grade in the course. You'll also provide a summary of your argument for this grade, and you'll introduce and transition into the body of your letter.
Since most of the outcomes I hope you'll gain from the course focus on learning desceibed in the WPA outcome, the inventory on which you'll be learning can literally be cut and pasted into your cover letter as the body of the letter. Also remember, the main insights I hope you'll gain are into how to make *yourself* a better writer and communicator over a lifetime investment in the craft. Your conclusion will consist of what you found valuable from the course, and I hope you'll take the opportunity to give me some advice on what worked for you and what didn't in how the class was taught. The focus in the conclusion should again be on what you learned, but you should focus on what you found valuable. While I want you to better understand the learning outcomes and how to apply them, the lessons from the course you value most may not come from the outcomes. In any case, it's more than likely that the value each of you place on the various outcomes will be different.
Your cover letter should be structured like a typical academic essay cum letter. Start with "Dear Steve" and end with the salutation of your choice. Double space the entire document, and it's OK to use sub-headings. Use "I" as you write, as in, "I learned...," etc.
I hope this helps. Do write with further questions.
Steve
What does plagiarism have todo with conventions?
A student wrote with a great question, that is, "What does plagiarism have to do with writing conventions?"
If you think about the definition of writing conventions I've been using with you, that is, a shared but arbitrary set of expectations governing communication within a discourse community and/or rhetorical situation, then you realize that the notion of conventions is pretty insidious.
There are conventions of behavior governing most author/audience interactions. There are conventions about the value of words and who owns them and the ideas the words encode. Words are tangible. At least, words are tangible in relation to something as intangible as an idea.
Conventions reflect and reproduce the beliefs of society. The notion of property ownership is an essential one to a working capitalist society. It might also be essential to a working democracy. In our society, we also have to value innovation and, hence, novelty; indeed, sometimes we place too much value on novelty and not enough value on experiences which aren't novel. (This last is just my opinion.) In any event, combine the social value placed on novelty and innovation with that placed on ownership and control of ideas, and you have most of the recipe you need to give an idea like plagiarism--stealing ideas, words, or the structure of texts--some pretty heavy weight.
Throw in one last factor, namely, the German university system. I won't go into the German university model. Suffice it to say, the model was adopted in Americia in the late 19th Century as a means of encouraging the production and circulation of the complex knowledge surrounding science and technology. One side effect was that most professors get rewarded by producing knowledge and by the reputation they bring to their universities. This is why teaching may take a back seat to research and writing at some universities (but not at UAT!). Combine the idea of the professional author with patents, copyright, and the way professors are rewarded in the current university, and you create the notion that one's ideas should be given proper homage, respect, and remuneration. Remember, in many respects, university education is meant to socialize the community's leaders and reproduce the institutions of society, including the university itself. Professor's value the knowledge they produce, so they expect everyone to value it equally.
As always...
If you think about the definition of writing conventions I've been using with you, that is, a shared but arbitrary set of expectations governing communication within a discourse community and/or rhetorical situation, then you realize that the notion of conventions is pretty insidious.
There are conventions of behavior governing most author/audience interactions. There are conventions about the value of words and who owns them and the ideas the words encode. Words are tangible. At least, words are tangible in relation to something as intangible as an idea.
Conventions reflect and reproduce the beliefs of society. The notion of property ownership is an essential one to a working capitalist society. It might also be essential to a working democracy. In our society, we also have to value innovation and, hence, novelty; indeed, sometimes we place too much value on novelty and not enough value on experiences which aren't novel. (This last is just my opinion.) In any event, combine the social value placed on novelty and innovation with that placed on ownership and control of ideas, and you have most of the recipe you need to give an idea like plagiarism--stealing ideas, words, or the structure of texts--some pretty heavy weight.
Throw in one last factor, namely, the German university system. I won't go into the German university model. Suffice it to say, the model was adopted in Americia in the late 19th Century as a means of encouraging the production and circulation of the complex knowledge surrounding science and technology. One side effect was that most professors get rewarded by producing knowledge and by the reputation they bring to their universities. This is why teaching may take a back seat to research and writing at some universities (but not at UAT!). Combine the idea of the professional author with patents, copyright, and the way professors are rewarded in the current university, and you create the notion that one's ideas should be given proper homage, respect, and remuneration. Remember, in many respects, university education is meant to socialize the community's leaders and reproduce the institutions of society, including the university itself. Professor's value the knowledge they produce, so they expect everyone to value it equally.
As always...
What are conventions in writing?
Conventions, the expectations you should share with your reader about communication, are arbitrary. They are sometimes formally agreed on; sometimes they're unstated. In both cases, you are usually still expected to follow the conventions. Ignorance of law isn't an excuse.
Conventions are meant to make writers' and/or readers' lives easier, not harder. Sometimes the reader's interests dominate which conventions are adopted and followed; less often, those of the writer dominate. Like any kind of semi-binding arbitrary agreement, conventions change to meet new circumstances. Discourse communities which don't change die off.
For some, conventions change too fast. Bring up grammar as a topic, and you'll hear complaints about the speed or fact of change in the conventions governing language usage. For others, change can't happen soon enough. For instance, do you know the usage rules behind how to use "whom"? If you do, you are among the minority. Chances are, "whom" is on the way out of the language and the conventions of polite, formal language usage. It's headed the way of "thou" and "thee." "Y'all" or/and "you guys," on the other hand, that is, a different second person plural from "you," are on the way in. It's up in the air which one of these words will be arbitrarily decided on as "correct."
In addition to surface level issues like grammar, usage, and the format of a particular kind of text, there are conventions which govern deep level concerns, such as, what constitutes legitimate evidence, who can say what, the genres in which a conversation will occur, the content and diction which are allowed, and how meaning is constructed.
Conventions are idiosyncratic to individual discourse communities, but remember, there are no firm borders in human behavior or socities--especially in something as basic as communication. Discourse communities interact and interpenatrate, and there are frequent disagreements about which conventions are right and which are wrong. Those in power usually decide.
In the author/audience/text rhetorical triangle, there are conventions of how interpretation takes place as well as in the form of the text. Encode a text wrongly, that is, don't follow the conventions, and you'll add to the noise in the communication circuit and reduce the chance your audience will understand you fully and your chance to fully realize your purposes in communication.
Think of writing conventions as mind fields you *have* to cross, and the analogy will pretty much hold. Be careful to follow someone else when you enter into a discourse community and are discovering where and what the conventions are. Move carefully until you know where the conventions are. Step off the known path with some trepidation. Most of the time you'll get out intact, even if you've stepped off the path, but the chance is there for some bad consequences. Armor helps. Armor in communication is knowing the language and conventions of those in power in any particular rhetorical situation. When in doubt, keep quiet. If you still have to move prior to learning what conventions are in place, follow your experience and try to armor yourself in the conventions of those in power in the larger community.
Learning the conventions expected of you in each rhetorical situation in which you seek to communicate is essential to producing successful texts, but no one can know them all. There are too many discourse communities, conventions, and each is always in flux. More importantly, conventions are always embedded in the relationship between author and audience; in fact, conventions are specific to each rhtorical situation. You can, however, learn most conventions by talking with existing members of your discourse community, by looking at model texts and using them as a touchstone, or by doing research. As always, practice and repetation helps.
I encourage you, for instance, to research the conventions surrounding the use of portfolios as a genre in the academy. This information will prove valuable in this class, in putting together your senior portfolio, and in keeping the portfolio of your work you might use to get a job in industry. In this class, the portfolio is relatively low stakes. Your senior portfolio and the one you might use in your career on the other hand...
As always, write with questions. You might, as an additional forum to the Q&A threaded discussion on the class site, emails to me and one another, responses and exchanges in your docs, also comment on and ask questions about the posts in the blog in the blog itself. I left the comments turned on to facilitate just such communication.
Conventions are meant to make writers' and/or readers' lives easier, not harder. Sometimes the reader's interests dominate which conventions are adopted and followed; less often, those of the writer dominate. Like any kind of semi-binding arbitrary agreement, conventions change to meet new circumstances. Discourse communities which don't change die off.
For some, conventions change too fast. Bring up grammar as a topic, and you'll hear complaints about the speed or fact of change in the conventions governing language usage. For others, change can't happen soon enough. For instance, do you know the usage rules behind how to use "whom"? If you do, you are among the minority. Chances are, "whom" is on the way out of the language and the conventions of polite, formal language usage. It's headed the way of "thou" and "thee." "Y'all" or/and "you guys," on the other hand, that is, a different second person plural from "you," are on the way in. It's up in the air which one of these words will be arbitrarily decided on as "correct."
In addition to surface level issues like grammar, usage, and the format of a particular kind of text, there are conventions which govern deep level concerns, such as, what constitutes legitimate evidence, who can say what, the genres in which a conversation will occur, the content and diction which are allowed, and how meaning is constructed.
Conventions are idiosyncratic to individual discourse communities, but remember, there are no firm borders in human behavior or socities--especially in something as basic as communication. Discourse communities interact and interpenatrate, and there are frequent disagreements about which conventions are right and which are wrong. Those in power usually decide.
In the author/audience/text rhetorical triangle, there are conventions of how interpretation takes place as well as in the form of the text. Encode a text wrongly, that is, don't follow the conventions, and you'll add to the noise in the communication circuit and reduce the chance your audience will understand you fully and your chance to fully realize your purposes in communication.
Think of writing conventions as mind fields you *have* to cross, and the analogy will pretty much hold. Be careful to follow someone else when you enter into a discourse community and are discovering where and what the conventions are. Move carefully until you know where the conventions are. Step off the known path with some trepidation. Most of the time you'll get out intact, even if you've stepped off the path, but the chance is there for some bad consequences. Armor helps. Armor in communication is knowing the language and conventions of those in power in any particular rhetorical situation. When in doubt, keep quiet. If you still have to move prior to learning what conventions are in place, follow your experience and try to armor yourself in the conventions of those in power in the larger community.
Learning the conventions expected of you in each rhetorical situation in which you seek to communicate is essential to producing successful texts, but no one can know them all. There are too many discourse communities, conventions, and each is always in flux. More importantly, conventions are always embedded in the relationship between author and audience; in fact, conventions are specific to each rhtorical situation. You can, however, learn most conventions by talking with existing members of your discourse community, by looking at model texts and using them as a touchstone, or by doing research. As always, practice and repetation helps.
I encourage you, for instance, to research the conventions surrounding the use of portfolios as a genre in the academy. This information will prove valuable in this class, in putting together your senior portfolio, and in keeping the portfolio of your work you might use to get a job in industry. In this class, the portfolio is relatively low stakes. Your senior portfolio and the one you might use in your career on the other hand...
As always, write with questions. You might, as an additional forum to the Q&A threaded discussion on the class site, emails to me and one another, responses and exchanges in your docs, also comment on and ask questions about the posts in the blog in the blog itself. I left the comments turned on to facilitate just such communication.
Conventions: Plagiarism, How do you teach it?
This isn't just another post saying, "You know that plagiarism stuff? Don't do it." I'd be happy if you take this lesson to heart, but if you've ever been tempted or sometimes are tempted to plagiarize, then I'd like you to read the following post. In it, you'll get to lean over my shoulder as I interact with colleagues and struggle with the problem of teaching plagiarism in a way which would make sense to students who are balancing demands for grades, future success, too many demands on their time, and a natural, human temptation to take an easy path.
Any insights you can offer me would be welcome. In reading the post, I want you to notice how much thought I've put into the issue. Why? Because part of learning to use sources is learning the limitations of such use. This is a difficult issue to get students thinking about. More, in an era of digital publishing and the beginning of one of ubiquitous access to information, I suspect our attitudes to who owns ideas will change. They did during the last major shift in how knowledge was dissimulated and consumed, that is, the era of print publication. This shift will have major impact on how society is structured, and the movement between difference structures for society is often a violent time when essential freedoms can be lost.
Let me know what you think:
I remember being stunned when visiting the library at UVA and seeing a student add to the stack of soft drinks one they'd just taken from the Coke machine. It turned out the machine was malfunctioning and intermittently giving out an extra Coke, and the students wouldn't take it, hence, the stack. After hearing about UVA's honor code, talking to a professor, and visiting with a librarian, I began to notice book bags left unattended and bikes left unlocked as folks played Frisbee. I've always wondered if it was the rather draconian honor code, students who had rarely wanted, a quiet pride in being part of such a community, learned behavior, or some complicated combination. If learned behavior, I'd sure like to be part of teaching it. The question is, "how?"
Any insights you can offer me would be welcome. In reading the post, I want you to notice how much thought I've put into the issue. Why? Because part of learning to use sources is learning the limitations of such use. This is a difficult issue to get students thinking about. More, in an era of digital publishing and the beginning of one of ubiquitous access to information, I suspect our attitudes to who owns ideas will change. They did during the last major shift in how knowledge was dissimulated and consumed, that is, the era of print publication. This shift will have major impact on how society is structured, and the movement between difference structures for society is often a violent time when essential freedoms can be lost.
Let me know what you think:
I remember being stunned when visiting the library at UVA and seeing a student add to the stack of soft drinks one they'd just taken from the Coke machine. It turned out the machine was malfunctioning and intermittently giving out an extra Coke, and the students wouldn't take it, hence, the stack. After hearing about UVA's honor code, talking to a professor, and visiting with a librarian, I began to notice book bags left unattended and bikes left unlocked as folks played Frisbee. I've always wondered if it was the rather draconian honor code, students who had rarely wanted, a quiet pride in being part of such a community, learned behavior, or some complicated combination. If learned behavior, I'd sure like to be part of teaching it. The question is, "how?"
As I've watched colleagues struggle with plagiarism, I've often wondered if I am somehow missing the signs and how I would handle the problem. I've heard a lot about electronic means of checking for plagiarism, and I've long had moral and pedagogical issues with the process. Of course, I have similar issues with police check points and the check points in government offices and at airports. It bothers me that we're at a point in the noble experiment when we value liberty so little and security so much we'll accept authority assuming guilt and checking our persons and our possessions for violations. It bothers me that I have to empty by bags or get dressed after being searched by an agent of my government. I don't want those with whom I share the social contract to value their personal security more than our shared personal freedoms. It somehow smacks of cowardice. On the other hand, in New Mexico, I found myself wondering how many lives were saved by the check points which would catch drunk drivers and if the loss of freedom was worth the price. This last is one of the questions I continue to struggle with in terms of checking everyone's work for plagarism via electronic means.
The pedagogy of setting up a relationship with students based on assumed guilt of a few concerns me. To teach well, I need to trust my students, and they need to trust me. Equally important, they need to know they can trust the fact I'll read their work with rhetorical charity. How careful students are to make sure they're doing *exactly* what I want says a lot about the kinds of relationships they've shared with some of their teachers. It bugs many students when I answer the how-long-do-you-want-this question with, "As long as it needs to be to meet the needs of your audience and achieve your purpose." They don't trust such a vague answer--an answer which requires them to think about audience and purpose beyond the professor=audience and the grade=purpose rhetorical rubric. They suspect the chance I'm offering to be what it is, a chance to make a mistake, and they've somehow gotten the notion that making mistakes in front of teachers becomes, not a chance to learn or teach, but a chance for the teacher to assert authority and penalize. The student's desire to meet the expectations of the professor, however, also indicates a belief that success is tied to satisfying authority, and it's hard to argue that, to some degree, the belief is true. My desire, however, is to produce students who expect author(ity) and their selves as authors to prove themselves by acting for the shared good. I want them to suspect those who don't or can't.
I've never used it, but I like the idea of students signing their work along with a promise they haven't, to their best knowledge, plagiarized. Such a signature is an assertion of their authority to make a claim with real consequences in the public sphere. In short, it's the act of a rhetorical agent--a citizen--in a democracy. It shows their words and those of others matter and can and should be made their own. I don't like the solution of submitting to an electronic plagiarism checker everyone's texts, but I haven't thought the issue through or researched it enough to have a stance beyond my own uneasiness.
What I do want students to understand is that words and ideas have value, especially in a capitalistic democracy. I want them to value their own words, and I want them to value and recognize the work others have put into their thought and words, just as I recognize and reward my students for their thought and words.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Language, Power, and the Language of Power
The relationship between language and power is complex. The basis of the relationship is rhetorical, that is, if you speak the language expected of you in whatever rhetorical situation you find yourself in, you'll be more likely to be listened to and, hence, have power with your audience. There are, however, specific languages of power. English is a good example, and the form spoken by middle America, what you'd consider a lack of accent, is the standard for American English. For centuries, French was the language of power, and prior to French, it was Latin. For the Brits, it's a dialect of English--the Queen's English--taught at Oxford and Cambridge. Listen to a BBC news commentator for an example.
Given your writing and the fluency you show, I'm betting most of you grew up in middle class or upper class homes whose first language was American English. You have, in all likelihood, spoken and been exposed to the language of power in contemporary America (and most of the world) all your lives. This makes it more difficult to see just how tied your language is to power. Think, however, of situations in which you've seen somebody made fun of for their dialect. Country speak is a good example. Folks with an accent associated with rural life are less likely to be taken seriously than those who developed their language or mimic that of urban areas.
Other language cues to power are how you use evidence to support your opinions. As I said in the previous post, we associate professionalism and college training with specific formats of language use. Learning to use a specific jargon is another marker of being an insider in a discourse communities. It's one of many reasons it's a good idea to listen a lot and not speak when you enter into a new discourse community. You want to mark the formats, language use, and jargon of that community. For example, each of you will develop, if you already haven't, the jargon associated with your profession. Here think of geekdom and the language specific to it. Since it's true that passion and expertise in technological fields is associated with certain ideas, concepts, and words, geek speak is quickly assuming an association with power.
In short, the language of power is the language of those in control; and, language use is one of the many markers of who's in and who's out.
Given your writing and the fluency you show, I'm betting most of you grew up in middle class or upper class homes whose first language was American English. You have, in all likelihood, spoken and been exposed to the language of power in contemporary America (and most of the world) all your lives. This makes it more difficult to see just how tied your language is to power. Think, however, of situations in which you've seen somebody made fun of for their dialect. Country speak is a good example. Folks with an accent associated with rural life are less likely to be taken seriously than those who developed their language or mimic that of urban areas.
Other language cues to power are how you use evidence to support your opinions. As I said in the previous post, we associate professionalism and college training with specific formats of language use. Learning to use a specific jargon is another marker of being an insider in a discourse communities. It's one of many reasons it's a good idea to listen a lot and not speak when you enter into a new discourse community. You want to mark the formats, language use, and jargon of that community. For example, each of you will develop, if you already haven't, the jargon associated with your profession. Here think of geekdom and the language specific to it. Since it's true that passion and expertise in technological fields is associated with certain ideas, concepts, and words, geek speak is quickly assuming an association with power.
In short, the language of power is the language of those in control; and, language use is one of the many markers of who's in and who's out.
Conventions: opinion+support=persuasive writing
The notion of conventions applies to a number of aspects of writing. Basic style and structure are one of them. In our culture, we tend to value something called a "clear style," that is, a style which uses active voice, short sentence (usually 24 words or less), action verbs, and sentences which begin with their subject and verb and continue on from there. Such sentences are called "right branching" sentences. You can read some good tips on such writing here: http://www.northernstar.info/nina/highschool/write.html. The basic structure of a claim backed up with warrants is a convention of academic writing. Learn how to apply this structure, and you're half way toward being a college trained writer. This is why I want you trying out this structure in your writing about the outcomes.
The upshot?
When you discuss the outcomes, provide examples from your own writing. For instance, a student makes the claim he does a decent job of focusing on purpose, and he then develops this claim by adding a sentence where he explains more specifically what he means. This is a good job, but a claim is always made stronger by providing specific examples. He could point to a place in his writing where he gets off topic. He could point to a place where he got off topic and caught the problem in one of the revisions of a paper. He could cite the example or include it as a quote. Use such examples, and your writing goes from just a good, specific claim to a claim backed up with evidence and additional good reasons for your reader to believe you. Provide two are three such warrants--the magic number in our culture is three, and you are in the sweet spot.
Aristotle called this connection between opinion and evidence one of the essential structures of writing which tries to persuade its audience to believe, and it still marks the major difference between those who are academically trained and those who are not. Listen to the folks around you in everyday conversation, and you'll soon hear dozens of opinions expressed. Then listen for how many of these opinions are backed up by good reasons, evidence, or warrants. If you do the same exercise in a group of professionals or, for that matter geeks---folks who are passionate and knowledgeable in specific areas--you'll hear them providing additional clarification *and* backing up their opinions. You can look at both of your own writing when describing the process of creation in your field for examples of this kind of writing. You know your topic. You are passionate about it. You back up and clarify your claims. You learn more from listening to such conversation and reading such writing. It tends, although not always, to be more interesting.
The upshot? Whenever you find yourself speaking professionally or in the academy, strive to: 1) clarify your claims and opinions; and, 2) back up your opinions. Make it a Kiazen goal to make opinion+support a habit in your speaking and writing.
Your audience may not know why your opinion is worth more than others, but they'll respond to the difference, offer you more respect, listen to you, and pay you more. Why? Because you're speaking in a way they associate with expertise and training in your field.
In any event, you need to do it in 101 and as you write responses to the bulleted items in the "WPA Outcomes Statement," because it's part of my job to teach you to think,
opinion+support=good writing.
The upshot?
When you discuss the outcomes, provide examples from your own writing. For instance, a student makes the claim he does a decent job of focusing on purpose, and he then develops this claim by adding a sentence where he explains more specifically what he means. This is a good job, but a claim is always made stronger by providing specific examples. He could point to a place in his writing where he gets off topic. He could point to a place where he got off topic and caught the problem in one of the revisions of a paper. He could cite the example or include it as a quote. Use such examples, and your writing goes from just a good, specific claim to a claim backed up with evidence and additional good reasons for your reader to believe you. Provide two are three such warrants--the magic number in our culture is three, and you are in the sweet spot.
Aristotle called this connection between opinion and evidence one of the essential structures of writing which tries to persuade its audience to believe, and it still marks the major difference between those who are academically trained and those who are not. Listen to the folks around you in everyday conversation, and you'll soon hear dozens of opinions expressed. Then listen for how many of these opinions are backed up by good reasons, evidence, or warrants. If you do the same exercise in a group of professionals or, for that matter geeks---folks who are passionate and knowledgeable in specific areas--you'll hear them providing additional clarification *and* backing up their opinions. You can look at both of your own writing when describing the process of creation in your field for examples of this kind of writing. You know your topic. You are passionate about it. You back up and clarify your claims. You learn more from listening to such conversation and reading such writing. It tends, although not always, to be more interesting.
The upshot? Whenever you find yourself speaking professionally or in the academy, strive to: 1) clarify your claims and opinions; and, 2) back up your opinions. Make it a Kiazen goal to make opinion+support a habit in your speaking and writing.
Your audience may not know why your opinion is worth more than others, but they'll respond to the difference, offer you more respect, listen to you, and pay you more. Why? Because you're speaking in a way they associate with expertise and training in your field.
In any event, you need to do it in 101 and as you write responses to the bulleted items in the "WPA Outcomes Statement," because it's part of my job to teach you to think,
opinion+support=good writing.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Research, Mind Mapping, and the Research Process
Stephen wrote a nice essay on the process he uses to do research and how he might use Kaizen to find a place to make a small change in the process and, hence, improve it.
In responding to his essay, I realized I wrote a short piece on research in general and how I organize my research process using mind maps.
Here it is:
I like the fact you've incorporated Kaizen into thinking about your research process. Research processes and tools are different for different discourse communities, but research always has the following steps in common: 1) finding tools to help you identify useful sources; 2) collecting information; 3) noting and keeping track of where your information came from; and, 4) organizing the information you find in some productive manner. Look at my post to the class blog on mind mapping for one of my favorite ways to store the information I collect, make notes on it, and organize it.
In short: I create nodes on a mind map devoted to the topic I'm researching for each source I find. I record enough information to make sure I can find the source again in a sub-node; and, I then pull out relevant information from the source into individual sub-nodes I create around the source. As I begin to make connections, learn terms which I need to remember, and figure out how ideas fit together, I either create a new mind map or I begin moving the mindmap away from one organized around sources to one organized around connections, terms, or methods. For each connection, term, or method, I will create a node, and as I wander back through sources, I begin pulling out information about the term (etc.) from each source and organizing the info as sub-nodes around that term's (etc.) node. Each time I do so, I note in a sub-sub-node the source from which the information came.
How do you know which sources are good and which aren't? Well, you do research. Go to someone in the field in which you are interested and ask. Professors are good for these kinds of recommendations as to major players in a field. Often they will have a bibliography on your topic, that is, a list of useful sources they can give you. Research librarians are also good sources for, well, good sources. As you discover the major players in a field, that is, those who are referred to again and again, then you begin to get a handle on who to trust.
Getting a handle on who to trust online is more difficult. Here, I usually start with looking for the professional organization associated with my topic. That is, I place my trust in professionals in a specific area. You'd be surprised how many such associations there are. Again, a research librarian are good for a list, or you can just google. Once I've got the organization pinned down, I look for bibliographies or look at major players in the field.
All of this leads me to a documented source. I love footnotes, end notes, and bibliographies. Why? They save me work. Once I get a documented source, I follow each source used in it until I begin building up a network in my head (or in another mind map) of who is trusted (used) and who's ideas aren't trusted.
On broad subjects, I like to begin my research with a broad source, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or even Wikipedia and let them lead me to more specific sources. Another great strategy is to learn which professional databases are used in your field. Often your school library will have bought access. Many local libraries have free access, via their web sites to commonly used databases of sources for different fields. Then the research is as easy as using keyword search. (You learn the keywords by doing the research or from tables of contents, titles of articles, etc.)
Please note: while I use research in both small and large doses, I only use the process I describe above when taking on a new field or in developing a major project.
In responding to his essay, I realized I wrote a short piece on research in general and how I organize my research process using mind maps.
Here it is:
I like the fact you've incorporated Kaizen into thinking about your research process. Research processes and tools are different for different discourse communities, but research always has the following steps in common: 1) finding tools to help you identify useful sources; 2) collecting information; 3) noting and keeping track of where your information came from; and, 4) organizing the information you find in some productive manner. Look at my post to the class blog on mind mapping for one of my favorite ways to store the information I collect, make notes on it, and organize it.
In short: I create nodes on a mind map devoted to the topic I'm researching for each source I find. I record enough information to make sure I can find the source again in a sub-node; and, I then pull out relevant information from the source into individual sub-nodes I create around the source. As I begin to make connections, learn terms which I need to remember, and figure out how ideas fit together, I either create a new mind map or I begin moving the mindmap away from one organized around sources to one organized around connections, terms, or methods. For each connection, term, or method, I will create a node, and as I wander back through sources, I begin pulling out information about the term (etc.) from each source and organizing the info as sub-nodes around that term's (etc.) node. Each time I do so, I note in a sub-sub-node the source from which the information came.
How do you know which sources are good and which aren't? Well, you do research. Go to someone in the field in which you are interested and ask. Professors are good for these kinds of recommendations as to major players in a field. Often they will have a bibliography on your topic, that is, a list of useful sources they can give you. Research librarians are also good sources for, well, good sources. As you discover the major players in a field, that is, those who are referred to again and again, then you begin to get a handle on who to trust.
Getting a handle on who to trust online is more difficult. Here, I usually start with looking for the professional organization associated with my topic. That is, I place my trust in professionals in a specific area. You'd be surprised how many such associations there are. Again, a research librarian are good for a list, or you can just google. Once I've got the organization pinned down, I look for bibliographies or look at major players in the field.
All of this leads me to a documented source. I love footnotes, end notes, and bibliographies. Why? They save me work. Once I get a documented source, I follow each source used in it until I begin building up a network in my head (or in another mind map) of who is trusted (used) and who's ideas aren't trusted.
On broad subjects, I like to begin my research with a broad source, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or even Wikipedia and let them lead me to more specific sources. Another great strategy is to learn which professional databases are used in your field. Often your school library will have bought access. Many local libraries have free access, via their web sites to commonly used databases of sources for different fields. Then the research is as easy as using keyword search. (You learn the keywords by doing the research or from tables of contents, titles of articles, etc.)
Please note: while I use research in both small and large doses, I only use the process I describe above when taking on a new field or in developing a major project.
MInd Mapping and the Pre-Writing Process
As I began writing to one student about game design and a role mind mapping might play in the process, I realized I hadn't said anything about mind mapping when I discussed pre-writing. Mind mapping is an all in one tool for pre-writing. It can take you from brainstorming ideas, through research, into organization, and even early drafting. You can then use the word processor and cut and paste from the mind map into a text document, hyper-text dcument, etc. to bring your ideas together. In any event, here's my response to the student:
There's one particular concept which helps many students move between the unorganized step of coming up with ideas to a more organized outline. I don't know if you are familiar with mind mapping. Essentially, a mind map is a set of bubbles connected with lines. When brainstorming, one starts with a topic in the center bubble and adds other bubbles as ideas occur. I used to study for tests using mindmaps drawn on blackboards at college, creating mind maps for each concept or term I needed to understand.
I also used the technique in coding. I would have the central thing the program was to do as the center bubble, and I'd begin my brainstorming for ideas by adding sections of code I knew needed to be in the program. As an algorithm would begin to emerge, I'd move the various sections around until I had them in an order which worked. The map, hence, served as a place to brainstorm, as a way to note sections of code I needed, as a place to store stray thoughts, as a place to take notes, as a means of trying out different ways to order these sections of code, and a way of organizing the program as I went. A similar process might work for the stage of game design where you are developing ideas and working toward an order.
There are a host of good mind mapping programs out there. There's a free, open source version called FreeMind. There's a payed version call Mind Manager, and there are online, collaborative versions at sites like bubbl.us and mindmeister. There are also a host of good blogs and forums which will explain how to use mind maps as a brainstorming or organization tools.
What I liked about mind mapping and the reason I recommend it to students is it's a good way to move between a good idea, brainstorming how to develop the idea, research, and organization all using a single place and using a single method. Organization is accomplished by ordering the nodes in your map clockwise: first to last, most important to least, etc. I also like that mindmap programs allow you to accumulate a lot of information in one place. If I might use a website or an article to develop an idea, then I include a link in a node under that idea. If I end up pulling out invidual quotes, then I just put them in their own node. I can also create the text connected to an idea and save it as a sub-node of the node I created for the original idea. This last allows me the fexibility to play with orgranization up until I put the formal text together using cut and paste and a word processor.
You also might want to look at Writer's Blocks. I know a number of folks in Hollywood use blocking or story-boarding in developing ideas for film. A simular method might work with game design.
There's one particular concept which helps many students move between the unorganized step of coming up with ideas to a more organized outline. I don't know if you are familiar with mind mapping. Essentially, a mind map is a set of bubbles connected with lines. When brainstorming, one starts with a topic in the center bubble and adds other bubbles as ideas occur. I used to study for tests using mindmaps drawn on blackboards at college, creating mind maps for each concept or term I needed to understand.
I also used the technique in coding. I would have the central thing the program was to do as the center bubble, and I'd begin my brainstorming for ideas by adding sections of code I knew needed to be in the program. As an algorithm would begin to emerge, I'd move the various sections around until I had them in an order which worked. The map, hence, served as a place to brainstorm, as a way to note sections of code I needed, as a place to store stray thoughts, as a place to take notes, as a means of trying out different ways to order these sections of code, and a way of organizing the program as I went. A similar process might work for the stage of game design where you are developing ideas and working toward an order.
There are a host of good mind mapping programs out there. There's a free, open source version called FreeMind. There's a payed version call Mind Manager, and there are online, collaborative versions at sites like bubbl.us and mindmeister. There are also a host of good blogs and forums which will explain how to use mind maps as a brainstorming or organization tools.
What I liked about mind mapping and the reason I recommend it to students is it's a good way to move between a good idea, brainstorming how to develop the idea, research, and organization all using a single place and using a single method. Organization is accomplished by ordering the nodes in your map clockwise: first to last, most important to least, etc. I also like that mindmap programs allow you to accumulate a lot of information in one place. If I might use a website or an article to develop an idea, then I include a link in a node under that idea. If I end up pulling out invidual quotes, then I just put them in their own node. I can also create the text connected to an idea and save it as a sub-node of the node I created for the original idea. This last allows me the fexibility to play with orgranization up until I put the formal text together using cut and paste and a word processor.
You also might want to look at Writer's Blocks. I know a number of folks in Hollywood use blocking or story-boarding in developing ideas for film. A simular method might work with game design.
Week 4: December 3-9, Knowledge of Conventions
As we enter the final two weeks of class and begin focusing on the section of the WPA outcomes labeled, "Knowledge of Conventions," I wanted to return to a notion I introduced in discussing the "Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing" section.
Let's talk some more about the notion of discourse communities. As you may remember, a discourse community is a group which shares a discourse or conversation in common. In a post on the critical thinking section, I mentioned discourse communities share topics or a focus for their conversation, and they share interpretative rubrics, that is, ways of reading and making sense of their topics. I used the academic discipline of history as an example, but any profession and discipline could have worked as well.
Part of the what discourse communities share in common are a set of expectations about the genres (or, kinds of communication) in which the conversation will take place. As part of their shared expectations about genre, they share ideas about what kinds of evidence can be used to back up claims. They share notions about the format and content of the various genres they will use to talk with one another. They share common ideas about how one another will be addressed, how power will be acknowledged, and about voice, tone, and which words are appropriate. Discourse communities usually share a common jargon as well.
Our class is a member of the UAT discourse community, the discourse community governing the American university, and the discourse community governing civil, public discourse. Remember at the beginning of class when I asked you to call me "Steve" or "Dr. Steve"? Remember how a few of you felt uncomfortable with such a familiar form of address? Think for a moment about why they felt this discomfort? One reason is that you're used to the set of conventions which govern student/professor interaction at UAT and in the American university system. Traditionally, professors insist their titles be used. Some actively work the authority given them by the system, and some gain a huge ego boost by having their status acknowledged. The upshot is that many of you know a lot about professors as an audience, and the practice I was asking you to adopt was foreign to your expectations of what is "right" or conventional in student/professor interaction.
As we begin the discussion of your knowledge of what is conventional in writing and speaking to different audiences, I want you to think about the number of discourse communities of which you are a member. What aspects of how your community interacts and communicates are unique? What aspects are shared with other communities? It's this notion of conventions we'll discuss this week.
Finally, as you begin to draft the different sections of your portfolio, I want you thinking about how you acquire information about how a genre works and how the genre works within a specific discourse community.
Let's talk some more about the notion of discourse communities. As you may remember, a discourse community is a group which shares a discourse or conversation in common. In a post on the critical thinking section, I mentioned discourse communities share topics or a focus for their conversation, and they share interpretative rubrics, that is, ways of reading and making sense of their topics. I used the academic discipline of history as an example, but any profession and discipline could have worked as well.
Part of the what discourse communities share in common are a set of expectations about the genres (or, kinds of communication) in which the conversation will take place. As part of their shared expectations about genre, they share ideas about what kinds of evidence can be used to back up claims. They share notions about the format and content of the various genres they will use to talk with one another. They share common ideas about how one another will be addressed, how power will be acknowledged, and about voice, tone, and which words are appropriate. Discourse communities usually share a common jargon as well.
Our class is a member of the UAT discourse community, the discourse community governing the American university, and the discourse community governing civil, public discourse. Remember at the beginning of class when I asked you to call me "Steve" or "Dr. Steve"? Remember how a few of you felt uncomfortable with such a familiar form of address? Think for a moment about why they felt this discomfort? One reason is that you're used to the set of conventions which govern student/professor interaction at UAT and in the American university system. Traditionally, professors insist their titles be used. Some actively work the authority given them by the system, and some gain a huge ego boost by having their status acknowledged. The upshot is that many of you know a lot about professors as an audience, and the practice I was asking you to adopt was foreign to your expectations of what is "right" or conventional in student/professor interaction.
As we begin the discussion of your knowledge of what is conventional in writing and speaking to different audiences, I want you to think about the number of discourse communities of which you are a member. What aspects of how your community interacts and communicates are unique? What aspects are shared with other communities? It's this notion of conventions we'll discuss this week.
Finally, as you begin to draft the different sections of your portfolio, I want you thinking about how you acquire information about how a genre works and how the genre works within a specific discourse community.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Time Managment for the class and career.
One student wrote with some an excellent questions and concerns about time management.
My most immediatly helpful response to this students was to let her know I don't expect you to read and comment on every paper produced by every student. Instead, just get a coterie of a few students whom you read regularly and who are willing to add you as collaborators on their papers. You'll get valuable additional experience working as an editor for their work. You'll learn some skills as a team member and collaborator, and they can return the favor by helping you with your work. The only person who should read every essay is me.
As to learning time management skills, one of my favorite blogs, Zen Habits, has the simplest system I've seen for time management. Other blogs you might want to check out and put in your RSS feed are Lifehacker, Lifehack, and Web Worker Daily. Each of these blogs has some great information on writing. Each of these blogs have threads in the archives about time management, and they tend to base their ideas on David Allen's _Getting Things Done_. GTD can get to complicated, but it's flexible enough to allow you to develop your own system using its basic principles. As I said, I think _Zen Habits_ has presented the simplest, one size fits all GTD implementation out there.
However, given all the limitations under which you work, you may not have time right now to read and think about implementing a complete time management system just to help you with school and finding the time for this class. Luckily, there's Kaizen, and I'm trying to get you looking at small, high impact changes you can make right now in the processes which impact on your writing and communication. Here are a few hints for getting more done: 1) if a task can be done in two minutes or less, do it; 2) don't worry with a long to do list; 3) list the three main tasks you need to accomplish any one day, and do them; 4) do your work in bursts of activity (I've found a timer on the computer can help here. I set mine for 15-20 minutes of directed activity.), and, 5) find time to work and defend this time.
Time management is always a headache, both for students, web workers, and--you should know---spouse, parents and significant others. I wish I could tell you it gets easier, but it's a constant struggle between priorities. A system helps, but any working process takes time to devleop. The main way I've seen successful writers pull of the combination of getting things done, having an avocation--like being a writer, and having a life is to: 1) develop a system to keep track of tasks; 2) find an couple of hours a day which are devoted to your avocation; 3) defend this time like a mother bear; 4) try to get the help of a spouse, coworker, or friend in defending this time and to act as support. Another thing which might help is to think about the physical space in which you work. Is there a place to which you can retreat to work at home? If not, have you thought about working at the library or even Starbucks? One of the biggest, high impact changes you can make in terms of time management is finding a space of time and a physical space where you don't loose valuable work time in handling distractions, shifting focus, and having to pick up the thread of work again. There's a host of work out there showing that unitasking is much more productive than multitasking. In any event, the blog, jkontherun has some great information on how to pull off the whole mobile office thing.
I hope this helps, and--as always--write with questions.
Steve
My most immediatly helpful response to this students was to let her know I don't expect you to read and comment on every paper produced by every student. Instead, just get a coterie of a few students whom you read regularly and who are willing to add you as collaborators on their papers. You'll get valuable additional experience working as an editor for their work. You'll learn some skills as a team member and collaborator, and they can return the favor by helping you with your work. The only person who should read every essay is me.
As to learning time management skills, one of my favorite blogs, Zen Habits, has the simplest system I've seen for time management. Other blogs you might want to check out and put in your RSS feed are Lifehacker, Lifehack, and Web Worker Daily. Each of these blogs has some great information on writing. Each of these blogs have threads in the archives about time management, and they tend to base their ideas on David Allen's _Getting Things Done_. GTD can get to complicated, but it's flexible enough to allow you to develop your own system using its basic principles. As I said, I think _Zen Habits_ has presented the simplest, one size fits all GTD implementation out there.
However, given all the limitations under which you work, you may not have time right now to read and think about implementing a complete time management system just to help you with school and finding the time for this class. Luckily, there's Kaizen, and I'm trying to get you looking at small, high impact changes you can make right now in the processes which impact on your writing and communication. Here are a few hints for getting more done: 1) if a task can be done in two minutes or less, do it; 2) don't worry with a long to do list; 3) list the three main tasks you need to accomplish any one day, and do them; 4) do your work in bursts of activity (I've found a timer on the computer can help here. I set mine for 15-20 minutes of directed activity.), and, 5) find time to work and defend this time.
Time management is always a headache, both for students, web workers, and--you should know---spouse, parents and significant others. I wish I could tell you it gets easier, but it's a constant struggle between priorities. A system helps, but any working process takes time to devleop. The main way I've seen successful writers pull of the combination of getting things done, having an avocation--like being a writer, and having a life is to: 1) develop a system to keep track of tasks; 2) find an couple of hours a day which are devoted to your avocation; 3) defend this time like a mother bear; 4) try to get the help of a spouse, coworker, or friend in defending this time and to act as support. Another thing which might help is to think about the physical space in which you work. Is there a place to which you can retreat to work at home? If not, have you thought about working at the library or even Starbucks? One of the biggest, high impact changes you can make in terms of time management is finding a space of time and a physical space where you don't loose valuable work time in handling distractions, shifting focus, and having to pick up the thread of work again. There's a host of work out there showing that unitasking is much more productive than multitasking. In any event, the blog, jkontherun has some great information on how to pull off the whole mobile office thing.
I hope this helps, and--as always--write with questions.
Steve
Ethos, pathos, logos and games: some additional thoughts
Travis' rhetorical analysis got me thinking about some additional aspects of ethos, logos, and pathos and how they work in games which I've never considered before. I've pasted an edited version of my comments on his paper below, and you might want to consider these ideas in revisions of your own rhetorical analysis.
As always email with questions.
"In thinking about ethos, consider not just how the authors create verisimilitude (a sense of believability), but also how the reputation of the original versions of a game as a good game experience provoke players to want to play (and pay) for the new versions."
"In thinking about pathos, continue to think about how players are made to feel and how these emotions create the desire to continue play and a willingness to pay for new emotional experiences in the same vein. Part of the reason players play first person shooter games is the sense of power they gain through the fantasy experience of the game and identification with their avatars, but there's also a chance to explore emotions associated with revenge, anger, power, and status. Narrative does much of its rhetorical and cultural work through the chance to look at the world from a very different viewpoint. Think of trickster characters like Loki or Coyote. One reason we find them so fascinating is that they indulge in actions from outside the accepted set of every day actions and, usually, manage to pull it off. Through identification with these characters, we get to explore aspects of ourselves which we can't or shouldn't in society."
"Think, for instance, how players get to explore, indeed, are encouraged to explore, violence. Aristotle called this use of pathos, "catharsis", and I'll let you read his _Poetics_ if you want to get a full handle on how this rhetorical device works in fictive experience. For right now, know you can suck players in by giving them a chance to experience a darker or lighter side of the emotional spectrum than is accepted in society at large."
"In further thinking of logos, go beyond thinking about how internal consistency is achieved. Consistency--a logic of experience and play--throughout a game (or any other text, like a paper) is an essential aspect of the logos appeal, but there are other aspects to consider. Think, for instance, about the ideas which frame the game. WoW, for instance, if framed by a capitalistic economy very familiar to its players. We know how status works and is measured in a capitalist economy. Such a logos--a framing idea--leads us to identify with the game (an ethos appeal) and have a sense of power or its loss (an appeal to pathos). Note in this last example how the three appeals, as so often happens, work together to strengthen one another."
If you have questions or want to continue the discussion of how logos, ethos, and pathos work in games, I'll open a thread in the class shell.
As always email with questions.
"In thinking about ethos, consider not just how the authors create verisimilitude (a sense of believability), but also how the reputation of the original versions of a game as a good game experience provoke players to want to play (and pay) for the new versions."
"In thinking about pathos, continue to think about how players are made to feel and how these emotions create the desire to continue play and a willingness to pay for new emotional experiences in the same vein. Part of the reason players play first person shooter games is the sense of power they gain through the fantasy experience of the game and identification with their avatars, but there's also a chance to explore emotions associated with revenge, anger, power, and status. Narrative does much of its rhetorical and cultural work through the chance to look at the world from a very different viewpoint. Think of trickster characters like Loki or Coyote. One reason we find them so fascinating is that they indulge in actions from outside the accepted set of every day actions and, usually, manage to pull it off. Through identification with these characters, we get to explore aspects of ourselves which we can't or shouldn't in society."
"Think, for instance, how players get to explore, indeed, are encouraged to explore, violence. Aristotle called this use of pathos, "catharsis", and I'll let you read his _Poetics_ if you want to get a full handle on how this rhetorical device works in fictive experience. For right now, know you can suck players in by giving them a chance to experience a darker or lighter side of the emotional spectrum than is accepted in society at large."
"In further thinking of logos, go beyond thinking about how internal consistency is achieved. Consistency--a logic of experience and play--throughout a game (or any other text, like a paper) is an essential aspect of the logos appeal, but there are other aspects to consider. Think, for instance, about the ideas which frame the game. WoW, for instance, if framed by a capitalistic economy very familiar to its players. We know how status works and is measured in a capitalist economy. Such a logos--a framing idea--leads us to identify with the game (an ethos appeal) and have a sense of power or its loss (an appeal to pathos). Note in this last example how the three appeals, as so often happens, work together to strengthen one another."
If you have questions or want to continue the discussion of how logos, ethos, and pathos work in games, I'll open a thread in the class shell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)