PB3A

The topic I have chosen is “Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge” by Jan Meyer and Ray Land. The article focuses on “threshold concept”, a concept that lead to new ways of understanding in order to progress in a particular discipline. Thinking about the definition of “threshold concept” sparked some ideas for my genre transformations. The key words “order” and “progress” stuck to me which led me think of my genre for older audiences: restaurant menus. I thought of “order” as in ordering from a menu, and “progress” as in you can’t skip the entrée and go to desert. A restaurant menu has multiple different compartments from appetizers to drinks and I think there are plenty of material I can use. The article also mentions barriers that the topic of food will easily connect to. There are people who have restrictions on what they eat, whether it be because of their diet, allergies, or simply their personal preference. Threshold concept leads to new ways of thinking, and for someone who is trying a certain type of food for the first time and likes it, they may be opened up to a more diverse food palate. To be more specific, I will probably choose Japanese cuisine as I think it is too exotic for some people’s comfort zone. And sushi is also my favorite food. I will try to utilize the vast variety of food menus and add other options in the menu such as vegetarian options, spiciness, and combo meals.

For my genre for younger audiences, I could not help but think of a story of a protagonist learning something new and being able to use that newfound knowledge to conquer his problems. For example, in the videogame Pokémon, the player must teach their Pokémon moves that would help them continue on to new destinations that were restricted before. Videogames provide many of these examples about obtaining something new, a skill or an item, and then progressing in the game. However, these newly obtained items do not fit the whole “new way of understanding” concept which goes much deeper than just simply getting new things. But since the required genre is for younger audiences, I may be able to get away with it and just find a way to connect it to the article’s idea of “threshold concepts”. I want to avoid doing a simple children’s story so I might do something pertaining to videogames. I’m not too sure exactly what genre I will do but what comes to mind is an interactive storyline on Powerpoint for elementary schoolers. If I do take that route, I will provide a story of a protagonist that has multiple endings. I will set it up like a videogame where the player can win or lose depending on the choices they make. If they do lose, I will give an explanation as to why the players lost. The storyline will revolve around “threshold concepts” and will teach the players about it. Instead of the protagonist picking up items and skills, they will pick up knowledge to get them through their journey, emphasizing how new ways of thinking contribute to progress.

Thlog #8

On Monday, the videos we watched tied really well into the course’s teachings. I thought it resembled how writers have different perspectives on the same topic and use particular moves to fit their purpose. Unlike writers, I felt like the artists painted the way they did for the sake of themselves. Since they are artists, they stuck closer to self-expression instead of appropriating their work to a specific audience. Not to say that writers aren’t artists, it just seems like writers have more constraints in the art of rhetoric to clearly send their message to their targeted audience. On the other hand, the painters didn’t seem to have a targeted audience and had more freedom with showing their own style. I still thought the video was relevant to the class though since it’s a good example of how a topic can be seen in multiple angles. Rooted from that one ordinary tree, four distinct trees sprouted.

When Zack showed us examples of past WP3’s, I think what confused people the most is that their scholarly articles didn’t revolve on the topic of writing. I think the issue of how to use the content of the articles troubled some people, including me, because the topic of writing is not structured like a story such as the feud between Russia and America. Personally, a story is what I first think of when transforming a genre so I just have to break out of that mindset. Having my first topic choices taken actually helped since the pressure of picking a new one sparked new ideas that diverged from the “story” model. It is reassuring when Zack said to not think about it too much. Apparently there’s more freedom to WP3 than WP2 so I’ll go ahead and trust that. It is true that writing about writing will help us understand the topic better.

Thlog #7

            On Wednesday’s class, I thought it was pretty funny when Zack brought up “attacking the page”. This is something I’ve been doing since high school, and it’s nice to hear that it’s not just me who does this. Makes me feel a little bit saner. When I do this though, I never think of it as “attacking the page”. It’s just me releasing some stress through hitting the keyboard. So I don’t actually type “fighting words”, just random letters that my fingers encounter, for instance, “safhsdfhsdahfd”. Sometimes you just gotta let some steam out, which I had to do for my WP2. Also, it’s good exercise for my fingers.

            During the socrative.com activity, it was nice to get a glimpse of how others opened with their paper. I noticed that many of their hooks started out using the topic of their chosen sources. For my WP2, my hook talked about the actual prompt of the paper, which involves the rhetorical features of my chosen texts. I feel like I totally disregarded my topic of K-pop and didn’t incorporate it enough on my paper. Writing was not as fun because my paper hardly talked about K-pop. I also feel like my topic didn’t leave a mark on my readers which I wanted. Since the prompt of the paper was about the writers’ writing, I wasn’t too sure how much of K-pop I should include or if any. I tried to read my sources as a writer so my mind kinda left out the content of the sources. I guess it’s up to me to find a good balance for that. And it does make sense to make the hook about the topic since I’ll talk about the prompt later anyways. I need something to connect to my thesis and using the prompt as the hook would be redundant.

Thlog #6

            So what I learned this week was that I use hedged language in everyday life; I just didn’t know the name for it. What I need to do now is learn how to use it more in my writing. After the WP1, I noticed that I tend to include a lot of my own prior knowledge in my paper. Not only does the information lack evidence, it is also stated very directly. I’m basically throwing out my assumptions to my readers. Sometimes I have trouble distinguishing a personal analysis between a personal assumption. So in case I have one of those moments, I could generalize the statement or make it less direct.

            Another thing I learned this week was parallelism. Like hedged language, I have also used parallelism before but didn’t know what it was called. When I read my paper to make sure it sounds right, I check by ear. Now that I’m aware of parallelism, I can visually check for a sound sentence by looking at the words and sentence structures. Before, I would just write words and hope they would form a nice sounding sentence; but now that I know the formula to what makes a sentence sound nice in the first place, I can intently write them.

            A lot of this week’s lessons covered stuff we use in our regular lives. For example, even when I write an ordinary text, I find myself using euphemistic language. Actually I don’t see myself using since it’s just been an old habit of mine, but hearing about it in class makes me aware of it. Now when I talk to my friend or something I’d be thinking of connotations and denotations, and it makes me feel that my texts are fabricated and not as genuine. I guess it’s just weird knowing that I put effort in writing a simple casual text.

           

            

PB2B

Like how singers might slightly open their mouth more or how painters might use only the tip of their paintbrush, writers also make certain actions to give a certain effect to their writing. Although the “moves” that they make may seem trivial, they significantly change the nature of their writing. As said in “How to Read Like a Writer” by Mike Bunn, writers have a purpose and an audience. These moves are rhetorical devices writers use to serve their purpose while appropriately sending out their message to their audience.

Throughout the quarter, the class had read multiple articles displaying how writers show their moves. The book They Say, I Say by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provides an index of commonly used “move” templates in academic writing. They are arranged in categories according to the effect each of the templates produce. In our assigned readings, we can see the writers using some of the templates listed. The usage of these moves have a function; they are conscious decisions made by the writers.

When a writer wants to quote someone, they could use templates belonging to the “Introducing Quotations” category. The templates in this category simply introduces what someone says. For example, Mike Bunn’s “How to Read Like a Writer” introduces a former student’s quote with, “Allison, states…” The purpose of this is to just provide the reader with a quick background so they won’t be surprised where the quote came from. It is important to clarify who a piece of information came from, and a writer can also accomplish that with templates in the “Signaling Who Is Saying What” category. In “Backpacks to Briefcases: Steps Toward Rhetorical Analysis” by Laura Bolin Carroll, she specifies her source of information by saying, “According to the Ad Council’s website…” It is a statement that directly traces where she got her data. By doing this, a writer can also build credibility with their info if their source is as respected as the organization Ad Council.

To state the position of an author a writer is quoting, they could use “Capturing Authorial Action” templates. In Dirk’s “Navigating Genres”, he writes, “Devitt argues that…” to present an argument from another author that supports his. Instead of using a neutral word such as “states”, Dirk uses “argues” to imply that Devitt has a chosen position. Dirk also uses a template from “Explaining Quotations” saying, “In other words, Miller is saying…” Explaining a quote can give readers a better understanding of it, but Dirk’s usage of it is to provide a brief summary of the quote.

            To show another side of an argument, a writer could use a template from “Introducing an Ongoing Debate”. “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” by Janet Boyd displays how a different point of view could be taken by saying, “On the other hand…” This brings up the idea that a different take on the subject is possible. With this commonly used phrase, Boyd is providing another perspective on the matter and adds details on how things may occur if that other situation were to happen.

            Many of the templates in They Say, I Say are shared by more than one of the readings. After reading the articles, I noticed that some moves the authors used were unique to their articles. For example, in “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” Boyd makes her section titles deeply personal, calling a couple of them “Cultivating Your Inner Coroner” and “Learning How to Say Goodbye”. The sections discuss how someone would write in a particular genre, and with titles such as these, readers would connect more easily with other writers of these genres. For someone that had to write a eulogy, they would have to learn how to say goodbye. This move brings the thoughts and feelings a writer of a eulogy might have to the reader, and for this reason, I will name the move “Method Acting”.

            Like Boyd’s article, “Responding—Really Responding—to Other Students’ Writing” by Straub also makes use of the section titles. For this article however, the titles are set up as questions. The section then answers the question that its title asks. Readers would look at the titles and would immediately know what the sections are going to be about. Since the titles have a bigger font than the rest of the writing, it would be easy to find an answer to a specific question. The format of the article looks somewhat like a “Q&A” so I will name the move accordingly.

In “Backpacks to Briefcases: Steps Toward Rhetorical Analysis”, many references of popular culture are mentioned. Students who are learning about rhetoric would feel more comfortable with reading this as Carroll made it easy for students to relate to the subject by including Ronald McDonald, The Simpsons, and the Campbell’s Soup Company. This move allows the students to apply rhetoric to their own lives and will be able to recall what they learned more frequently. The title of this move is “I Feel You”.

            Usually, when writers use other writers as an example to support their argument, their description of the writers are positive. Anne Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts” brings writers down to the level of the ordinary and say that even professional writers have a difficult time writing. By saying that professional writers are capable of making mistakes as everyone else, readers are comforted by the fact that it is normal to make mistakes. Lamott even goes to criticize writers who are not troubled by writing. This move shall be known as “Everybody Makes Mistakes”.

            “How to Read Like a Writer” tries to catch the readers’ attention visually. For words that are significant, author Mike Bunn uses a different font to make it stand out from the rest. It has the same effect that italics have on words but slightly stronger as the font is peculiar and not commonly used. Reserved for important terms and referencing his introductory paragraph, the special font is definitely an eye-catcher. Therefore, the name of this move is “Spotlight”.

Thlog #5

            Early on in the quarter, I used to come to class without bringing my laptop. My laptop’s not the best when it comes to portability so I thought it wasn’t worth bringing it, especially since I have classes back to back after.  Although for the past couple of weeks, I’ve brought my laptop and it’s less of a hassle than I thought it’d be. Before I would write all the freewriting assignments down on my notebook, and thinking about it now I think that’s more of a hassle. I had the option of using the computers set up in class too, but the idea of people being able to see my activities was a little weird. Zack’s class revolves around the use of a computer so I just made it easy for myself and go along with it. To be honest though, I feel more connected to the class since a lot of the assignments are shared through Google Docs.

            The activity about how two types of disciplines could talk about the same topic was eye-opening for me. I wasn’t too sure at first how two different types of thinking could be applied to a topic but after seeing examples from the classmates, I got a pretty firm grasp on the concept. This is one of the perks I like from having a class Goggle Doc; people could see other’s writings and learn from it. Well, what I learned is that every topic has an infinite amount of angles that it could be viewed in. Having my third-eye opened has allowed me to get some potential topics for WP2. Instead of seeing whether or not a topic can be used for the prompt, I can use my newfound vision to make the topic, one that I actually like, fit into the prompt.  

PB2A

            Scholarly articles are the finished products of experts’ reviewed by other experts. They are reliable sources for academics who happen to be interested in studying a particular topic. Future studies will then depend on their research assuming that it is legitimate. For a field of study to be continuously legitimate, every study that supports is must be coherent as one broken link in a chain leaves the chain worthless. Experts have the responsibility of providing valid and trustworthy information, and to do so, they follow a set of conventions to preserve the credibility of the academic community. The article "Motion camouflage induced by zebra stripes" by Martin J. How, and Johannes M. Zanker represents how a scholarly article is written. The paper tries to answer the significance of zebras’ stripes. It suggests motion camouflage as the reason for zebras having stripes and tries to prove this by providing their methods and test results. In the process, the authors uses various rhetorical techniques to strengthen their claims.

            The paper starts with an abstract, giving the readers a quick idea of what the paper will be about. It starts by pointing out how important the subject is saying, “The functional significance of the zebra coat stripe pattern is one of the oldest questions in evolutionary biology, having troubled scientists ever since Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace first disagreed on the subject” (How). If Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace fought over the subject, then the subject must be worth caring about. On the side of the abstract is a list of keywords, appearing like how it would in a science textbook. The keywords listed (Camouflage, Illusory motion, Aliasing, Aperture effect, and Equus burchelli) center the thought to the main topic of the paper: motion camouflage by zebra stripes. Both the list of keywords and abstract provide the main ideas of the paper, telling the readers which aspects to focus on.

            The introduction comes afterwards, bringing up the argument of zebra stripes as an evolutionary protection against insects and mammalian predators. It states that this argument has received the most attention among other theories of the stripes’ functions, noting again how major the theory is even among the scientific community. Reading the online pdf of the article allows the reader to clearly see the citations as they are colored in light blue, and to easily tell that the introduction is covered in citations. This means that a good amount of information from sources were used. Because it is the introduction, background information would be given to give the readers a smooth transition to the experiments conducted. It would be easier to understand the what, why, and how questions pertaining to the experiment and readers would not be left in the dark.

            The article then carries on to explain the experiment’s procedures. Basically, the researchers created a simulation of how mammalian predators or insects might see the zebras using two types of optical illusions: wagon-wheel effect and barber-pole illusion. A lot of scientific terms were used so a reader not proficient in the field may not easily comprehend the article. The results of the experiment were presented after, showing pictures of how the zebras were seen in the simulation and graphs showing some other scientific stuff. This actually reminds me of SCIgen, the computer science paper generator and how they share a similar format. For all I know, the article could also be nonsense, since I cannot understand both the article and the CS papers. The graphs however make it look legitimate. Thankfully, a discussion section is generously provided for the people struggling to understand what’s going on. Unlike the section about the experiment and results, the introduction and the discussion provides a more qualitative explanation of the process. The numbers and data were left in the materials and methods, and the results sections.