Monday, January 30, 2012
Post 5
An example of rhetoric that I see everyday is a commercial for AXE, which is a brand of men's deodorant or body spray. In this commercial it shows an attractive, shirtless man using the product and after he has applied the product attractive women seem to be sexually driven to him. Obviously we know that the audience that is being targeted is males between the ages of about 16-30, but it could also be targeting women around the same age. Men will want to use this product because they make it look it will help them attract women, while women will want men to use this product because they make it look like good-looking men wear this product. What they are basically trying to sell is a product that smells good, however they incorporate sexuality making it more desirable. They would try to play this commercial during a show that this certain age group would "normally" watch rather than between The Price is Right and Soap Operas. Some constraints could be the cost of the ad or how much air time they get for their commercial. They have to be able to persuade their audience to buy their product within thirty seconds on a certain budget. The point is, we analyze rhetoric everyday when we read the paper, pick out our clothes for the day, and even when we see a complete stranger passing by. We do it subconsciously and draw conclusions and pass judgements without even realizing it.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Post 4
“Intertextuality means looking for traces, the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse.” (88) After reading Porter’s article Intertextuality and the Discourse Community I quickly saw that the idea behind his writing was that all text is intertextual. He used Thomas Jefferson’s writing of the Declaration of Independence as an example. Porter states that Jefferson used previously written information to build his own writing and by doing so, made him a successful writer.
Porter also says that intertextual writing is the basis of discourse communities. Students however need to be taught to write properly by becoming “socialized writers” and experienced members of their discourse community in order to be successful. That is the reason why Porter thinks writing as an individual, as isolated, and as heroic is harmful. He also believes that it can lead to plagiarism.
I can agree with some of the points Porter is making throughout his article, but I argue that some of his expectations are impractical. Not every piece of writing can be put into a discourse community and sometimes writers may not agree with what they are writing about. As students we do not get to choose most of our assignments, so expecting us to fit-in with that writings specific discourse community is unrealistic. I do however agree that most writing is based off of previous writing. When I am assigned an essay or letter I know what expectations are required and how to go about writing it because of previous assignments. I agree with the intertextuality part of Porter’s article, just not the discourse community part.
Porter also says that intertextual writing is the basis of discourse communities. Students however need to be taught to write properly by becoming “socialized writers” and experienced members of their discourse community in order to be successful. That is the reason why Porter thinks writing as an individual, as isolated, and as heroic is harmful. He also believes that it can lead to plagiarism.
I can agree with some of the points Porter is making throughout his article, but I argue that some of his expectations are impractical. Not every piece of writing can be put into a discourse community and sometimes writers may not agree with what they are writing about. As students we do not get to choose most of our assignments, so expecting us to fit-in with that writings specific discourse community is unrealistic. I do however agree that most writing is based off of previous writing. When I am assigned an essay or letter I know what expectations are required and how to go about writing it because of previous assignments. I agree with the intertextuality part of Porter’s article, just not the discourse community part.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Post 3
In Greene’s “Arguments as Conversation” he talks about using arguments to base writing. He mentions how we argue everyday and that the subject the argument is based on has usually been debated more than once. Greene discusses using conversation as inquiry for research and comes up with a framing strategy by identifying the issue and situation of a given argument. By doing so we state our own opinions based on our understanding and allow for different feedback and viewpoints to disagree and ask questions, thus beginning our conversation and bringing new research and knowledge of others into the picture. In Greene’s article it seems that he is addressing young adults, mainly college students, by asking them to refer to their own personal experiences. Therefore the content needs to be relatable and interesting to read, but I however felt as though he was basically telling me how to write instead.
Kleine’s article “What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This” begins describing both high school and college students in a library writing research papers. He states that the students were barely writing at all because they were mostly copying information and transferring it into their paper. After he mentioned this, it reminded me of my last research paper and how I was one of the students he had just described. After seeing how students go about doing their research papers, Kleine came up with a procedure, or metaphor, for this writing process. He focused on mainly both the “hunting” and the “gathering” stages and compared eight subjects of different academic backgrounds. For example: natural scientists, social scientists, an English composition theorist, and a creative writer. He found both similarities and differences in the way these subjects’ experiences with writing research papers had gone. A similarity was that all of the subjects wrote about something of interest, but a difference in how they went about researching and presenting their work. Scientists seemed to focus more on the data and finish their research before even beginning their writing, while the humanities wrote throughout their research and targeted persuading their audience. I fit more into the scientist “category” because I complete my research before I begin my paper. It seemed Kleine’s audience was both professors (colleagues of his) and the students of these professors because what he presented to the professors would effect how they look at and teach research papers, causing the students to learn to write their research papers that certain way. The content then needs to be factual and the style should be informative.
I agree and disagree with both articles. I enjoyed reading Kleine’s article more then Greene’s because it was more interesting and I felt I could relate to it easier. We are all going research and write differently because we are not all the same. The uniqueness is what makes our writing ours.
Kleine’s article “What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This” begins describing both high school and college students in a library writing research papers. He states that the students were barely writing at all because they were mostly copying information and transferring it into their paper. After he mentioned this, it reminded me of my last research paper and how I was one of the students he had just described. After seeing how students go about doing their research papers, Kleine came up with a procedure, or metaphor, for this writing process. He focused on mainly both the “hunting” and the “gathering” stages and compared eight subjects of different academic backgrounds. For example: natural scientists, social scientists, an English composition theorist, and a creative writer. He found both similarities and differences in the way these subjects’ experiences with writing research papers had gone. A similarity was that all of the subjects wrote about something of interest, but a difference in how they went about researching and presenting their work. Scientists seemed to focus more on the data and finish their research before even beginning their writing, while the humanities wrote throughout their research and targeted persuading their audience. I fit more into the scientist “category” because I complete my research before I begin my paper. It seemed Kleine’s audience was both professors (colleagues of his) and the students of these professors because what he presented to the professors would effect how they look at and teach research papers, causing the students to learn to write their research papers that certain way. The content then needs to be factual and the style should be informative.
I agree and disagree with both articles. I enjoyed reading Kleine’s article more then Greene’s because it was more interesting and I felt I could relate to it easier. We are all going research and write differently because we are not all the same. The uniqueness is what makes our writing ours.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Post 2
Before reading “Wikipedia is Good For You?” my thoughts about this website were probably like everyone else’s. I knew that it was a website that provided information on various subjects, but the information written is given to us by anyone who decides to post on Wikipedia. Granted they have to cite and verify to information they are providing before they are able to post it. I was always told that Wikipedia was an unreliable source to use when researching and I was never allowed to use it while in high school. However, after I finished reading “Wikipedia is Good For You?” my thoughts changed. I never thought about using Wikipedia as a starting point for my research or comparing it to research-based writing and using it to better my writing. I was actually surprised by the time I finished reading the article and learned a lot more about Wikipedia which allows me to trust the information provided a bit more.
In Purdy’s section on reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing and I learned that the steps to writing a successful Wikipedia article can be used as steps to also write a successful research-based paper. You must review what you are going to write about, revise it multiple times to better your work, converse with others to get their opinions and feedback, and finally share it to allow people to see your finished product.
Overall, I learned Wikipedia could be used for multiple purposes. You just have to know how to use it to receive positive benefits.
In Purdy’s section on reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing and I learned that the steps to writing a successful Wikipedia article can be used as steps to also write a successful research-based paper. You must review what you are going to write about, revise it multiple times to better your work, converse with others to get their opinions and feedback, and finally share it to allow people to see your finished product.
Overall, I learned Wikipedia could be used for multiple purposes. You just have to know how to use it to receive positive benefits.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Intro-Post 1
My name is Sara Dorsten and I am a junior and an Athletic Training major at Ohio University. I'm from Celina, Ohio which is a small farm town about an hour north of Dayton and three hours from Athens. I come from a pretty average family from a pretty average town. I have four sisters and no brothers, one dog named Zoey, and I'd like to think I am outgoing. My favorite colors are green and pink, if I could only eat one thing for the rest of my life it would be cookie dough, and I absolutely hate cold weather and plan to move south as soon as I graduate. Some of the things that interest me are: reading, watching sports, playing tennis and softball, water skiing and boating, watching movies, camping, and hanging out with my friends.
Exactly two years ago I took my ENG 151 class and I actually enjoyed it more than I though I would. I'm not a big fan of writing papers and I honestly don't think I am very good at it. The most rewarding point of ENG 151 was that one of our topics was to write about something that had to do with our major. That was probably my favorite paper we had to write because I learned more about what Athletic Training was about and figured out that it was definitely what I wanted my career to be. What I didn't like about ENG 151 was that I had to buy 3-4 books for that class that we rarely ever used. Ironically, I also had to have a blog for my ENG 151 class. At first I was hesitant about it and didn't think I would like using it, but however it seemed to be pretty effective and interesting.
After looking over the syllabus, I am a little overwhelmed with the amount of work it looks like we're going to have. I'm taking 18 credit hours and I also have clinical observations everyday with the OU women's basketball team, so my schedule gets a little crazy at times. However, I think that it is interesting how we are going to be looking at the digital age and not doing a "cookie-cutter" type of english course. Most of my classes are science courses and the only time I actually write papers is for english courses, so I haven't had tons of practice. This course actually reminds me of my ENG 151 course, and if it does turn out to be anything like it then I'm sure I'll end up enjoying it more than I think I will as of right now.
I hope by the end of this course I am able to grow as a writer and become a little more confident. I am worried about the amount of work, but as long as my time management is on it's A-game then it shouldn't be a problem.
Exactly two years ago I took my ENG 151 class and I actually enjoyed it more than I though I would. I'm not a big fan of writing papers and I honestly don't think I am very good at it. The most rewarding point of ENG 151 was that one of our topics was to write about something that had to do with our major. That was probably my favorite paper we had to write because I learned more about what Athletic Training was about and figured out that it was definitely what I wanted my career to be. What I didn't like about ENG 151 was that I had to buy 3-4 books for that class that we rarely ever used. Ironically, I also had to have a blog for my ENG 151 class. At first I was hesitant about it and didn't think I would like using it, but however it seemed to be pretty effective and interesting.
After looking over the syllabus, I am a little overwhelmed with the amount of work it looks like we're going to have. I'm taking 18 credit hours and I also have clinical observations everyday with the OU women's basketball team, so my schedule gets a little crazy at times. However, I think that it is interesting how we are going to be looking at the digital age and not doing a "cookie-cutter" type of english course. Most of my classes are science courses and the only time I actually write papers is for english courses, so I haven't had tons of practice. This course actually reminds me of my ENG 151 course, and if it does turn out to be anything like it then I'm sure I'll end up enjoying it more than I think I will as of right now.
I hope by the end of this course I am able to grow as a writer and become a little more confident. I am worried about the amount of work, but as long as my time management is on it's A-game then it shouldn't be a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)