Nth hour samples to consider

Here’s a quick list of some of the more promising drafts I’ve seen this week:

Chikere and Lucia: Both drafts state the purpose of the essay early on (Lucia’s is in the second paragraph). Several of you have objected to this “blunt” manner of writing; however, in research work, especially ACADEMIC research scholarship, using a phrase that explicitly (bluntly) outlines the purpose of the work is actually VERY helpful and generally accepted. While you might have a good, creative, compelling intro right now, consider adding a sentence or two that overtly states your intentions. This also can be a test, because if your intentions don’t fit with what the assignment is asking of you, you might consider re-rigging.

Kasey and Anna: Use of concrete detail. It shows she has engaged with her primary sources enough to be able to describe, in detail and with quotation, the discourse community’s use of online spaces/texts.

Cassie: The quality and insight of Cassie’s analysis of her primary sources is noteworthy.

promising drafts

Also, if you’re interested in seeing what other students are doing to connect Weinberger to their research, check out:

Drew’s draft and Kyle’s draft.

These are both, clearly, works-in-progress. I wanted to showcase them because they each are working explicitly to analyze the discourse of their chosen communities through careful consideration of well-defined primary sources. Also, each paragraph of their drafts somehow ties into a larger discussion that can be connected to a component of Weinberger’s theory.

conferences, day 1 redux

Just some quick notes and thoughts that reflect the first day of conferences:

1. Conferences take place in the lounge on the second floor of Schine, above the food court. You might have to walk around the lounge once to find me, but expect me to be near a window. I do not hold conferences in my office because I don’t want to spend my whole day in a basement.

2. Some of you are so deeply wedded to the topic of your discourse community you’re losing sight of what this research project is asking you to do. Review the unit three assignment sheet for clarification: you are constructing “an essay that extrapolates Weinberger’s evidence and claims and applies them to a specific discourse community.” Essentially, you’re looking to expand a theory of Weinberger’s using some primary sources as a kind of case study or a body of texts, and so the main questions you want to ask deal with theories of internet communication and online social interaction.

Updates, post Spring break

Hi all. Hope you had a pleasant break.

If you missed class Monday 3.19, make sure you check the Unit 3 calendar for a schedule of the next two weeks. There is NO CLASS Wednesday 3.21 and you need to come to sign up for an extended conference (the schedule will be posted on my door after 1:00 on 3.21). Also, the week of 3.26-3.30 will be dedicated to extended conferences, so we will NOT be meeting as a class that week. Classes resume on 4.2, when your unit 3 project is due.

Class on Monday, 3.19 consisted of a 20-minute writing workshop, in which we built paragraphs that worked to connect the ideas and claims from our academic article summary to an idea or claim in Weinberger’s text. I collected the paragraphs to read and respond to.

During the second half of class, I demonstrated how to create a data table to generate ideas about our primary sources. Essentially, a data table requires three things: 1) you identify with certainty your primary sources, 2) you begin to read them and work with them closely, and 3) you begin to generate categories, patterns, themes or other connections between your primary sources that then position you to apply any framework your secondary sources offer. Download an example of a data table (this is only an example; yours will be considerably more complete than this!!) Please email me your data table by Thursday 3.22.

useful link for Wikipedia or campaign projects

This article over at Unit Structures might be of interest to those of you who are working on a project concerning EITHER the presidential campaign OR Wikipedia.

Updates for Unit Three

The unit 3 calendar is up to date–please check it for homework assignments.

Here’s a breakdown of the work we’ve done over the past two class periods, for those of you who have missed.

Wednesday (2/28): 1) We discussed the difference between primary and secondary sources. The distinctions are made clear on pages 147-148 in the Harbrace (handbook). Note that the unit three project requires at least ONE primary source. 2) We used Technorati.com to search for possible primary sources in the form of blogs composed by our chosen discourse communities (although google has a blog search as well that might be used). 3) We used class time to find two possible sources for unit three, applied the checklists from pages 166 (credibility) and 174 (bias) in the Harbrace, and 4) composed one-sentence introductions to those sources that identifed the author and her credentials and offered her purpose or main claim.

Monday (3/5): 1) We spent time looking at a sample research abstract (link here), analyzing it for specific rhetorical components. Research abstracts normally contain answers to the following questions: What am I going to look at (what are my primary sources)? How am I going to look at them (what framework do my secondary sources provide)? What is the larger context for my research (who does it affect? why is it important)? What do I think I’m going to find (what are my hypotheses and extrapolations)?

2) We talked through the specific steps a writer should take in constructing a summary. a) Read it carefully. b) Deal with any problem areas (ie any words, phrases, or references that are confusing). c) Map the text, describing what the author does with each paragraph or unit. d) In your own words, attempt to recreate the author’s main argument or thesis statement. e) Choose/identify those parts of the text that are especially critical, such as the main pieces of evidence the author uses. f) Write the summary, suspending judgment and avoiding, completely, the use of direct quotes.