Gillam and Neubert Response Assignment

We've now had two (hopefully successful) peer review sessions. We've read other people's theories on the process. You know what comes next? Why, reflecting on our own experiences, of course!

Here's your assignment:



Write a short response to both articles where you discuss their views in discourse with your own views on the peer review process, reflecting on your experiences so far. Use both articles as sources in your response and cite them in-text (can be quotes or paraphrases). You will need a works cited page, of course. Your response needs to be typed and double-spaced.

 Due Friday, October 4th.

Here are a few announcements:

As we begin stage III, you'll need to start thinking of a research question! And once you have that down pat, the next step is going to be to do some "real" research on the topic. I've scheduled some library time for us to do just that. Our library sessions will meet in Classroom #2 on the first floor. Here are our dates:

For my 7:45 class -- FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4TH.

For my 9:45 and 11:45 -- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND

Bring your research question to the meeting and get ready to get your hands dirty with some research.

A Recap of Week 4, and Looking Ahead

Howdy class!

I'm noticing it's been awhile since my last blogpost ::shame shame shame::

Nonetheless, I wanted to share this with you:

From my awesome 9:45 class!

This was a representation of Downs and Wardle/Flower that one of y'all came up with that I think does a really great job showing us how the two articles are connected. They both show us what we need to do in order to be successful rhetorical readers/writers, and that's connecting ourselves and our writing to discourse. Of course, discourse looks a variety of ways, as shown here.

Now, let's look forward to next week!

MONDAY

Today we'll be discussing the NEUBERT article. Please bring it to class.
 We'll also be exchanging STAGE II DRAFTS for our future peer review session.

WEDNESDAY

Stage II Peer review!
Here are our focus questions, which, of course, can inform your critiques:

 1. What claim is the author making about the construct? Is the claim clear from the context of the paper (Remember -- a claim can be like a hypothesis, your particular theory about a construct)?

2. How does the author incorporate inquiry into their investigation? If using primary research, how does the author connect the research back to his/her claim (to prove, support, or disprove). If using secondary research, how do the quotes, paraphrases and discussions included connect back to the chosen claim?

3. How does the essay exist within the discourse we've been having in class and in the readings? What original thought/analysis does it add to the greater conversations going on around us?

4. Who was the essay written for? What is its purpose? Are these questions answered by the context of the essay? If not, indicate areas where the author could clarify these questions for you as a reader.

FRIDAY

No class! But please work on your revisions and read the Gillam article.


For extra credit:

This week and next will be all about thinking and theorizing peer review. Can you all find any graphic representations (videos, gifs, memes, pictures) that you feel sum up your views of peer review, or perhaps Neubert's or Gillam's? If so, post links in the comments section for us all to enjoy. Be sure to offer an explanation, too, to be sure to get your extra credit.  

Yay Homework For the Weekend!

But you can be by looking it up! :-)

Your assignment for the weekend's a bit of a tricky one. We've now read two academic articles (D&W and H&F), and they're pretty challenging beasts. I think we should all be pretty proud of ourselves for getting through them. But we're certainly not stopping here!

Here's your assignment:

 Practice putting yourself in conversation with both our readings. Write a good-sized paragraph in which you tell us what you think each article is saying, to what degree you agree with their positions, and how these two readings might be connected with each other. Include at least one direct quote, and one indirect paraphrase. Include citations, using MLA format citations for both articles. If you need help with citations, visit the writing center or noodletools.com
 

Why MLA, you might ask? The audience for this particular response is academia -- i.e, professors, students, and academics who are reading this work.  It's all about making rhetorical choices with our writing based on audience and content, but you already knew that didn't you? :)

If you need some help with MLA formatting, here's a link to an MLA formatted paper:

Also from The Owl, here's how to do an in text citation (you'll need to include this whether you're paraphrasing or quoting directly):

Citing a Work by Multiple Authors (This works for us because both texts have multiple authors)

For a source with three or fewer authors, list the authors' last names in the text or in the parenthetical citation:

Smith, Yang, and Moore argue that tougher gun control is not needed in the United States (76). -- a paraphrase

The authors state "Tighter gun control in the United States erodes Second Amendment rights" (Smith, Yang, and Moore 76).  -- a direct quote

And I'm so generous, I've included (in the syllabus) the MLA formatted citations for both articles. All you'll have to do is copy and paste them into a Works Cited page. Oh I know, I'm far too nice.

This is due MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH

Have fun (but not too much!)

Peer Review?

Be like Creepy Editor... give specific feedback

On Wednesday, we'll be conducting our PEER REVIEW session. Before we jump into that, let's explore what peer review is by watching this video.

Then, get into your peer review groups.

1. Read the first person's essay aloud to the group (either the author or any other group member can read it, y'all decide).
2. Discuss the partner's essay based on your comments
3. Lather, rinse, repeat! :-)

You're looking at roughly 10 minutes of discussion/reading per paper.

Before you leave today, please turn in the following questions for your revision plan:

1. What did you learn were the strengths of your essay?
2. What areas still need improvement?
3. What revisions to you plan to make moving forward and why?

Remember, your revisions are due on FRIDAY, so you'll need to begin making them right away!

For extra credit:

How did your group peer review session go today? How might we, as a class, improve our peer review sessions looking forward to the future? Post your responses on the blog's comment section.

Thoughts on Stage I

 It's that time: yes, time to work on your first real essay of the semester. Aren't you excited?

The first step is to check out the Writing Assignments Deets page up top and review the instructions for Stage I. This should give you a good idea as to where to start your assignment. Really, there are four things I'm looking for:

• ·         A well-told narrative about your literacy

• ·         Vivid details throughout the paper

• ·         An explanation of how this literacy narrative effects who you are as a writer/reader/thinker today (significance, the big "So What?”)

• ·         A connection to the greater discourse of writing studies, either implicit or explicit

Still have questions, comments, concerns? Remember, this blog is YOUR space. Feel free to continue the conversation below in the comments section. I'll be popping in throughout the weekend, too, to offer assistance, as will your peers. We can't help if you don't ask, so, ask away! 

Still lost?

I really hate giving examples, mainly because I don't want you to try to emulate one way of writing. The key to this assignment is finding YOUR way. As we've discussed in class, writing is so very CONTENT and CONTEXT specific, and your content and context are all different. That being said, if you'd like to see ONE WAY that ONE AUTHOR decided to approach this assignment, you can view a sample here:

I Dump My Boyfriend for Jane Austen 

We will be peer reviewing this essay in class, attempting to answer the following questions:

1.       What do you think are the overall strengths of the essay? What do you like about it? Be specific. 
2.       What questions does the essay bring up for you as a reader
3.       How do you think the essay can be improved? Give specific suggestions.
4.       How does the author explain the significance of his/her narrative 
5.       How does the narrative connect to the greater discourse of writing studies? What other  connections might you suggest?

These are the same considerations I’ll be thinking about when grading your paper, so keep them in mind!

Again, feel free to continue the conversation here on the blog. You can even post paragraphs, raise questions, complain about that smelly professor. This blog is YOUR space.

Your drafts are due MONDAY. Please bring 3 copies to class, as we will be conducting peer review.

Engage!