I'm noticing it's been awhile since my last blogpost ::shame shame shame::
Nonetheless, I wanted to share this with you:
.jpg) |
| 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.
Would 2 people send me their draft so I can have them ready by Wednesday? Sorry, I hardly know anybody in class and don't have no ones number lol
ReplyDelete7:45-8:35
Khernandezl@broncs.utpa.edu
Can be from any of my classes, y'all. Help Karisma out! I'm more than sure she'll send a critique your way, which may help with your revisions. If you're up to it, maybe ask for her paper, too, so you can turn in an extra critique for extra credit.
ReplyDeletePeer Review Responses of the Year (:
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style
This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future
Well, I did some of the work the authors should have done!
Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!
The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about
I suppose that I should be happy that I don’t have to spend a lot of time reviewing this dreadful paper; however I am depressed that people are performing such bad science
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/witty-funny-peer-review-comments/
How silly! LOL. I hope y'all's sessions aren't remotely like this :-P Thanks for sharing, Melissa. You're in my 11:45 class, right?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete