Developing Your Research Question

This weekend, you've got two tasks:

1. Read Kleine

and 2 (maybe a little more important) is to begin working on your Stage II.

The first step of Stage II is drafting and developing your research question. Please bring a draft of your question to class on Monday/Tuesday.

Having trouble honing down your research question?

Here are just a few examples:

• Do college freshmen and seniors use rhetorical strategies at all or in similar ways?
• How do grammar skills develop?
• What makes a classic literary work a "classic"?
• What makes an effective business plan?
• How does music effect writing or revision?
• How do literacy activities vary at high or low income daycares?
• What kind of writing will a social work major encounter?
• Is writing taught in medical school? Should it be? How?

Need a little more help? Why not post it here and see if your peers can help? I'll be popping in, too, for advice and guidance.

Feel free to ask anything research related in the comments section. This will be a good opportunity for us to share our thoughts/ideas/concerns/complaints about that smelly old professor, etc...
 
Extra points available IF you're particularly helpful to someone else.

Mustache not required to participate.

"Greeneisms" Assignment

Warning: This Assignment Requires Rhetorical Thinking

Choose a concept from the Greene article (aka a Greeneism) and work with your group to come up with a definition of it. Then, find a way to "Teach" your concept to the class. You're required to include a visual aid, which can be anything, really, that helps us to have an idea as to what your concept means (within the context of Greene's article). You might choose to do a drawing/sketch, rage comic, meme, skit, or my personal favorite -- an interpretive dance! Have fun; great creative. And this doesn't need to be uber complicated. Sometimes the most simplistic explanations and visuals are the most effective. I'll be posting some of the better ones on the blog!

Thoughts on Greene

Greene's article is all about constructing arguments. But I think to first understand what he means, we have to understand how he defines certain terms. Do you think his term "argument" is different from the one above? How do you define "argument"? How is it defined in an academic setting?

I think I'm pretty guilty of throwing out lofty academic words, but this might be a good time to flesh out their definitions. What lofty words come up in our readings, class conversations, emails, etc that you think we would benefit from fleshing out, as Greene does with "argument?" Rhetorical is one example that I tend to throw around all the time -- what are some others?

For extra credit, feel free to discuss Greene below and/or pose examples and try to define some of these lofty Professor Hoerthisms. We'll be discussing this more in class. 

Thoughts on Sherman Alexie

I like Sherman Alexie quite a bit. He's an awesome poet and writer. Anyway, I think there's an important link between his essay, "The Joy of Reading and Writing" and the Richardson reading. Do you see any correlation between the two? Do you think Alexie and Richardson would agree on much?

We'll be talking about this, and other things, in class. Here are a few things to think about as you're reading. You're welcome to start the conversation below in the comments section (for possible extra credit), or to just keep these queries in mind while reading, as these are some of the points for our discussion:

1. What was expected of Alexie as a child growing up? How did this influence who he is as a man today? Can you think of examples from your past where expectations (either positive or negative) shaped you?

2. How would you define literacy? How does Alexie define it?

3. Who are Alexie's literary role models? How might his life have been different had he had access to more powerful literary role models?

4. Why does Alexie feel that books saved his life? Do you agree with him?

Watching this video will hopefully give you some context to Alexie's experience. It's short, and we'll be watching it in class too if we have time. 

Feel free to discuss the reading below.



Here are our talking points for class:

Richardson writes that common sense myths about writing are pernicious. Do you think Alexie would agree? Why or why not?

Alexie claims that Indian children were "expected to be stupid." Explain in a paragraph or two how expectations can impact children's literacy learning. Can you think of any examples from your own childhood where expectations of you, either postive or negative, shaped what you did or didn't do? Feel free to share these thoughts below, too.

Peer Review Guidelines

Our Golden Rule!

TR 9:10

1. Be specific in your responses (rule)
2. Use PQP (guideline)
3. Use constructive criticism, not destructive!
4. Understand that the critic is about the paper, not the person
5. Your paper will be read aloud by another group member
6. Groups consist of 3 people
7. 10 minutes per paper, Professor Hoerth will keep time (guideline)
8. If you come to class unprepared, you are still responsible to give feedback
9. Groups are generally constant, though they may be changed up through the semester to allow for variety

TR 10:35

• Always support your statements with specifics (rule). If you say "I like it" back it up!
• Avoid bashing. Keep your critics constructive by emphasizing both the good and bad about an essay (keep it balanced). (rule)
• Understand that feedback is about the paper, not the person
• PQP (Praise, Question, Polish) is encouraged (guideline)
• You can either address the person in your feedback OR give your interpretation.
• The first groups are student selected. Future groups are selected based on research topics.
• Groups are student selected, but will change throughout the semester. Students can choose to work with others with similar research interests.
• Three members per group
• Either you or one of your partners will read your paper to the group
• Professor Hoerth keeps time, lets us know when to switch
• Unprepared group members are still responsible to give feedback (but they lose points!)

MWF 11:45


1. Be specific in your responses (rule)
2. Use PQP (guideline)
3. Use constructive criticism, not destructive!
4. Understand that the critic is about the paper, not the person
5. Your paper must be read aloud, but you can do it, or a partner can do it (author's discretion)
6. Groups consist of 3 or 4 people, but Professor Hoerth will let us know beforehand
7. 10 minutes per paper, Professor Hoerth will keep time (guideline)
8. If you come to class unprepared, you are still responsible to give feedback
9. Groups will change throughout the semester. Be ready for it!

Stage I Sample for Peer Review

Here's the essay we'll be peer reviewing on Tuesday/Wednesday. You can use it as just one example of how this type of essay could be approached. It's also a good example of a properly formatted MLA paper (I hope!).

Writing Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum!

If you'd like to be uber prepared for class, you can start thinking of a critical response to this piece. It's just a rough draft, and the author is in need of some help!


Feel free to discuss below (and earn extra credit, perhaps!).


Just a reminder --

Your homework assignment (for Thursday/Friday) is as follows:

1. Read and review your partners' essays for peer review. We'll be having that in class on Thursday/Friday. Type up a response to each partner's essay, which needs to be a minimum of half a page per paper you review. Bring two copies of each review to class. You'll be turning one in to me, and you'll be giving the other to your partners. 

2. Read and print out Alexie. It's short and easy and related to what we're working on. A quiz is likely.

As always, let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'm here to help!

Thoughts on Stage I

Scrutinize! Challenge! Explore! Write.

You've got a busy weekend ahead!

On Tuesday/Wednesday, you'll need to bring in your draft of stage 1. Don't forget to bring 3 copies, as we will be doing peer review.

Here are the "questions" I'll be asking myself while grading. You can use this as a guideline as to what you need to include in your "myth analysis":

1.       Description – How does the author illustrate their myth? As a reader, are you able to construct meaning from the text given? Is there enough vivid detail?

2.       Inquiry – How did the author engage in inquiry to challenge their myth? Did they engage in any primary/secondary research? What new information are they adding to the conversation?

3.       Discourse – How does the author build the connections between their work and experience, and the experiences of others?

4.       Significance – What does it all mean for the author, for us as writers, for our understanding of literacy? In other words, so what? 

 We will be continuing these discussions in class, but if your essay addresses these four areas, you'll be in super shape. 

I'd also like to point out that this blog is mean to be a forum -- your forum,and that it's as much mine as it is yours. With that being said, you're welcome to post comments, ideas, questions, advice in the comments section below. I'll be responding throughout the weekend, and if you RESPOND to another person's question on here, there's some extra credit in it for you! Let's work together on this.



             Editing in: Some of you all have expressed an interest in a refresher of MLA format. We'll be talking about making rhetorical formatting choices throughout the semester, but here's an example of a properly formatted MLA paper:

 

Welcome To English 1302

This semester is going to be a wild ride! 



But first things first, peruse the class syllabus and course calendar. We'll be discussing this in class, too, but this will give you a better idea as to what to expect this semester.