In the article by Kantz the relationship between reading and writing and the similarities of the two activities are discussed.
My favorite section in the reading that I found is one plainly bullet pointed and easily spelling out the play by play of what to do when getting ready to read.
The article clearly spells out what to do both before you read and as your read:
The before you read steps, featured on page 168, include activities which will aid in understanding the argument the writer presents.
One bullet point Kantz writes says, "Watch three TV commercials (you might want to record them) and count the number of facts and the number of claims in each. Then think about what's most persuasive in the ads: the facts, the claims or the combination of the two?" (Kantz, p168.)
This helps in thinking of the separation between how effectual facts v. claims are -- which backs up earlier in the writing where Kantz explains the difference between a fact and a claim or theory. By acknowledging the effectiveness or lack of power behind a claim or a fact, or being able to skillfully combine the usage of both, as a reader you will not only understand the passages and be able to come to your own conclusions, but also as a writer you will have the skill in understanding which form of research or oppinions to use when and where in your own writing.
This interconnection between writer and reader is furthered in the writing about of John Swales entitled "Create a Research Space" (CARS) Model of Research Introductions.
The writing focuses on how to swiftly allow reader and writing to travel through the research introductions section of rhetorical and analytical writing.
His three given steps include:
Move 1: Establishing a Territory
This step emphasizes explaining both background as well as stressing the importance of the writing to the reader in order to give a reasoning which attracts readers to the writing.
Move 2:Establishing a Niche
Find the remaining missing link and putting your foot in the door for an area where more research is needed is what occurs within this step of writing.
Move 3: Occupying a Niche
Show the readers what exactly you're working for, this is where the writer makes his or her closing in move on writing about the subject of his or her choice.
Out of the entire short reading on Swales's idea, my favorite excerpt is this one which says, "The author demonstrates that earlier research does not sufficiently address all existing questions or problems." (Swales, p2.)
The latter passsage is shared under "Move 2" of the writing. It shows that simply because research has been done in an area doesn't mean that's all there is to know. I've learned this in my Classics and World Religions course this quarter, which specifically focuses on the history of American Religions as taught by Dr. Lybarger.
In the class, we're required to keep a running glossary of terms -- much alike a wikipedia. Classmates and I choose our own terms to define and most add information to the terms cards. However, just because one classmate has gotten to a term, for exampke like Martin Luther King Jr., doesn't mean the card is done and complete. Students are encourged to either edit the card itself or to create their own version too, maybe focusing on a different area such as his early life or career, etc.
In fact the website Wikipedia, commonly used among web browsers for quick research, is founded on this same concept of community learning and researching.
A topic is never dead, and a research is never finished.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Stedman Response.
I love how the opening of Stedman's reading uses a comparison between sloppy conversational writing and slow drivers to show how annoying poor writing is for readers.
Stedman persists to continue that even though your writing may be as interesting as a "custom paintjob" there may be better usage of that creativity if it's too distracting for readers -- the way you drop in sources may make sense to you, but it's the readers who matter.
He says, "One of the fundamental ideas of rhetoric is that speak- ers/writers/composers shape what they say/write/create based on what they want it to do, where they’re publishing it, and what they know about their audience/readers." (Stedman, p244.)
This is showing how sources can be more than something which adds to your story, but in fact they play road map for readers in better understanding your purpose in writing.
He goes on to discuss his interpretations of citing and the "annoyances." He even gives his own names for each ... not say these guidelines are rules in any way, but suggestions or as he insists conventions on page 244 again.
Uncle Barry and His Encyclopedia of Use- less Information is my favorite mistake and fix. I often, find myself wanting to write question after question in my writing but know to avoid this ... I can only imagine it to be annoying because it leads to topic jumping. Being a journalist means being able to focus in on the real topic or lede of a story. Whenever I write, I have to stop and make sure there is a relevant point to my work which readers will find interesting enough to follow throughout the piece.
Stedman says, "Readers get the feeling that they’re moving from one quo- tation to the next without ever quite getting to hear the real point of what the author wants to say, never getting any time to form an opinion about the claims." (Stedman, p248.)
Just like Stedman's Uncle Barry, writing isn't about knowing the answer to every piece of curiosity writer or reader encounters. Showing you know and understand the topic means sharing with readers what's most important for them to know and understand.
In papers where this topic switch-up occurs, writers often are quoting too many outside resources, Stedman says, claiming that using the authority of others too much takes away from the writing having any authority at all.
In journalism, we're taught to use quotes, or the words of outside sources, to convey emotion or interest -- things an objective writer could not convey. If it's a fact or concept it's often much easier to explain it in your own terms, however it's the colorful things worth pulling in from outsiders. Stedman says this same idea applies when writing papers and pulling in resources. A writer must examine every source and its purpose for being there he insists.
In my Genre Analysis paper I want to include more sources, however after reading this article I realize stuffing in a certain numerical amount of outside quotations into my writing isn't the answer. I need to re-read my paper and see where its weak enough to need a quotation to lean on -- the crutch adding to my paper of course and not making it more confusing in the process.
Stedman persists to continue that even though your writing may be as interesting as a "custom paintjob" there may be better usage of that creativity if it's too distracting for readers -- the way you drop in sources may make sense to you, but it's the readers who matter.
He says, "One of the fundamental ideas of rhetoric is that speak- ers/writers/composers shape what they say/write/create based on what they want it to do, where they’re publishing it, and what they know about their audience/readers." (Stedman, p244.)
This is showing how sources can be more than something which adds to your story, but in fact they play road map for readers in better understanding your purpose in writing.
He goes on to discuss his interpretations of citing and the "annoyances." He even gives his own names for each ... not say these guidelines are rules in any way, but suggestions or as he insists conventions on page 244 again.
Uncle Barry and His Encyclopedia of Use- less Information is my favorite mistake and fix. I often, find myself wanting to write question after question in my writing but know to avoid this ... I can only imagine it to be annoying because it leads to topic jumping. Being a journalist means being able to focus in on the real topic or lede of a story. Whenever I write, I have to stop and make sure there is a relevant point to my work which readers will find interesting enough to follow throughout the piece.
Stedman says, "Readers get the feeling that they’re moving from one quo- tation to the next without ever quite getting to hear the real point of what the author wants to say, never getting any time to form an opinion about the claims." (Stedman, p248.)
Just like Stedman's Uncle Barry, writing isn't about knowing the answer to every piece of curiosity writer or reader encounters. Showing you know and understand the topic means sharing with readers what's most important for them to know and understand.
In papers where this topic switch-up occurs, writers often are quoting too many outside resources, Stedman says, claiming that using the authority of others too much takes away from the writing having any authority at all.
In journalism, we're taught to use quotes, or the words of outside sources, to convey emotion or interest -- things an objective writer could not convey. If it's a fact or concept it's often much easier to explain it in your own terms, however it's the colorful things worth pulling in from outsiders. Stedman says this same idea applies when writing papers and pulling in resources. A writer must examine every source and its purpose for being there he insists.
In my Genre Analysis paper I want to include more sources, however after reading this article I realize stuffing in a certain numerical amount of outside quotations into my writing isn't the answer. I need to re-read my paper and see where its weak enough to need a quotation to lean on -- the crutch adding to my paper of course and not making it more confusing in the process.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)