My Blog List

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Outline Workshop

  1. Show your commercial and the outline. 
  2. Discuss some potential ways to improve. Focus on:
    1. Clarity and specificity of the claims about purpose and effectiveness. 
    2. Sufficiency and relevance of reasons and evidences to support the claims. 
    3. Effectiveness of the introductory hook and the closing hook.
    4. Overall organization of the outline. 
  3. Each member should offer at least two substantive suggestions. 
  4. Finally, go to ICON and revise the outline you submitted there based on the feedbacks you received.  

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Questions about First Major Speech Assignment

Go through the assignment prompt and post at least two questions about it here as a comment. 

Review of Unit 1

1. What were the most challenging parts of the assignment? What do you think could be changed/done to make it better/more useful?
2. In preparation for the assignment, we did several things like
  • Discussing basic analytical concepts (SLR, AATP, etc.)
  • Discussing the basic outline of the paper
  • Analyzing sample papers
  • Peer reviewing first drafts
  • Conducting individual conferences
Which of them were the most and the least useful? 

Monday, February 10, 2020

Peer Review Guidelines

Use these instructions for providing feedbacks to your peers' first drafts.

A. These are some questions/points to think about while reading the paper. Whenever the instruction says "write," write a brief comments on the margin of the paper. 
1.     Read the report quickly and see if you clearly understand the main points. Did the paper flow well on your first reading? Briefly describe what part(s) of the essay flowed well and what part(s) seemed choppy or incoherent. What strategy(ies) are used to organize the information gathered from a variety of sources? Make some notes to suggest some ways to improve the overall organization of the paper.
2.     Now read slowly. Read the essay up until you identify the writer's thesis (not as a claim, but as a statement of findings).  Stop reading at this point and answer the following questions:
a.     Does the introduction give you enough background to understand the possible direction of the whole essay?
b.     Is the background too broad or merely tangentially relevant to the main purpose of the paper?
c.     Does the intro provide relevant background about writing in a particular profession or discipline?
d.     Does it provide a brief description of the methods used to gather relevant information to address the problem/enquiry and develop an analytical report?
e.     Is the thesis/statement of finding clear? Does it make an argument/claim or does it state the most important information about writing in a profession/discipline? This paper is not supposed to make an argument. 

Write down some points to provide suggestions for improving the introductory part.

3.     Now read through the paper, using the point-predict method.  Pause every 1-2 sentences or so and summarize the writer's main point and predict what will come next.  Clearly identify any places on the paper where your expectations as a reader were not met or where you were unclear on the writer's point.  If possible, indicate what you were expecting.
4.     Does each paragraph adhere to a single main idea?  Note any paragraphs that seem to have multiple topics competing for attention.
5.     Are paragraphs connected with transitions?  Identify any places where transitions between paragraphs can be improved. Mark those places and provide some feedbacks
6.  Is the overall order of paragraphs in the paper logical?  Do the paragraphs in the body of the paper follow the order suggested by the thesis?   Does the overall organization seem to have some sort of ordering principle—such as comparison and contrast, steps/processes, etc?
7.     Does the writer provide sufficient evidences for each of the main points?  Note any places where you would like to see more evidence.  Make suggestions for what type of evidence the writer might include.
8.     Does the writer use quotations and paraphrases of sources effectively?  Are the quotations relevant?
9.     Does the author focus on features of writing or the aspects of writing process in analyzing written sources? How could he/she improve the analysis?
11.  Does the essay have an interesting conclusion that does not simply repeat the main points of the essay?
12.  Does the writer include a correctly documented “References” page?
13.  Do you see any pattern errors (grammatical) in the paper? Can you offer some suggestions for improvement?
14.  In what particular aspect(s) of the paper has the author done an excellent job?

B. For your written review:
After reading and analyzing your peers’ papers, write a review for each of the papers focusing on the following aspects:
1.     What is your overall impression?
2.     What are the 3-5 most important areas for improvement? You can take assignment rubrics (analysis and synthesis, organization, use of sources, and completeness and mechanics) as a basis for your suggestions. Your suggestions have to be concrete and specific. That means, you cannot simply make general comments like “you can improve the organization of your essay” or “you need to improve transition.” You need to show where and provide some concrete ways for improvement.
Your review should be at least 3 substantive paragraphs (most probably 4-6), first paragraph stating your overall impression and a few other paragraphs explaining 3-5 suggestions for improvement). After you finish writing, post it as a comment to your peer’s blog.

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Analysis of Sample Papers

Analyze the sample papers in small groups: 
  1. Read grading rubrics.
  2. If necessary, go through the papers quickly.
  3. Rank the papers and grade them.
  4. Make a list of three weaknesses and three strengths of each of the papers based on your analysis of all the samples.
  5. Post your ranking, grade for each paper, and the list of strengths and weaknesses as a comment to this post.