Final Portfolio Link

click here to check out my portfolio. Please enjoy!

Thlog week 10

Sadly, this is my last thlog this quarter. So, rather than write a summary about what I have learnt this week, I choose to write a brief wrap-up about what I have learnt from this class , which I think should be a good preparation for my final portfolio.

There were too many things I did not know until I took Writing 2, such as "genres", "moves" and "rhetoric". But in this blog, I want to focus on the development I gained from three writing projects (WPs).

Compared to other two WPs, WP1 is less time-consuming and demanding; however; it taught me a important lesson about structure. In WP1, I divided my paper traditionally into five parts: introduction, argument 1, 2, 3 and conclusion. I think most people were encouraged to write a critical think essay in such way in high school. Nonetheless, as Zack commented, one-page long paragraphs are a strong representation of my article's weak organization and structure. Also, the biggest drawback of a super long paragraph is that it increases the difficulty for readers understanding my paper. To imagine your ideas as a huge cake. When you cut it into multiple pieces, it is easier for readers to digest each of them. But as a whole, no one can devour it entirely. Therefore, after WP1, I always intentionally avoid writing everything in a super long paragraph.

WP2 is a much harder one. We were required to compare the differences between academic and non-academic writings. Two types of genre are so different, yet to specify how they differ from each other in a concise manner is also so difficult. To decide what to cover and what to leave aside is an art of writing. Focusing on a specific thing, and then you can make the analysis specific and strong, whereas, splitting your analyses all over the place, none of them can make a sound, Sometimes, less is more. 

From my perspective, WP3 is the hardest as well as the most fun project. we were asked to transform an academic paper into two non-academic genres targeting on younger and older audience respectively. I chose two genres, instructional article and meeting agenda, that I never had haven any experience on, and hence while I was writing them I never stopped asking myself what "moves"I could make to persuade my audience. Although this project was not sufficient to train myself to be a qualified author of instructional articles or meeting agendas, it did provide me with an opportunity to practicing writing for intended audience. To adjust your writings to meet the expectation of different groups of audience, I think, was what this project taught us. This skill will benefit us now and in the future.

WP3

WP3

Summary:

The scholarly paper I transformed is Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Futility of Using Generic Assessment Tools Across Diverse Instructional Contexts. In this article, the author attempted to argue that generic rubrics for writing and public speaking are unproductive and theoretically misguided and therefore they should be replaced with discipline-specific rubrics. Moreover, it demonstrates that the education purpose of the assessment to academic writings and oral communications cannot be properly accomplished without the consideration of the context. To convey this idea, I transform the original article into two pieces targeting on younger and older audience respectively: a meeting agenda for departmental faulty with respect to developing discipline-specific rubrics and an instructional article for students of design major about how to present their designs. The meeting agenda focuses on embodying the author’s support to the application of discipline-specific writing rubrics, while the instructional article is meant to reflect the complexity of pedagogy of public speaking, which is argued by author in the section “Design Critiques as a ‘Weird’ Oral Genre”.

             

             1.Click here for my older audience translation.

             2.Click here for my younger audience translation.

Self-analysis:

             For older audience. I wrote a meeting agenda. As Laura Bolin Carroll asserted in Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis, “[Authors should] make all sorts of choices based on their audience.” (49) Considering the audience of this meeting agenda is the faculty in a college, the tone of my agenda should be formal. Therefore, I avoided any use of slangs or informal words in my agenda. Also, since the exigence of a meeting agenda is to inform the faculty of the approaching meeting, each message should be presented in a clear and direct way. To reflect this rhetorical situation, I also arranged my agenda in an organized format—categorizing each message and listing them in order of priority. At the very beginning, I decided to highlight the most essential information—when and where the meeting will be held—so that the reader will not omit these information due to incaution. Then, I decided to mention the background information of my meeting right below: answering what group of people the WEC program targeting on and the goal of this specific WEC meeting. In another words, it was meant to address “So what” and “Who cares” questions (Graff, 96). Along with “preparation for meeting”, these information are supposed to be aware of by the faculty before the meeting, therefore they are listed before the agenda item.

In the real agenda (the part describing what will be done in the meeting), I numbered each activities and questions that will be held or discussed during the meeting for the sake of showing a clear and organized structure. The time allocated for each section or specific activity is explicitly stated at the end of each line. Such move was meant to inform the audience of the predetermined schedule for the meeting. Overall, these “moves” contributed to a clear-formatted agenda, aligning with McCloud’s idea of flow (157), which visually navigates readers through and between each important information they need for the upcoming meeting.

            Although due to the constraint of the genre I cannot directly echo the author’s argument, the objectives of each section and the activities of this imagined meeting is closely related to the author’s idea of applying discipline-based wiring rubrics. In meeting, faculty members are asked to bring, analyze three student writing samples from different departments, and afterwards contemplate through five questions with respect to how to develop a discipline-based writing rubric. I think these activities support the author’s idea that writing expectation for a same genre may vary among different fields as well as embody the educational value of a discipline-based assessment system which the author advocates for.

            The second transformation of my scholarly piece is geared for younger audience, especially students of design (or design-related) major. It is an instructional article teaching students how to present their designs. Different from a meeting agenda, the tone of an instructional article is usually very conversational. To illustrate this feature, throughout the article, I used both first- and second-person language so that the audience can feel as if the instructor (author) is talking to them. Just as Janet Boyd pointed out, “Choosing how to express your meaning is every bit as important as the message itself” (87). The use of conversational expressions, as a convention of instructional articles, makes the article relatable and understandable.  Also, as Losh and Alexander’s comics reflected, taking appropriate tone and voice can contribute to a successful writing identity, which will help the author effectively communicate with their intended community (114-126). The audience of an instructional article is students, and therefore writing as an instructor can further effective communications with them as well as enhance the credibility of author. In my piece, I imitated the tone and voice an instructor talks to his students by writing many sentences in imperative mood in order to establish author’s identity as an instructor/teacher.  In addition, for the same purpose, I mentioned the name of the author and his position (although they are faked) right below the title because I think a design professor is more qualified than anyone else to write this article.

Instructional articles tend to attract the audience at the beginning, introducing what the article will instruct. With regard to this convention, I wrote a straightforward title and addressed “Who cares” and “So What” questions in the introduction. In addition to an informative introduction, Instructional articles are also structured in an informative manner. In my article, the main body, as stated in the title, consists of five individual tips. Each tip is numbered and serves as a sub-title dividing the main body into five parts. This structure is very popular among those instructional articles we can read on internet or in magazines (which is also the specific type of instructional article I want to translate to), so structuring my article in the same way may increase the likeness of my piece to them. For educational purpose, I wrote one-sentence paragraphs. Such move can highlight important information as well as make the entire article seem more organized.  Besides, at the end of each tips, I wrote one sentence to sum up the gist of each tip. It is a convention of instructional articles because summaries are convenient for students to memorize.

            From my perspective, an instructional article is a suitable genre that can effectively bear the original information of this part of article. Also, by teaching people what they should be careful about during a presentation, such as concepts, credibility and arguments, it reflects the main idea of the author in the section, “Design Critiques as a ‘Weird’ Oral Genre”, that the pedagogy of public speaking is much more complicated than teaching students to achieve some simplified goals (such as to inform or to persuade). Moreover, as I wrote in the introduction of this article, “the benchmark for a good presentation varies among different fields”, it indirectly echoes the author’s main idea that the evaluation of oral communication should take context into account as well.

            As Losh and Alexander wrote, “Writing means always changing – changing to meet the needs of different audiences!” (144). The translation of genre is all about writing to appeal to your new audience. Therefore, the process of translating one genre to another is similar to re-carve a sculpture: the appearance is changed to meet your new audience’s expectations, whereas the material constitutes your sculpture is still the same.  In my opinion, the idea author wants to convey is the material he carves and re-shapes. What sculpture will it be (what genre he will write in)? It is all dependent on the audience.

Work Cited:

Anson, Chris M., Deanna Dannels, and Amy Gaffney. "Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Case Against Generalized Rubrics"" Broughton Hall 3217, Raleigh. 28 Apr. 2010. Lecture.

Boyd, Janet. "Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)." Writing Space: Readings on Writing. Vol. 2. Parlor Press, 2011. 87-100. Writing 2 Reader.

Carroll, Laura Bolin. "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps tpward Rhetorical Analysis." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Vol. 1. Parlor Press, 2010. 45-58. Document.

Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. ""So what?/ Who Cares?" ." They say/I say the Moves that  

Matter in Academic Writing. New York: Norton, 2010. 92-101.

Losh, Elizabeth M., and Johnathan Alexander. “Writing Identities.” Understanding Rhetoric: A

Graphic Guide to Writing. 114-139. Print.

McCloud, Scott. “Writing with Pictures.” Making Comics. New York: Harper, 2006. 8-55. Print.

Thlog week9

WP3 is definitely the most important item in Week 9’s agenda. During this week, we survived the last Writing Project this quarter (Congratulations!) WP3 is a fun project but also a demanding one. To transform an academic paper to something else is a literature experience I never had before. Therefore, when I worked on WP3, I proceeded with uncertainty and anxiety. Fortunately, we were provided opportunities in classes to share and discuss our questions with other team members. It is always better to solve questions together than doing yourself alone.

I enjoyed writing WP3. I composed two genres I never touched: instructional article and meeting agenda. The most difficult part of writing them was that you did not know where to start and what to writing. For example, I attempted to writing to an interesting opening for my instructional article, however, the more interesting you wanted it to be, the less it became. I found that mechanical imitation won’t work because each piece features its own author’s writing style. Forcibly adjusting my style to fit others’ is not an effective way to produce a good work. Therefore, I changed my strategy. Instead of studying how a specific piece was written, I re-placed my focus to conventions and audience. Through considering what conventions of an instructional article are, what its intended audience are, and what moves I can make to persuade them, I found where to start and expand my thoughts and writings.

Peer-review workshop is another source I got help from. Sometimes flaws of an article are concealed from the author’s eyes, whereas they are easily exposed under reader’s examination. In peer-review workshop, my team members gave me a lot of constructive and insightful advices to me that really reduced my work on revision. Polishing writings is an endless work—your writings can always be better—and we don’t need to bear this task alone all the time. Asking for advises from your classmates is a good way to make it easier for you (you gain efficiency).

Thlog Week8

This week is a busy week, and so will be next week and next-next week because the winter quarter is about to end but we still have a lot of stuff not done yet, such as WP3 and portfolio. Despite these upcoming tasks make me feel overwhelming, I still feel obligated to quickly review what I have learnt this week.

One key concept of our WP3, from my perspective, is transformation. To transform one genre, in WP3 scholarly paper, to some genres else is not as easy as I thought, especially when you are also required to change it for two different populations of audience. After I finished my PB3A, I realized that transformation does not simply mean reformation; it also means re-creation and invention. When I started to plan my WP3, I found that I cannot just rearrange some sentences or only replace the objective tone with an emotional one to make the original piece a new thing. To transform it is far more complicated than that. I have to create something new to meet the convention of the intended genre the article will be altered to. I have to make certain “moves” that appeal to the audience of the new genre instead of the old one. This is why I think such work is more like invention. You take materials all from the academic article you choose but you also add something new, change something inside, and reform its physical appearance. When I attempted to transform one genre to another, I just felt as if I was writing a new one.

In addition, the process of transforming, I think, is related to the cartoon we were assigned to read this week, “writing identity”. When you transform a genre, oftentimes, you, as a writer, take a new identity because your intended audience is changed as well. Putting on someone’s costume and thinking in the same way as he does, I guess, will cause us to make same “moves” a real writer will do. Therefore, thinking about “writing identity” may help us make a better transformation. 

PB3A

The main argument of my article, “Big Rubrics and Weird Genres”, is that generic rubrics for writing and public speaking are unproductive and theoretically misguided and therefore they should be abandoned. In section “contextual dependencies in evaluation”, to prove this point, authors surveyed different departments in two universities and illustrated that, even for a same genre, different features of student’s paper are expected by instructors in different disciplines and therefore using a generic rubrics cannot provide a reflective assessment. During this process, authors recorded faculty members’ opinions about their writing expectations in WEC (Writing-Enriched Curriculum program) meetings in different departments to demonstrate that writing standards vary among different fields. Especially, authors provided many writing criteria from the Political Science Department in order to compare with other departments. I think this part can be transformed into a discussion/meeting agenda for students about how to write a research paper. The goal of this transformation is to reflect the argument that a good rubric should discipline-based. To accomplish this goal, I have two different plans:1) write two agendas for students of two different classes, political science and physics. By comparing two agendas, the audience can notice that even for an exactly same genre, the requirement and assessment vary among different fields. 2)I can combine two agendas into a bigger one concerning how to write a good research paper in general. In this bigger agenda, the purpose is to inform students that the benchmark for a good research paper differs in different disciplines. The latter plan can more directly embody the author's idea but the former one is easier to carry out and therefore more likely to be persuasive. 

             I think the transformation into an discussion agenda is an idea closely related to the topic of this scholarly piece and this section, “contextual dependencies in evaluation” , because it illustrates that a specific discipline may require students to perform analysis from specific aspects or by specific analytic tools.

            For older audience, I plan to write an instructional article, like those we can read on internet or magazines:” How to Lose Weight Fast” or “10 Things You Should Never Do When You’re Angry”. In section “design critiques as a ‘weird’ oral genre”, authors analyzed the design rubric used to evaluate a presentation, which demonstrated a landscape architecture design, conducted by a student called Bethany. In the article, authors thoroughly interpreted each key criterion in the design critique form, mentioned Bethany’s grade and explained the reason in terms of the presentation's content and her behaviors. I think this part can be transformed into an instructional article addressing how to present your design. Since authors have clearly stated each important element contributing to a good presentation, I just need to change tone and wording to make its style similar to an instructional article, such as using “you” to refer to the audience. Also, authors described many Bethany’s behaviors that caused her to achieve a poor grade and some elements her presentation lacked. I can make use of these information to transform them into multiple tips, “things that you should never do in your presentation”, which are very magazine-y.
               From my perspective, an instructional article is a suitable genre that can effectively bear the original information of this part of article. Also, by teaching people what they should be careful about during a presentation, such as responses to the audience, visuals or the argument, it reflects the main idea of the author in this section that the pedagogy of public speaking is much more complicated than teaching students to achieve some simplified goals(such as to inform or to persuade);it should be discipline-based.  

Thlog week 7

Once again, we had a very happy one-writing-class week (only because we can spend more time on WP2). Although the time of our class is halved, the amount of work awaiting us there is not (what we have done is only WP2 draft). During the only class this week, we still had some fun activities and the useful peer review workshop, which really helped me revise and improve my WP2. So, as usual, according to my own experience, let’s talk about them.

The mind map is very interesting. I remember I went over this concept in my World Music class last year, so I know to draw the idea out of our mind is a very useful approach to assist our writing. However, sometimes, I would rather to write an outline than to draw a mind map. I think, outline and mind map, to some extent, are equivalent to each other. They both do the same thing, so choosing which one is totally up to people’s preference. I am not good at drawing, so sketching an outline before starting to write seems to be a more viable plan for me.

Socrative. Com is a great website, and so is the comparing opening sentence activity. I have to admit that I was happy to see that some anonymous classmates liked mine (despite it was not one of the most favorite ones). By discussing the top two opening sentences, I found that using a question is a good strategy to grab the audience’s attention. Also, I found a common feature between these two articles was that they both attempted to resonate with the audience. Through interacting with the audience by questioning or using second personal language, they became more persuasive.

At last, I very appreciated peer review workshop. So helpful that I do not need to find where to start the revision by myself. My group member gave me the message. After all, a reader is more qualified than the author himself to evaluate the work. Through their eyes, I saw flaws of my paper, which would be very likely to be ignored by myself. WP2 is due next Monday, so good luck everyone.