Response to Swale and Kantz

Swales made a great point when talking about niches. I always seem to pick these out of any research I do and then I end up confusing myself. I also like how Swales mentioned establishing territory. This is actually something I can do well. I tend to elaborate more than needed when I speak as well as when I write. I enjoy reading texts that do this too because it always helps me understand what the author is talking about. I tend to get off topic easily when reading and writing so I feel that if I have a solid back ground it will help keep me on point throughout the paper.

            I think also do a decent job of filling in the niches and creating arguments and counter points to go along with them. Sometimes I have trouble supporting my claims though. I’m not the best with quotes! To make my life easier if I have to use quotes, I always try to use integral citation because I always tend to forget exactly how the document should be cited. This is probably something I really need to work on.

            Kantz makes a great point with the things you should do before you read. I always try to figure out what an article or a book is about from the first paragraph and I do formulate my own argument to think about while I read. This helps me stay on topic and jump into the reading more. If I don’t prep myself before I read I usually end up just skimming the work and not getting much out of it. I am a slow reader so if I formulate an argument before I get deep into the text I can focus more on it and actually learn something.

            Like Shirley in this article I too have trouble with writing a paper that requires textual citations. I do need to work on this in order to develop better writing skills and hopefully with all of the projects we’ve had to do this quarter I will get better at it.

Response to article 5/9/2011

I completely agree with Stedman that the way people cite sources is annoying. Often there are many unnecessary things included in the citation. I believe that the reason for this is because there are so many different formats of writing and citing. I am terrible at citing because it confuses me so much. I don't understand why there are so many different ways to cite based on what source you use. I try to use books whenever I write because I feel those are the easiest. I always save putting quotes into my papers till the last minute because I know I will spend at least an hour figuring out how to cite within the work and how to format the bibliography page. I really need a crash course on this topic.

Response to Bawarshi, Allen, and Magee

After reading Bawarshi, I realized that what the author states about social environment and writer not existing without one another. I believe that most of the things I read were caused by the author’s environment. For instance, I would love to write about athletic training because that is the environment I am in for most of my day. I take athletic training classes and then go to Peden and spend three hours with the athletes.

            If I were to write a professional published work it would most likely be about athletic training because I have the most experience there.  If I were to write a personal narrative or a paper that wasn’t to be published and didn’t need to be perfect I would probably write about one of my personal experiences such as snorkeling in the Florida Keys or visiting Salem, Massachusetts for Halloween. I am a product of my environment so therefore so are all of my writings.

            Allen states that rhetoric is “always persuasive” and that discourses cause change. By creating a very different, out of the box, discourse it encourages people to think. I feel it is deemed sufficient when it causes people to change their minds or even act on their feelings about the writing. I see this in a lot of the books I read. I love mysteries and crime novels. The books that I am more inclined to read again or recommend to a friend are the works that blew me away with their endings. If I cannot guess the ending and it keeps me in suspense the whole time, I consider it a great book.

            The same goes for professional writings. If I read a text book or article that touches on many different points of view and makes me second guess my own opinion, then I am more inclined to read on and learn more. As for Magee’s writing, I agree that men and women do not have a distinct style that defines them. Sometimes reading these articles for class I did not look at the author’s first name until I was done. There were quite a few articles that I could have sworn were written by men but they turned out to have female authors. I think the way you write is all based on how you view the world and your education background.

Response to Dirk and Devitt

These articles have changed my understanding of genre dramatically. Dirk speaks of it as though it is something with a negative connotation. I feel that it is thought of in this way because not many people understand all the types of genres. Devitt on the other hand sees genres as constraining at times but depending on how they are taught can be liberating.

            I agree with Devitt partially and Dirk partially. To me, genres are constraining. I don’t like to be told how to write or what to write about. I find it so hard to be creative and write a decent paper when I’m told what to write about. If it is a dry topic that I am not interested in or have no background knowledge of I will not be able to write a well thought out paper. If I am given a very broad topic that I can twist into something of interest then I will run with it.

            If I am given the chance I can be very creative; however, when I am forced to write about a boring topic I cannot bring myself to make the paper flow. If I had to define genre I would say it is the style of writing that an author follows. These two articles have changed my opinion of the way students and teachers view genres. Dirk’s article describes them in terms of how students see them and how they could be taught differently to be made more enjoyable. I found Devitt’s article to be hard to follow.

            I seem to relate more to Dirk because that article explores both ends of the spectrum. I can see how genres would be much more enjoyable to and open depending on how they are taught. I’m sure I would have an easier time with genres if I understood them better and was given a broad topic to follow. I also like how Dirk wrote using common language. It seemed to me like Devitt tried too hard to sound professional which made the article very hard for me to follow and become interested in.

           

Response to John and Harris Discourse Communities

In John’s article it seems to group discourse communities based on something people were forced into. For example, the author talks about religious and cultural discourse communities that our parents put us in. Harris sees a discourse community as sort of a club. If you’re not a member of the club then you don’t fit in it.

            I seem to agree more with John than Harris. I do see discourse communities as more of something I was born into. Yes there are some I chose to be a part of but most of them were my parent’s choice for me. I am Roman Catholic but not by choice. I live in the south but not by choice. I went to Catholic school my whole life but not by choice.

            Harris believes that discourse communities can be good and bad. He speaks of them like they are clubs and only members are in the know. In some ways I agree. When it comes to sports teams or religions I wouldn’t fit in. I would be the without a membership on a football team because I’m a female and I’ve never played before. I would also be without a membership in a Jewish temple because I’m not Jewish.

            I can see where Harris is coming from and both he and John have changed my views about discourse communities. I always thought of these communities as a choice but once I really thought about it I realized that most of the discourse communities I’m in have been chosen for me. Harris opened my eyes to the fact that they can be good and bad. I never really saw the sort of strict side of these communities before reading this article.

            I think we have been spending so much time on these readings because it is important to understand what our readers believe and how to persuade them especially with resumes. It is important to be on the same page as your reader.

                

Response to Wardle, Johnson, Clark, and Burton, and Windsor

Wardle's ideas relate to ecologies and discourse because it is talking about engineering specifically. I would not be able to understand an in depth engineering article just like an engineer would not be able to understand an athletic training article. This article tells me to write professionally and the proper terms to use in order for other athletic trainers to take me seriously and understand my document.  Windsor compared to Johnson, Clark, and Burton is much more professional in her approach. She seems to be writing to be published while the other document seems to be just for peers.

Response to Gee, Boyd, and Cooper 4/13/11

I think we had to read these articles because they teach us to elaborate on our writings. The reader can gain more insight into our writings if they have more details to read. My freshman year in high school I remember writing a personal narrative and having to read it in front of the class. Mine was a scary story that actually happened to me. I had the hardest time elaborating on it but when I finally did it came out well. I described every little detail down to color, size, smell, sound, and emotion.

            From the Gee reading, I gathered that discourses are the way we speak and act based upon our surroundings. For example, a doctor would be a master of medical terminology while a car salesman would be a master of persuasion. Both of these fields require a certain language in order to be successful. Gee said that discourses were hard to join but I disagree. I think that you can join any discourse at any time as long as you can speak the language

            I think of discourses as different cities. I am from the northern suburbs of Chicago. We tend to speak slower and with less of an accent than the people in the city. When I would go down town on the weekends all of the locals would talk extremely fast and draw out their “A’s.” Especially in Chicago, if you don’t speak the lingo you are not openly welcome. People in the city tend to be much cruder than those in the suburbs. I had family from Boston who came to visit Chicago and were not impressed by the attitude the locals possessed.

            Hopefully I can learn more about elaborating on my writing and what terminology to use based on my audience. We all have our own styles of writing that pertains to our majors. In my major for example we use a lot of medical terminology. As athletic trainers, we write documents called SOAP notes. They are summaries of the athlete’s injury and rehab process. The entire document is medical terminology and abbreviations for words that we use. This is a perfect example of both rhetorical and discourses. When writing a soap note we have to include every detail but in terms that only other medical professionals will understand, otherwise it is considered unprofessional. I would much rather just write it out in my own words but I do what I’m taught!