Option #1 How were you taught to revise? When you revise for school, do you tend to focus on micro issues, as the students in Sommers’ study did? Or do you focus on global issues of argument and audience, as the experienced writers in Sommers’ study did? How did you learn your revision techniques? Describe your writing process using Sommers' terms, and then analyze why you write the way you do. Use specific examples from both Sommers' research and your own experiences.
When I receive a writing assignment the very first thing I do is cringe. Then I sigh. Then I accept. After I’ve done these I get real and begin thinking about the assignment as a whole. Then I’ll start to break it down. I will take the assignment and begin to form an idea about what I want the paper to convey. For example, I had an International Relations assignment to write an analytical memo pretending it was addressed to the State Department. That was the only information I received. We were to come up with a question relating to a current international issue, mine was the Middle East. In the past I’ve had difficulty conceptualizing how a paper will work with minimum instruction but over time I’ve become better at seeing “the big picture”. I had to turn in a specific question/thesis to my professor for approval on my analytical memo and from that I could begin to write the assignment. My question was “Should the U.S. begin dialogue with Hamas in order to facilitate a reasonable stability with Israel?”
Once I have the main idea I physically write it down on paper. There is something beneficial to me about writing the idea down versus typing it into a word document. After I have my thesis I begin to do research to support it. As a rule, I always try to find at least 4 legitimate sources to support my argument. For my analytical memo I had to turn my sources in for approval also, to ensure there wasn’t any bleeding heart liberal bias (and I assume the same for the neocons slant out there). Having adequate unbiased support for the paper is essential to the writer’s credibility. Allowing enough time for research and clearly choosing one side of an argument is important. I often find that through research, I not only find support for my argument, but also learn new things that will enrich my paper by expanding my argument. I’m not sure if this translates into this writing assignment per se but this method bodes very well for past IR or Political Science papers I’ve had to do. An experienced writer in Sommers’ articles states: “My first draft is usually very scattered. In rewriting, I find the line of the argument. After the argument is resolved, I am much more interested in word choice than phrasing.” I differ from this in that I like to have my ducks in a row with regards to argument and already have the essential research to shape what I’m arguing in my first draft.
Following research, I put together an outline. Outlining was the bane of my existence back in the day, but it taught me that its not only a fantastic way to study but also works really well for writing. I take a half-day or so to marinate on the outline and then begin writing the draft. I write as much as I can initially. The text doesn’t always flow as it should in my first drafts but I like to get as much as I can written down. Maybe it’s psychological but I generally feel better about the draft if I’m close to the word count or page minimum set forth by the professor.
With regards to revision, I don’t clearly remember being taught a specific way to revise in any high school writing, but that was over 13 years ago. In my college experience thus far, I’ve always had to submit an initial draft for either peer or professor review and then advised on what needs to be revised. As far as my first draft writing process, I find myself constantly rewriting as I write, much like the experienced writers Sommer’s describes in her article. I re-read the text and make additions or deletions to my content. I’ve only recently begun to think about my audience being someone other than my professor, which lumps me into Sommers’ student writer category. As I’m writing this I have my previous English 1A professor in my mind stressing to the class the importance of verb time. It’s hard to imagine a different audience.
After I feel I have a decent first draft I walk away. By decent I mean the draft is close to the appropriate length and that it follows the outline I made. After some time I get back to my computer and the document. I like to print out a hard copy because I find that it’s easier to notice grammatical errors, whether the paper is organized and flows or if it is choppy and really just any weirdness that might be in the paper. Once my first review is done I take the notes I made and begin to revise.
Some of my second and oftentimes final revisions follow that of the student’s strategies, primarily rewording. I do not like seeing the same word repeat throughout the text. I do use a thesaurus if I cannot think of a different and appropriate word myself. I also adjust paragraphs if I feel they would fit better in a different section of the paper. Following this I reread the full paper. If I feel that it sounds natural and stays on track and the spelling and grammar are checked, I consider the paper complete!
From this assignment I see that I fit into Sommer’s student writing category. While I rewrite as I write, as some of the experienced writers do, I focus more on micro issues versus global issues, like audience. I do feel I stay on track with the argument I’m making, however, there are times when I could expand the argument further, by providing additional examples or doing more research. I can say that I’m aware of these issues and make a concerted effort to avoid them, but more often than not, I resort back to the trivial parts of the writing processes like rewording and avoiding lexical repetition. This I feel categorizes me in Sommers' definition of "student writers" as described in her article “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.”
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Questions for They Say/I Say
1. What is the purpose of this book? What idea or argument are the authors putting forth?
I think the purpose of this book is to educate young/inexperienced writers a way to effectively argue an idea or expression through the use of writing templates, primarily, the They say/I say template.
2. What is the "They Say / I Say" template? Have you ever used this in your writing?
The They say/I say template is a way to structure an argument using a statement or idea by a person, a group, or a large population, and then countering the statement using your own ideas or statement. I have probably used this template at some point in my writing but cannot recall a specific example. Going forward I will likely use this template, or one mentioned in the book.
3. The authors note that much intellectual writing is motivated by disagreement, but at the same time, agreement is not ruled out (Pg 8). What do they mean by this?
They mean exactly that. Their template works for whether you agree, disagree, or neither. Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously is recommended by the authors as it "present a more complicated argument, while containing that complication within a clear 'on the one hand/on the other hand' framework."
4. Do templates stifle creativity?
According to the text, no. I can neither confirm nor deny this. I suppose we shall see.
5. What is the relationship between your thesis and the views of others, according to the authors? (pgs 18 - 19)
The relationship between your thesis and the views of others, according to the authors, should be presented in the following way: begin with a summary of the views of others to present the claim (that you'll be making) as part of a larger idea and follow with your own ideas regarding the claim. This way the other's work provides some of the framework and will clarify the issue your writing about.
I think the purpose of this book is to educate young/inexperienced writers a way to effectively argue an idea or expression through the use of writing templates, primarily, the They say/I say template.
2. What is the "They Say / I Say" template? Have you ever used this in your writing?
The They say/I say template is a way to structure an argument using a statement or idea by a person, a group, or a large population, and then countering the statement using your own ideas or statement. I have probably used this template at some point in my writing but cannot recall a specific example. Going forward I will likely use this template, or one mentioned in the book.
3. The authors note that much intellectual writing is motivated by disagreement, but at the same time, agreement is not ruled out (Pg 8). What do they mean by this?
They mean exactly that. Their template works for whether you agree, disagree, or neither. Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously is recommended by the authors as it "present a more complicated argument, while containing that complication within a clear 'on the one hand/on the other hand' framework."
4. Do templates stifle creativity?
According to the text, no. I can neither confirm nor deny this. I suppose we shall see.
5. What is the relationship between your thesis and the views of others, according to the authors? (pgs 18 - 19)
The relationship between your thesis and the views of others, according to the authors, should be presented in the following way: begin with a summary of the views of others to present the claim (that you'll be making) as part of a larger idea and follow with your own ideas regarding the claim. This way the other's work provides some of the framework and will clarify the issue your writing about.
Difficulty 2 First Draft
I read the introduction and first chapter of They Say/I Say and had a few concerns. I think the reading itself, the style and language used was easy to understand but the examples they used to explain their templates were slightly confusing.
The idea of using templates to write and effectively make an argument is a new concept to me. It makes sense. I see the potential for templates to make starting a paper easier. I think that over time though, papers could become too similar, or even boring, if they're written using the same format each time.
An example they used to demonstrate a "they say/I say" template was David Zinczenko's essay titled "Don't Blame the Eater". He writes that a group of obese kids are suing McDonald's for making them fat. He then poses a question about middle-aged men, speeding tickets, and Porsche attempting to liken the two (fat kids and the male midlife crisis). He mentions personal responsibility but then in the next sentence he states that he can sympathize with the "portly fast-food patrons" because he used to be one. What exactly is his argument? I am unable to decipher who "they" would be/what "they" are saying. It also is confusing as to what his stance is on the issue, because while he can "sympathize", his questioning of "personal responsibility" leads me, the reader, to believe that he doesn't necessarily agree with the lawsuit.
The idea of using templates to write and effectively make an argument is a new concept to me. It makes sense. I see the potential for templates to make starting a paper easier. I think that over time though, papers could become too similar, or even boring, if they're written using the same format each time.
An example they used to demonstrate a "they say/I say" template was David Zinczenko's essay titled "Don't Blame the Eater". He writes that a group of obese kids are suing McDonald's for making them fat. He then poses a question about middle-aged men, speeding tickets, and Porsche attempting to liken the two (fat kids and the male midlife crisis). He mentions personal responsibility but then in the next sentence he states that he can sympathize with the "portly fast-food patrons" because he used to be one. What exactly is his argument? I am unable to decipher who "they" would be/what "they" are saying. It also is confusing as to what his stance is on the issue, because while he can "sympathize", his questioning of "personal responsibility" leads me, the reader, to believe that he doesn't necessarily agree with the lawsuit.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Writing Assignment #1: Second Draft
Option #1 How were you taught to revise? When you revise for school, do you tend to focus on micro issues, as the students in Sommers’ study did? Or do you focus on global issues of argument and audience, as the experienced writers in Sommers’ study did? How did you learn your revision techniques? Describe your writing process using Sommers' terms, and then analyze why you write the way you do. Use specific examples from both Sommers' research and your own experiences.
When I receive a writing assignment the very first thing I do is cringe. Then I sigh. Then I accept. After I’ve done these I get real and begin thinking about the assignment as a whole. Then I’ll start to break it down. I will take the assignment and begin to form an idea about what I want the paper to convey. For example, I had an International Relations assignment to write an analytical memo pretending it was addressed to the State Department. That was the only information I received. We were to come up with a question relating to a current international issue, mine was the Middle East. In the past I’ve had difficulty conceptualizing how a paper will work with minimum instruction but over time I’ve become better at seeing “the big picture”. I had to turn in a specific question/thesis to my professor for approval on my analytical memo and from that I could begin to write the assignment. My question was “Should the U.S. begin dialogue with Hamas in order to facilitate a reasonable stability with Israel?”
Once I have the main idea I physically write it down on paper. There is something beneficial to me about writing the idea down versus typing it into a word document. (I’ve noticed my handwriting has really begun to deteriorate because I type so much more than write.) After I have my thesis I begin to do research to support it. As a rule, I always try to find at least 4 legitimate sources to support my argument. For my analytical memo I had to turn my sources in for approval also, to ensure there wasn’t any bleeding heart liberal bias (and I assume the same for the neocons slant out there). Having adequate unbiased support for the paper is essential to the writer’s credibility. Allowing enough time for research and clearly choosing one side of an argument is important for the paper's success. I often find that through research, I not only find support for my argument, but also learn new things that will enrich my paper by expanding my argument. I’m not sure if this translates into this writing assignment per se but this method bodes very well for past International Relations or Political Science papers I’ve had to do.
Following research, I put together an outline. Outlining was the bane of my existence back in the day, but it taught me that its not only a fantastic way to study but also works really well for writing. I take a half-day or so to marinate on the outline and then begin writing the draft. I make sure I have a full glass of water, a beverage with caffeine, and a full belly. If I’m hungry then I can’t focus on anything else and nothing will get done!
I write as much as I can initially. The text doesn’t always flow as it should in my first drafts but I like to get as much as I can written down. Maybe it’s psychological but I generally feel better about the draft if I’m close to the word count or page minimum set forth by the professor.
With regards to revision, I don’t clearly remember being taught a specific way to revise in any high school writing, but that was over 13 years ago. In my college experience thus far, I’ve always had to submit an initial draft for either peer or professor review and then advised on what needs to be revised. As far as my first draft writing process, I find myself constantly rewording as the students did in Nancy Sommer’s article and as the experienced writers who “rewrite as they write”. I reread the text and make additions or deletions to my content. I’ve only recently begun to think about my audience being someone other than my professor. As I’m writing this I have my previous English 1A professor in my mind stressing to the class the importance of verb time. It’s hard to imagine a different audience.
After I feel I have a decent first draft I walk away. By decent I mean the draft is close to the appropriate length and that it follows the outline I made. After some time I get back to my computer and the document. I like to print out a hard copy because I find that it’s easier to notice grammatical errors, whether the paper is organized and flows or if it is choppy and really just any weirdness that might be in the paper. Once my first review is done I take the notes I made and begin to revise.
Some of my second and oftentimes final revisions follow that of the student’s strategies, primarily rewording. I do not like seeing the same word repeat throughout the text. I do use a thesaurus if I cannot think of a different and appropriate word myself. I also adjust paragraphs if I feel they would fit better in a different section of the paper. Following this I reread the full paper. If I feel that it sounds natural and stays on track and the spelling and grammar are checked, I save and print.
While I rewrite as I write, as some of the experienced writers do, I focus more on micro issues versus global issues, like audience. I feel I stay on track with the argument I’m making, though, there is always room to expand the argument further by providing additional examples or doing more research. I can say that I’m aware of these issues and make a concerted effort to avoid them, but more often than not, I resort back to the trivial parts of the writing processes like rewording and avoiding lexical repetition. This I feel categorizes me in Sommers' definition of "student writers".
When I receive a writing assignment the very first thing I do is cringe. Then I sigh. Then I accept. After I’ve done these I get real and begin thinking about the assignment as a whole. Then I’ll start to break it down. I will take the assignment and begin to form an idea about what I want the paper to convey. For example, I had an International Relations assignment to write an analytical memo pretending it was addressed to the State Department. That was the only information I received. We were to come up with a question relating to a current international issue, mine was the Middle East. In the past I’ve had difficulty conceptualizing how a paper will work with minimum instruction but over time I’ve become better at seeing “the big picture”. I had to turn in a specific question/thesis to my professor for approval on my analytical memo and from that I could begin to write the assignment. My question was “Should the U.S. begin dialogue with Hamas in order to facilitate a reasonable stability with Israel?”
Once I have the main idea I physically write it down on paper. There is something beneficial to me about writing the idea down versus typing it into a word document. (I’ve noticed my handwriting has really begun to deteriorate because I type so much more than write.) After I have my thesis I begin to do research to support it. As a rule, I always try to find at least 4 legitimate sources to support my argument. For my analytical memo I had to turn my sources in for approval also, to ensure there wasn’t any bleeding heart liberal bias (and I assume the same for the neocons slant out there). Having adequate unbiased support for the paper is essential to the writer’s credibility. Allowing enough time for research and clearly choosing one side of an argument is important for the paper's success. I often find that through research, I not only find support for my argument, but also learn new things that will enrich my paper by expanding my argument. I’m not sure if this translates into this writing assignment per se but this method bodes very well for past International Relations or Political Science papers I’ve had to do.
Following research, I put together an outline. Outlining was the bane of my existence back in the day, but it taught me that its not only a fantastic way to study but also works really well for writing. I take a half-day or so to marinate on the outline and then begin writing the draft. I make sure I have a full glass of water, a beverage with caffeine, and a full belly. If I’m hungry then I can’t focus on anything else and nothing will get done!
I write as much as I can initially. The text doesn’t always flow as it should in my first drafts but I like to get as much as I can written down. Maybe it’s psychological but I generally feel better about the draft if I’m close to the word count or page minimum set forth by the professor.
With regards to revision, I don’t clearly remember being taught a specific way to revise in any high school writing, but that was over 13 years ago. In my college experience thus far, I’ve always had to submit an initial draft for either peer or professor review and then advised on what needs to be revised. As far as my first draft writing process, I find myself constantly rewording as the students did in Nancy Sommer’s article and as the experienced writers who “rewrite as they write”. I reread the text and make additions or deletions to my content. I’ve only recently begun to think about my audience being someone other than my professor. As I’m writing this I have my previous English 1A professor in my mind stressing to the class the importance of verb time. It’s hard to imagine a different audience.
After I feel I have a decent first draft I walk away. By decent I mean the draft is close to the appropriate length and that it follows the outline I made. After some time I get back to my computer and the document. I like to print out a hard copy because I find that it’s easier to notice grammatical errors, whether the paper is organized and flows or if it is choppy and really just any weirdness that might be in the paper. Once my first review is done I take the notes I made and begin to revise.
Some of my second and oftentimes final revisions follow that of the student’s strategies, primarily rewording. I do not like seeing the same word repeat throughout the text. I do use a thesaurus if I cannot think of a different and appropriate word myself. I also adjust paragraphs if I feel they would fit better in a different section of the paper. Following this I reread the full paper. If I feel that it sounds natural and stays on track and the spelling and grammar are checked, I save and print.
While I rewrite as I write, as some of the experienced writers do, I focus more on micro issues versus global issues, like audience. I feel I stay on track with the argument I’m making, though, there is always room to expand the argument further by providing additional examples or doing more research. I can say that I’m aware of these issues and make a concerted effort to avoid them, but more often than not, I resort back to the trivial parts of the writing processes like rewording and avoiding lexical repetition. This I feel categorizes me in Sommers' definition of "student writers".
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Difficulty 1 : Anne Lamott's Article.
In Ann Lamott’s article titled “Shitty First Drafts”, she begins in the first paragraph with a broad generalization of writers, stating that all writers go through the process of writing horrible first drafts in order to get to a “terrific third draft”. She uses wit and humor throughout the article to, perhaps, distract us from the fact that she is no authority on writers, only a writer herself. Lumping all writers into one group of those that write “shitty first drafts” is a risky thing to do. I was taught that generalizations should be avoided, especially when making an argument. She may be doing this for the sake of the article but I feel it decreases her credibility a bit by generalizing.
Lamott says that the “first draft is the child’s draft where you let it all pour out and romp all over the place…”. I believe she is saying that you should get something, anything, on to the paper. While I agree that a blank page staring back at you can be intimidating, often making the writing process that much harder, allowing the first draft to be comparable to a child’s behavior does not work for me. I was taught that a rough draft is just that, rough, but it also needs to be cohesive and relevant to our main idea. In my last English class, English 1C: Critical Thinking, at City College San Francisco, we had to turn our rough drafts in to our professor which were then passed back out for peer evaluation. He noted the students that did not have a paper to turn in. He also noted if the rough drafts were nonsensical or not the proper length (similar to that of the final paper). Coming to his class with a quote like “Well so what Mr. Poopy Pants” would just not fly.
I think that Anne Lamott has some valid points, primarily that yes, rough drafts tend to be quite different than the final, but I do disagree with some of her methods of getting to the final draft. My main issue with her methods is exactly how rough a first draft should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
