Coaches Can Read Too

Establishing a Territory:  Branick spends a lot of time discussing the importance of being a coach.  He emphasizes that the level of sport that one is coaching does not matter, whether it be pee wee or pro ball.  He goes on to explain the characteristics that are necessary for effective coaching.  It is clear that Branick wants to show in his article what exactly a coach needs to know and to do so that he can lead a successful team.  Literacies that are important to coaching are also mentioned in Branick’s piece.  He talks about how there are many different literacies incolved such as reading the players, organizing plays, making and pursuing goals, and having  a competitive edge.

Establishing a Niche:  Branick focuses on the emmense preparation that coaches have to go through in order to prepare or be ready for numerous games on a regular schedule.  Many people are already aware of the rules of football, and what ball players have to do in order to play consistently, but people don’t regularly think about the coaches, and that’s what Branick points out.

Occupying the Niche:  Once the territory and the niche have been established, a coach needs to occupy the niche.  The coach puts in effort and time in order to come up with the line-up and the plays and to understand how those plays are going to work on the field.  Occupying the niche comes in when a coach has to put all of that knowledge to use when he is reading the field during a game.  A coach not only has to have the knowledge but he has to be able to know what to do when situations arise, and he has to be able to call the right play to win.

Learning to Serve

            The research question that I believe Tony Mirabelli uses in his article is, “… what is a menu and what does it mean to have a literate understanding of one?” (WAW 544).  Mirabelli writes previously about how the menu is the major form of text for interactions that take place between customers and staff, and so his research question is not just simply about reading menus, but about the understanding of the source of interaction within a restaurant setting.

            Mirabelli collected his data through various methods at the restaurant.  He used participation with customers, observations of interactions, took field notes of observation, interviewed individuals, used tape recordings of individuals, and transcriptions.  His status as a waiter at the facility helped him with his data collection by means of allowing him to experience first hand events, interactions, and behaviors and he could analyze.

            I think Mirabelli’s finding were indicative of the importance of the menu in terms of interaction within the people in the restaurant.  The menu itself is discussed as a genre in the article.  It is filled with restaurant specific jargon that changes from place to place.  A menu can have the same dish written on it for two different establishments, and it could mean two totally different things  What is written in the menu is what allows for the conversation between customer and employee to take place and that is what gives the menu any meaning at all.

Project 4 Proposal

I intend to do my discourse community ethnography project on a local sorority on campus, Pi Beta Phi. My knowledge and connections within that particular community are extensive, because I was a member for the first three years of college.   I know the roles and the dynamics of being a member from recruiting through initiation through becoming a well-established active member, both on and off the chapter’s executive board.  I have the knowledge to be able to explain both the formal aspects of the sorority, such as the recruiting process and the philanthropic events, and the more internal aspects, such as the dynamics between members, and what kind of “power” comes with each level of membership. I understand the jargon and the lexis, and I have access to members in all levels of commitment and membership.  I have access to the past, current, and future president. I have access to both the past and current executive board.  I also have access to new members, new initiates, active members, and past members.  Along with the members, there is specific literature such as the Pi Phi magazine, The Arrow, that I have plenty of access to.

            It would be useful to analyze Pi Beta Phi as a discourse community because it has so many aspects and characteristics of a community that people do not necessarily realize when they think about sororities.  I am hoping that by doing this project and really digging deep in order to uncover the discourse community that is Pi Beta Phi, that I will learn more about what makes communities work.  Through our readings and assignments I have attained a good grasp on what qualifications are necessary to establish a discourse community.  That is knowledge that I definitely want to expand on, but what I really am looking forward to learning more about is the function and conflict within the members of the community.  I think the actual dynamics, between members, that are specific to Pi Beta Phi would be interesting compared to other discourse communities.  Going along with that, I am excited to look into more detail in terms of conflict that actually arises between members, because I think the conflict that takes place in a sorority discourse community is something that is very unique, and I think it is something that others would enjoy having insight to. What I think I can add to other scholars conversations is more detail.  I know that we have been told that there are specific dynamics and conflict, but I feel that I would be able to go into more detail about how those things arise and how they are handled.

            I have a couple sources in mind when thinking about drafting my ethnography of Pi Beta Phi.  One is Ann John’s article, “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice”.  I think her views on “Community Conflicts and Diversity” (WAW 511) are extremely interesting and relatable to the community I plan to study.  Another source I intend to use from our classroom text is the article “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in a New Workplace” by Elizabeth Wardle.  Wardle goes into really good detail about the steps that a newcomer goes through when trying to become an established member in a new workplace community. I think this would be really interesting to relate to Pi Phi because the joining of new members is a really large part of the organization, and I think formal recruitment and the new member process are the two biggest events of the year. Naturally, I will also take time to include Gee’s six characteristics of a discourse community, because I feel like he does a great job of explaining valid points, and I think I would be able to relate those to my community.

           

Johns, Ann M. “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict, and Diversity.” Writing About Writing. 551. Print.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces.” Writing About Writing. 520-527. Print.

Gee, James P. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Writing About Writing. 481-497. Print

POST 16 Identity Authority and Learning to Write in New Workplaces

            In the article, “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” Elizabeth Wardle explains information she took from sociologist Etienne Wenger, which is the three models of belonging.  Those three models that belong to Wenger and are discussed by Wardle are engagement, imagination, and alignment.

            Engagement is the aspect of earning membership or fitting in to a new environment. For example, when a new employee is hired into a work area, they work to bond with current established members of the team through common goals.  The newly hired worker will identify with the older members by working hard to reach the common goal.  They work hard to achieve the common goal so that they can become more intertwined with one or more of the “old-timers”.  If the new member of the team does a poor job of working toward the goal it will result in a poor relationship with the current members. For example in a sorority when new members are brought in and they focus on partying more than the important aspects such as philanthropies and community events, they gain a bad reputation with the active members.

            Imagination occurs after a new member is accepted into the new environment they joined.  Once accepted by current established members, it is the responsibility of the new worker to reach out and create new ideas for the goals.  If the imagination model goes well for the new member, it will advance them in the community and help to cement them as a contributing member.  When a new member in a sorority has become accepted and initiated, they can then begin to contribute ideas for policies or events.  If their proposals go well and work out, it helps them to establish respect with their membership.

Alignment is the last and the most personal of the models. Once a new member has been accepted and has proven to be a successful member, the more established members open up more and form relationship with the new members. These relationships rely on boundaries and common goals.  When new members of a sorority show imagination within the organization they will be noticed and sought out by active members to form relationship such as friends or possibly mentoring.

POST 15

Both Swales and Gee both focus their articles on what they believe a “discourse community” is, and essentially they differ on what defines membership.  Swales takes his own stance that a discourse community membership does not require and actual joining, but more or less that we become members of the discourse communities that we belong to by default.  It is the choices that we make such as our interests, who we communicate with, how we communicate, and other decisions like those that define what communities we are immersed in.  On the opposing side, Gee takes a different approach to explaining discourse communities.  What Gee focuses on is the difference between dominant and non-dominant discourses.  Dominant discourses are the communities that provide its members with social skills alongside other skills that help members with materials or items that are necessary to functioning successfully in society.  Non-dominant communities, according to Gee, are those that provide us with things that advance the member’s social network. Gee also argues that if a person is not a member of a particular dominant community, then they can use their affiliation with their non-dominant community to “fake” dominant membership.

            John’s adds to Swales and Gee’s by introducing the topic of the conflict that takes place within every discourse community, with academic communities being the focus.  Most of the time, “students” who want to become a member of a specific community must comply with the standards that are affiliated with that community.  Conflicts can arise when those standards are not met, or when there are other aspects that prevent membership. To become a member, it is almost fact that sacrifices of other communities must be made, such as family and friends.  For example, in order to become a member of a sorority here on campus, you have to sacrifice time, and that time comes away from other communities such as academics and social.

Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics

In the article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” James Paul Gee explains the concept that he introduces, which is that discourse communities involve constant “tests”.  These tests are things that are given individuals in order to decipher who is a “native” and who is a “non- native”.  By this Gee means who is a member of the community and who is an outsider.  Members of the primary discourse are the members of the discourse community that gives the “tests”, and members of secondary discourse are people that do not pass those “tests”.  He emphasizes in his article that those tests act as the “gates” into the primary discourse community.  If the tests are passed the gates are opened and vice versa.  He also says, “Social groups will not usually give their social goods to those who are not native” (WAW 487).  With this he is saying that people in the primary communities do not like to interact and contribute socially with those who do not pass the “tests” or get through the “gates”.

The best example that I can apply to the tests that Gee talks about involves my former sorority on campus.  The members of the sorority would make up the primary discourse community.  These members have knowledge and traditions that are specific only to members of that community.  Someone who would try to pose as a member would have to be able to correctly identify and define those traditions and knowledge in order to open the “gate” (along with going through recruitment).  I think the concept that Gee introduces is interesting because it definitely does apply to all discourse communities.

The Concept of Discourse Community

1.     1. “A discourse community had a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (WAW 471).  What I interpret this characteristic to mean is that a discourse community must involve those with common goals and not just people who deal with the same things. In his article John Swales uses the example of the Vatican to make his point.  An example that I would use to explain this uses people who go to the mall.  There are many people who go to malls all the time but it is the workers at the mall who have the common goal of bringing in profit.

2.      2.“A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (WAW 471).  Members of a discourse community all interact either directly or indirectly. For example, I worked as a lifeguard at one of three pools in Dublin, Ohio.  I did not meet or work with many lifeguards at the other two pools, but we dealt with the same patrons, we got our checks from the same business, and we all had the same training by the same bosses.  I did not deal with them directly but we had an intercommunication through other shared aspects of the job.

3.     3. “A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback” (WAW 472).  A discourse community has mechanisms of feedback and information that the members of the community participate in. For example, I am a subscribing member of the American College of Sports Medicine.  I get their newsletter every time they send it out but I have yet to look at one yet.  This says that I get the same information and feedback, but I do not participate, and therefore I am not a member of that discourse community.

4.     4.  “A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims” (WAW 472).  Discourse communities have specific genres, or understood expectations of the community.  This is a characteristic that I have a hard time thinking of an example for because I don’t know who to relate it to my own experiences.

5.      5.“In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis” (WAW 473).  Discourse communities have certain ways of communicating, and different abbreviations/terms that are used that is specific to the community.  For example, I am an exercise physiology major, and within my major almost all the communication involves medical terminology and technical terms that would seem foreign to an outside of the major.

6.     6. “A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise” (WAW 473).  A discourse community is made up of expert members and new, novice members, and that is what keeps the community going.  For example, my sophomore year of high school I played volleyball and the team was essentially all graduating seniors and then a few of us newcomers.  After that year ended and the seniors went on to college, we became the expert members who took on younger players and brought them up to the level that we had been brought up to.  That is what kept the varsity team going.

Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing (2011). 471-473. Text.

From Pencils to Pixels

.  I found myself struggling with being able to follow and understand Dennis Baron’s article,” From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies”, more than others we have read.  From what I did understand, I would say that I am mostly indifferent about his arguments.  I think that throughout the piece Baron definitely “shrugs” at technology but at the same time talks fondly of it.  In the beginning he mentions how technology has come to influence his literacy knowledge, but then there are also parts where he emphasizes the flaws of technology.  One thing that I noticed in particular, which has me leaning more towards disagreeing with the prompt, is that I often notice Baron mocking, by using humor, the traditional methods of writing.  When speaking of early writers, Baron jokes by saying, “Surely the walked around all day with a bunch of sharp styluses sticking out of their pocket protectors, and talked of nothing but new ways of making marks on stones” (WAW 427).  This leads to me to believe that Baron is not someone who thinks that only the traditional methods are the best.  In fact, I think that he just might believe that new technologies are fundamentally changing the shape and nature of writing all the time.  He spends a lot of time in his article talking about the way new technology is always influencing literacy and I would say that he almost speaks well of it just as often as he shrugs at it.

The Future of Literacy

The case study that I really connected to the most was Brittney Moraski.  I really felt a similarity to her because she had a great family support system that encouraged her to explore and learn through computers.  My family was similar to this is in the sense that from almost as early as computers were available we had one in the home.  My parents were always encouraging my little brother and I to use it with educational CD-roms andother interactive learning programs.  I think it really benefitted my brother and I to be able to use the computer at such a young age because it allowed us more ways to learn.  I know that some people would think that letting your young child use a computer would be unhealthy but I think the fact that I was allowed to use the computer for educational purposes whenever I wanted, made me one of the kids that didn’t have the urge to use it all the time.  As far as traditional literacy I related to Danielle DeVoss.  Her parents did not appear to be big on letting her use technology but they were very supportive of her literacy in traditional ways.  My family was the same way with me.  Technology was integrated into my literacy, but my parents also made sure I understood the importance of actually picking up a book and reading.  

Comparing Malcom X and Sherman Alexie

Sherman Alexie and Malcom X were both very self-motivated to learn about literacy and become literate themselves.  Alexie mentions in his article, “Superman and Me” that his love of reading and love of books sprouted from his admiration of his father who loved books too.  Malcom X’s quest for literacy came when he was behind bars and no longer wanted to be just a fast-talking hustler.  He mentions in his piece, “Learning to Read” that he wanted to be able to portray his feelings correctly in letters, and that he admired another inmate whose knowledge made him extremely respected and in–control of situations.

Both authors were sort of similar in terms of socioeconomic status at the times when they speak about seeking out literacy.  Both had little money, Alexie was a child on an Indian Reservation. Malcom  X was a prisoner behind bars.  Both were minorities, Malcom X was an African American, Sherman Alexie was a Native American.  They differed quite a bit in their resources, sponsors, and access. For Sherman Alexie, his father was a huge sponsor who was always bringing books home for him to read. Also, he had access to different things through the school and the community such as flyers and comic books as he describes in his piece. Malcom X’s situation was different from that.  He was an inmate in a prison with no constant connection to the outside community. He was able to read books that were provided by the prison but the prison itself is not a place I would consider to be a huge sponsor. 

Sponsors of Literacy

I find it very interesting how Deborah Brandt takes the term literacy and applies it to so many different types of knowledge.  The traditional thought is that literacy is the ability to be able to read and write, but in “Sponsors of Literacy” Brandt opens literacy up to an array of different categories such as, “computer literacy” or “religious literacy”.

My primary literacy sponsors would most definitely be my family and my school. My family, specifically referring to my parents, has always been my main sponsor in terms of increasing my literacy in a multitude of areas.  My parents have always been the ones who have stressed the importance of traditional literacy and they have played a huge role in my literacy in categories such as academics, religious, civic, and technology.  My parents taught me how important learning and trying in school was which increased my academic literacy.  They took me to church and put me through Sunday school classes so that I would have a relationship with the Lord and understand my religion. They also harped on manners and the way in which people should be treated, which I would consider to fall under civic literacy.  Technology would probably be the thing that my parents and I have had a mutual teacher-learner with, and I would say we are still increasing each other’s technological literacy whereas most of the other influences have ceased.  Family as a sponsor is something that I believe allows for a large amount of accessibility to knowledge.  My parents especially made themselves and the resources that they provided extremely accessible to me.

My school has also been a huge sponsor for my academic and technological literacy.  I attended school in a mainly upper-middle class society where we had constant endless access to materials and resources to improve literacy.  In my school there was a library that was very accessible along with computers that were in most of the classrooms and in the library as well.  I would say I was lucky to have the amount of access that I did to learn about different literacies.  I know that the academic and technological literacy that I have gained is largely due to the great amount of access that my school as a sponsor had to offer.

There are few literacies that I can think of that I did not have access to growing up but some that I would have liked to have more knowledge about are specifically academic literacy in terms of foreign language or sign language. Also I would like to have more mechanical literacy, and by that I mean I would like to be more mechanically savvy with electronics and cars and things that I use constantly. That way I would be better equipped to fix things and build things myself.

My WikiExperience

My WikiExperience

            Becoming an author on the well-known and widely controversial Wikipedia is something that I have not ever pictured myself doing. I was originally taught to be a skeptic of Wikipedia, due to the site’s known stigma of not being notable or reputable. By going through this author/editor process, I now have a new outlook on the online encyclopedia, and I am proud to be a contributor.

            When beginning this project, my first step was naturally to think about what article topic I wanted to add to Wikipedia.  I got a couple ideas and then narrowed them down by seeing what topics were already established on the site. I did that by looking through the Article Wizard.  Next, I created my account and found an article to base my page’s layout on.  The entirety of my drafting process took place on my personal Drawing Board.  The Drawing Board is essentially an author’s own personal palate for them to write, save, and make changes before submitting the article.  The writing, the saving, and the editing were things that I did again and again using the Edit Function and then saving my wanted changes.  Once I believed that my article was ready I submitted it for review to the site’s editors.  This process was nerve-racking because myself and my other classmates really wanted our articles to be accepted.  My personal review came back with concerns about my writing style and my sources.  After going through and making the changes that I thought were necessary, I then went live with my article and did not look back.

Throughout my experience I have learned quite a bit about writing in the traditional sense, the social sense, and the recursive sense of the word.

            The traditional sense of writing includes the aspects or skills that basic writing consists of.  These are the skills that one learns in high school or possibly during their freshman college writing course.  These aspects include gathering and quoting sources, effectively summarizing, and writing styles.  With source retrieval, I learned which sources are considered independent and reputable.  I learned this mainly due to the conversation that was sparked from the feedback that our class received after we submitted for review.  In-class sessions also helped me learn how to quote my sources correctly using in-line citations within the article.  Effectively summarizing information was something that I found to be difficult to do especially when pairing it with taking on a neutral writing style.  Summarizing is something that I have always thought to be tricky. When taking information from any source and relaying it to another it is very difficult to change the text and still get across the same message.  It is especially difficult when you have already read how the source worded the information, because you have to ignore that and create new.  Taking the summarized information and trying to write in neutral style was something that I could probably have worked on more before “going live”.  In fact, when submitting my article for review, my writing style was the editor’s biggest reason for rejection.  The issue was that with my topic being an event, Ohio Brew Week, it was hard to find facts that did not double as advertisements.  For example, in my article I listed the brand names of certain beer and what venues sell the beer during Ohio Brew Week.  To me that information seemed like cold hard facts, but on the other hand I can see how that information would be used to advertise the event.

            The social sense of writing is another aspect that I learned a bit more about by while completing this project.  Intertextuality is a big part of social writing and it is something that I had not yet understood until this assignment.  In the article titled “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”, author James E. Porter defines the term as, “…the idea that all texts contain ‘traces’ of other texts and that there can be no text that does not draw on some ideas from some other texts “ (Writing About Writing 86).  When I think about this definition I first picture all works of writing to be puzzles. With intertextuality, the same puzzle pieces are used in an infinite amount of works, it is just the combination of the pieces that varies.  I find this concept to be one that is very interesting and very relatable to my Wikipedia experience.  With Wikipedia, every single article can have a multitude of editors.  These editors are all getting the information that they add or the justification for what information they delete from a different source.  By bringing in different information from different outside sources to create and edit articles, the end product is essentially a work made up of many different works. This is why Wikipedia showcases intertextuality at its finest.  Until this project, I did not understand the importance the collaboration between authors and editors.  I feel like I have always heard that the process of writing involves an author creating, editors fine-tuning, and then a piece is published.  Wikipedia’s style of articles takes that process to a whole new level, where publishing is just the beginning.  Each article is created by someone and then published, or “taken live”.  Published articles are forever open to change by editors.  Often times, authors will put out an article that has just a little bit of information, knowing that other editors will add to it.  That process continues, with the product being the many well established, informational pieces that one can find.  Collaboration is so important because there is never one author or editor who has knows every bit of information about a topic.  With Wikipedia, authors have the ability to write what information they know and then pass it on to the next “Wikipedian”.

            The recursive sense of writing has to do with the idea that writing is not a one-and-done process.  Almost each and every piece that an author writes, with the exception of scrap notes, includes several steps.  Author Anne Lamott writes in her article “Shitty First Drafts” that, “Very few writers really know what they are doing until they’ve done it…They do not type a few stiff warm-up sentences and then find themselves bounding along like huskies across the snow” (Writing About Writing 301).  What I interpret Lamott’s message to be is that no writer sits down, pumps out a few pages, and then calls it a book. Writing is a multi-faceted process including drafting, revising, editing, and re-writing a couple times before a work is considered done.  The steps that I went through to create my Wikipedia article are an example of this multi-faceted process.  First, I researched, found my topic, and made sure that it did not already exist in Wikipedia via the Article Wizard.  Next I began drafting, which took a while because I was not sure what information was relevant, and how I should present the information in a neutral, educational way.  When the first bit of drafting was finished I had a peer look over it in the peer review, and then posted to the Discussion Board.  The Discussion Board is a place where editors can tell a potential author what to include and what not to include in their article.  After reading my peer’s review and looking at the Discussion Board I went through and added information where I saw fit, and I deleted or re-worded some of the text where I felt it was not working.  Then I submitted my article for review and received feedback from more Wikipedia editors.  I took this feedback, looked at my article again, and made a few final changes before “going live” on the web.  The fact that creating my article took that many steps, without even approaching being a finished piece, is a true testament to how multifaceted the writing process is.

            As I mentioned earlier, I have been taught by multiple people to be skeptical of Wikipedia, and that it is not a legitimate source of information.  What I have learned while becoming an author on the site is that that idea is wrong.  Wikipedia, with all of its movement and constant fluid editing, is an honest and reputable source of information.  In this 21^st century, filled with new technology and inventions, Wikipedia is changing the way information is available.  Being able to be constantly reviewed allows for the online encyclopedia to always be current and relevant.  Wikipedia is not something that will become outdated because it is constantly changing along with the topics that make up its articles.  I think that is the reason Wikipedia is almost better than tangible, traditional methods of research because it evolves and changes with the current times.  Yes, it is possible for vandalization to occur, and for pages to be filled with wrong information, but that pales in comparison to the amount of solid reputable information that it provides.  I am extremely glad that I was able to do this project and become a part of the knowledge of the future.

Porter, James E.”Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing (2011): 86. Print.

Lamott, Anne. “Shitty First Drafts.” Writing About Writing (2011): 301. Print.

Shitty First Drafts

In the piece “Shitty First Drafts”, Anne Lamott writes very comically about the process of writing and the assumption about how people think the writing process goes.  The assumption that Lamott refers to in the article is that all established writers are just constantly filled with endless talent and new ideas, and that every time they sit down to write a piece it just flows beautifully until poof…another masterpiece.  I think this assumption is one that is so prevalent because as readers, we never get to see anything but the finished product.  One does not pick up a writer’s book and see their “shitty first draft” along the revisions that they made.  When readers receive the author’s writings, they are finished, final.  What Lamott explains is that she believes that all writing begins with a rough draft.  She believes that in the beginning of the process writers just put down whatever is on their minds, absolutely anything that they can think of.  The next step according to Lamott is going back through and deleting or cleaning up everything in the original word vomit.  Then finally, authors go through their pieces one last time correcting all of the small minuet details, and then the work is finished.

Wikipedia allows us to access “shitty first drafts” by giving editors access to all of the edits that have been made to the site’s articles.  By doing this, it allows us to see the first original, “shitty” draft and know what has been done to it.

Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts

In Barbara Tomlinson’s piece, “Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts” she explains eight different metaphors that relate to how an author revises their writing. I found myself being able to relate to a handful of the metaphors but for this post I chose to discuss Casting and Recasting, Sculpting, and Painting. I related to Casting and Recasting in the way that I sometimes change important aspects of my writings similar to recasting new lead roles. By important aspects I mean things like my introduction or synopsis or things that really stand out to the reader. I found Sculpting and Painting to be things that I relate to with my more of my works than Casting and Recasting. When I being drafting what I try to do is write absolutely every idea I have down however sloppy it may look. Once that is finished, I go through and make the big changes like deleting unneeded paragraphs. Then I go back through and make smaller, finer changes such as changing sentence structure and grammatical errors. That process to me is what I took to be Sculpting.  I took Painting to be something that is similar to Sculpting but more of a “building up” process than a “breaking down”.  When relating painting to my works, I find it to be the process where I go through several times and add layers of information where I feel it is missing. I found Tomlinson’s piece to be an interesting look at the way people revise.

In terms of Wikipedia, the history and discussion tabs are two that definitely give an author or editor ideas or guidance with revising. With “View History”, one can look back and see the types of edits that have been made to the piece. This could help by allowing someone to see what others did to change the article and it could spark ideas. With “Discussion”, one can see what is acceptable and what is expected by the editors of the site and that could help shape what information a writer could use and how they could present it.

Toward a Composing Model of Reading

I feel like the five functions that Tierney and Pearson talk about in their piece, “Toward a Composing Model of Reading” is not something that we readily think about as we are writing, but after reading the article they are all such obvious things that occur during the writing process. With my Wikipedia article I recall that I utilized and completed all five of the functions.  First of all was planning which I did by researching my article to figure out what information I would put include, as well as looking around for model articles and figuring out my desired layout.  Next I took on the task of drafting which, like was mentioned in the article, I found to be one of the more difficult aspects of composing. With drafting I had to figure out where and how I wanted my article to begin, which is what I understood to be “the lead” in the article. Once I had my lead drafting more or less flowed with one idea flowing into the next. Aligning was probably up there with drafting as far as difficulty goes. The article explained aligning as stances that the writer assumes with their audience. The alignment that I took on in my article was neutral. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia so within it there is no room for persuasion or advertising. The topic that I did my piece on made neutrality challenging but I think I did well with it. Following alignment was revising. The Tierney and Pearson mention in their article that writing is not just taking ideas and slapping them on paper, but it is a process of going back and editing what you wrote. This is something that I find to be essential in any piece, and it is something that I definitely used in composing my Wikipedia article. I constantly was going back in and changing, deleting, and rearranging my text in order to achieve the neutrality and the information level that I wanted.  Lastly the texts talks about monitoring. I took monitoring to be a process that is happen concurrently with all of the other functions discussed in this piece. Monitoring is the process of checking yourself as you plan, draft, align, and revise. While creating my article I was constantly monitoring myself to make sure that what I was presenting and how I presented it was correct. I found this article to be very interesting because, as a I mentioned before, these five functions are things that must occur in creating a piece of writing but it is not something that people really recognize themselves as doing.

My Wikipedia Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Brew_Week

"Intertextuality and the Discourse Community"

In “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” Porter defines intertexuality by saying that writing has bits and pieces of other writings that make it up. This means that when an article writes a piece, that piece is essentially made from putting together parts of numerous other writings. If what Porter says is true, then he is overriding what was mentioned at the beginning which was that writings should be original and autonomous. Porter’s ideas challenge Murray’s idea that all writing is autobiographical because it puts the emphasis on deriving the piece from multiple other sources/pieces where as Murray makes his claim that writing is autobiographical and  our writings are reflections of our own beliefs, thoughts, and feelings. Personally I think that both authors make valid arguments and that writings can come from both personal beliefs/ experiences as well as other writings that the author has read.

"All Writing is Autobiography"

In "All Writing is Autobiography," Donald Murray is asking the audience to think about all of the things that shape and individuals writing. One's experiences, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes are all constructs that affect the way that people write which is what Murray means by autobiography. For example, two authors can write about the exact same topic using the same number of facts, same layout, etc., but the way they write it will still be different because they each have different personal items that affect them. In every piece of writing a person does, they add a little bit of themselves. This relates to the kinds of writing we find in Wikipedia or an encyclopedia because those are pieces that are all made to be objective. Objective means without personal influence so it should all appear to be written the exact same author, but if you look closely enough at the articles you can see bits and pieces of individuality.

Rhetorical Situations

In "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents," the author loosely defines rhetorical situations as events, acitivities, or situations that a rhetor shapes with particular discourse in order to get people to do something. Examples of rhetorical situations are advertisements where certain language and images are used in order to achieve a goal of motivating the reader to buy into the product. The text goes on to explain the four constituents of rhetorical constraints: exigence, rhetors, audiences, constraints. The exigence is more or less the problem or need of the situation. It is the reason that the discourse is necessary. For example in the case of a shoe add using a celebrity to promote the product, the exigence would include the company’s need to sell people the shoe and also the consumers desire/need to get the benefits of the shoe and to relate to the celebrity figure. The rhetor is the person or figure that generates the specific language and communication being used to persuade in the situation.  The audience is more or less self-explanatory. The audience is the person or group that the rhetor is trying to persuade via discourse.  Constraints are the last of the constituents. The constraints of a rhetorical situation are essentially limitations placed on the rhetor that control what can be said and how it can be said in order to achieve persuasion. A compound rhetorical situation occurs when there are multiple situations that relate to one another and combine to form a larger situation.

As college students and writers, it is important to understand rhetorical situations because they are so prevalent in our learning and daily lives. We need to be able to understand rhetoric and the constraints that can be put on a situation in order to become more well-rounded, established writers/readers.

"The Phenomenology of Error"

In “The Phenomenology of Error,” Joseph Williams makes his point that linguistic errors should be more appropriately looked at as social constructs. By this he means that errors should be viewed more or less as an exchange between the writer and the reader. Also, these exchanges made between writer and reader are going to be different case to case due to how the different readers view the writing and what each of them believe to be considered an error or not. Just because one person believes one thing to be an error does not make it fact, and vice versa for someone who does not think there are errors where errors exist. As far as Wikipedia goes I think that it operates the exact way that Williams discusses in his piece, it operates as a social exchange. One author comes in and creates an article and then the authors after that go through and fix what they believe to be errors or add information as they see fit, but the social exchange itself is not the reason for the negative perception that Wikipedia gets. The reason Wikipedia is characterized as inaccurate and error-prone is due to the fact that the authors that create and edit the articles are “average joes” like you and I. People do not believe that the person making their coffee at the café and the cashier at the department store can be credible authors. This is directly related to the 2005 study of Wikipedia that found that it is essentially equal in errors to that of Encyclopedia Britannica. People put a lot of weight on credentials and status when it comes to what sources they are willing to trust.  Encyclopedia Britannica is easily trusted as a source because people see that it was written by professionals and it is a published source. Then on the other end, Wikipedia is not easily trusted because it is essentially written by anyone who feels like writing and it is constantly changing and being revised. 

My English308J Introduction

This is my blog that I have created for my English 308J course with Matt Vetter.  

              

                My name is Nicole Sieber and I am from Dublin, Ohio which is right outside of Columbus.  I am a senior in the exercise physiology program and I am hoping to attend physical therapy school next fall.  As far as my  experience in English 151 goes, it was not bad but it was nothing special. The class that I was enrolled in was focused almost solely on analytic writing so our assignments consisted of interpreting and analyzing magazine or electronic  articles and ads. I thought that the course was fine but I did not necessarily see the importance of focusing solely on that topic, which I know of course is just simply my personal opinion.  I would have liked to learn things that more realistically applied to daily life or to our futures. For example, it would have been great to have focused a little on writing resumes or general professional writing to use when looking for a job or applying to graduate programs. The most rewarding part of that course was doing well on the assignments and in the class overall.  As far as the least rewarding part I am not sure, but I might say that it was not studying other topics besides analytical writing.

                  I think the course design of this English 308J course looks fine but I am still unclear as to what “writing about writing” means.  I think that once we start up with the course and we begin doing activities I will have a better grasp on how I feel about the material. As far as incorporating technology into the assignments I think that is a good idea and I am interested on getting started on the blogs and the Wikipedia project. What I am apprehensive about is that I will not fully understand the concepts that we are discussing when it comes to studying writing and rhetoric and I am afraid that what we learn will not be anything that I can apply practically to my daily or future activities outside of this course. All in all I am ready to get started and hopefully do well.