April 29
Brainstorm ideas for project and create outline.
April 30
Write script for project
May 1
Create blog posts for deadline
May 2
Assemble video footage
May 3
Record audio
May 4
Edit video together
May 5
Revise video
May 6
Turn in Finalized project
All of these dates will be mostly done in and around my dorm for writing and assembling video and audio footage. For equipment, I will need to rent a video camera and microphone.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Project 4 Outline
Here is my outline for my final project in ENG 109H! My genre for this project will be a video essay.
Intro:
Open up the video by introducing myself and who I was as a writer at the beginning of the semester before I experienced the course. This self-introduction will actually be a good portion of my video essay because I feel it is important to explain how I was as a writer (I will focus on my procrastination and that I only had knowledge of the essay genre). I will then explain how the rest of the video essay will go over how I evolved as a writer as I went through the course and completed each of the first 3 projects.
Body 1 (Project 1)
Talk about the first project of the semester. I did a QRG for this project. Note how I found this to be the easiest genre to write in, but the project content itself was rather difficult to assemble. Explain how a lot of research went into the project which was new to me. Talk about how I found the blog posts to be rather overwhelming.
Body 2 (Project 2)
Talk about the second project of the semester. Podcast. Explain how I found this project difficult because I procrastinated a lot and ended up having to quickly record and assemble the actual audio for the project. Explain how I also had difficulties with the audio tech (audacity). I didn’t really understand why the podcast would help me as a writer, because it seemed to be more helpful as an entertainer which shouldn’t really be what the course is about.
Body 3 (Project 3)
Third project. Talk about how I actually enjoyed this project because I was passionate about my topic. Explain how I was more comfortable with this project because I knew how to write a good argument essay. Show footage of myself writing.
Conclusion
Go over how my experiences in this course has made me a better writer. Explain all of the aspects of writing that I consider myself to be much stronger in (rhetorical situation/strategies). Talk about personal feelings about the course.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Peer Review 13B
I reviewed Missy Webb's essay on its content/form
One major thing that I would recommend Missy change is to explicitly state what her stance on her argument is in her introduction paper. This would help let the reader know what the paper they are reading is about as well as provide focus to the paper. Another thing about the intro is that there are a lot of rhetorical questions. I liked the usage of them but there seems to be a lot. Perhaps removing some of the rhetorical questions so that they aren't so many could be a good idea.
When citing Twitter, I feel as though saying (@ name on Twitter) is not a very good way to go about it. I would recommend just citing it how you normally would with just the Tweeter's (?) last name, because the work cited is what lets people know where the source is coming from. Furthermore, I noticed there really wasn't a lot of sources used causing reliance on the same sources. While this may not necessarily be a bad thing, I don't think you are supposed to constantly cite the same source a bunch of times in a row as you did in your second paragraph with (Smith). The low amount of sources and 3 of them being from twitter also lowers credibility a bit when a reader sees your sources.
I did like how you made us of first person which I felt helped with appealing to pathos.
One major thing that I would recommend Missy change is to explicitly state what her stance on her argument is in her introduction paper. This would help let the reader know what the paper they are reading is about as well as provide focus to the paper. Another thing about the intro is that there are a lot of rhetorical questions. I liked the usage of them but there seems to be a lot. Perhaps removing some of the rhetorical questions so that they aren't so many could be a good idea.
When citing Twitter, I feel as though saying (@ name on Twitter) is not a very good way to go about it. I would recommend just citing it how you normally would with just the Tweeter's (?) last name, because the work cited is what lets people know where the source is coming from. Furthermore, I noticed there really wasn't a lot of sources used causing reliance on the same sources. While this may not necessarily be a bad thing, I don't think you are supposed to constantly cite the same source a bunch of times in a row as you did in your second paragraph with (Smith). The low amount of sources and 3 of them being from twitter also lowers credibility a bit when a reader sees your sources.
I did like how you made us of first person which I felt helped with appealing to pathos.
Peer Review 13A
Peer review of Jason Boley's essay on its content.
Overall, Jason's essay is well written and he clearly meets the requirements for project 3 as outlined in the rubric. The main thing that I would suggest is to perhaps more explicitly state what you mean by the "compromise" between the various groups that are involved. This would help the reader have a more clear understanding of what exactly the paper is going to be arguing. Also, I would recommend changing the title to something that better states what the paper is about (i.e, the title has no mention of the highway).
I really liked the way that Jason incorporated his sources by having footnotes on each page of which sources he used. I also liked how he included his name and the page number on every page which I need to use in my own essay.
Other than better explaining his paper's argument in the intro, Jason's paper is very well done and researched.
Overall, Jason's essay is well written and he clearly meets the requirements for project 3 as outlined in the rubric. The main thing that I would suggest is to perhaps more explicitly state what you mean by the "compromise" between the various groups that are involved. This would help the reader have a more clear understanding of what exactly the paper is going to be arguing. Also, I would recommend changing the title to something that better states what the paper is about (i.e, the title has no mention of the highway).
I really liked the way that Jason incorporated his sources by having footnotes on each page of which sources he used. I also liked how he included his name and the page number on every page which I need to use in my own essay.
Other than better explaining his paper's argument in the intro, Jason's paper is very well done and researched.
Reflection on Local Revision Process
Well I finished my 3rd Project in the course. Here are some closing thoughts on my experiences in getting my project ready to release!
What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
I felt as though I made strong revisions which not only made my paper's argument stronger, but also made my sentence fluency and grammar more sound.
What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
I had a sort of internal struggle with how many counterarguments I should include in my paper because having too many counterarguments to argue against would cause my paper to be absurdly long.
How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?
Well next week is gathering content for the final project so I feel as though it should be interesting at the least.
How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?
What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
I felt as though I made strong revisions which not only made my paper's argument stronger, but also made my sentence fluency and grammar more sound.
What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
I had a sort of internal struggle with how many counterarguments I should include in my paper because having too many counterarguments to argue against would cause my paper to be absurdly long.
How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?
Well next week is gathering content for the final project so I feel as though it should be interesting at the least.
How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?
I feel good about my project, I feel as though I made a strong argument and wrote my argument in an essay form well.
Editorial Report 13B
Rough Cut:
With this paper, I hope that people hold Trump in a better light. Trump is not the second coming
of Hitler, racist, misogynist, or a homophobe. He holds strong opinions against illegal immigration
which is important to make sure that American citizens are who come first. America shouldn’t have
to cater to illegal immigrants in which a noticeable amount are prone to committing crimes. To be a
strong nation, there must be borders. Donald Trump is the man to make America safe and prosper.
With this paper, I hope that people hold Trump in a better light. Trump is not the second coming
of Hitler, racist, misogynist, or a homophobe. He holds strong opinions against illegal immigration
which is important to make sure that American citizens are who come first. America shouldn’t have
to cater to illegal immigrants in which a noticeable amount are prone to committing crimes. To be a
strong nation, there must be borders. Donald Trump is the man to make America safe and prosper.
Revised:
With this paper, I hope that people hold Trump in a better light. Trump is not the second
coming of Hitler, racist, misogynist, or homophobic. He holds strong stances against illegal immigration which is important to make sure that American citizens are who come first. America shouldn’t have to cater to and care for illegal immigrants of which a noticeable amount are prone to committing crimes. This is not to say that nobody should be allowed to enter the United States. Anybody can come in as long as they come in legally. To be a strong nation, there must be borders. Donald Trump is the man who will make America safe and great again.
Questions
How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
This is my conclusion, and I edited some sentences so that the grammar works better and the sentences flow more. I also added an additional couple sentences which helped summarize my paper's argument a little more.
How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
The form didn't really change much besides being slightly longer.
Editorial Report 13A
Rough Cut:
The Presidential election season is in full swing here in the United States. An important aspect of America’s democratic society, the results from the elections can influence the entire country for years to come. Among the frontrunning candidates to the presidential office is one standout: Donald J. Trump. Trump is a polarizing figure to many people, and tends to draw a lot of emotionally charged criticism and hatred. Many consider Trump to be a bigot, a misogynist, and a homophobe, you name it. This in part due to the treatment Trump gets from the mainstream media, who have seemed to have an agenda against Trump in order to paint him in a negative light thus far in the election season. However, this paper will dispel the common accusations against Trump and talk about why Trump would make a good president by specifically looking at his stances on illegal immigration.
Revised:
About the author: Ryan Wolfe is an Asian-American attending the University of Arizona as a member of the Honors College and is majoring in Electrical and Computer Engineering. Ryan has been involved with politics at the local and state level in Arizona since 2014.
The Presidential election season is in full swing here in the United States. An important aspect of America’s democratic society, the results from the elections can influence the entire country for years to come. Among the frontrunning candidates to the presidency is one standout: Donald J. Trump. Trump is a polarizing figure to many people, and tends to draw a lot of emotionally charged criticism and hatred. Many consider Trump to be a bigot, a misogynist, and a homophobe, you name it. This image is in part due to the treatment Trump gets from the mainstream media, who have seemed to have an agenda against Trump in order to paint him in a negative light thus far in the election season. However, this paper will dispel the common accusations against Trump’s character and then talk about why Trump would make a good president by specifically looking at his stances on illegal immigration.
Questions
How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
In the main introduction paragraph I slightly edited my thesis so that the focus of my paper is more clear to my audience. I also added a segment at the beginning of my paper which gives information about myself as the author. I felt like this established some credibility and give some insight to the reader about who's words they are reading.
How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
The form changed in that there is an additional blurb at the beginning of my essay. I feel as though this makes my essay have more character to it as it establishes information about the author and looks like how you would see an essay in an academic journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)