Hello! I will post all of my works in progress under this title, as well as any reflections on my writing or similar projects I’ve “completed”.
Reflective Portfolio game-plan
At present I have begun analyzing two of my three articles, but I have not yet produced a “working argument”.
– Connect all four articles with learning outcomes
– Develop working argument (today)
– Complete Spinning Sci Revision (Saturday)
– Finish two late blogs (Sunday)
– Complete Website (Sunday)
– Compose all article page rough drafts (Monday, 5th)
– Revise working argument
– Outline Reflective Essay
– Get advice
– Write up Essay draft (Mon, 12th)
– Revise, get advice, complete
Blog Entry Revision Exercise
Original (from “Calling all Heros”, paragraph #3):
So she had to maintain her readers’ attention while growing it into something a little more noble and actionable. The goal isn’t just more readers, it’s more people willing to take some action. Schulz illustrates the danger with both current science and accounts, and scientific prophecy. She pulls no punches in describing the potential (guaranteed) devastation and the exact amount of pain and damage it will extract from those defenseless against it. She records personal anecdotes of interviews with persons of authority on the subject, and their message is surprisingly grim. “We can’t save them,” Kevin Cupples says. “I’m not going to sugarcoat it and say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’ll go around and check on the elderly.’ No. We won’t.” Lines like these are shocking, and intentionally so. They’re meant to open our eyes to something hard to accept.
So Schulz must maintain her readers’ attention while growing it into something a little more noble and actionable. The goal isn’t just more readers, it’s more people willing to take some action. Schulz illustrates the danger with both current science and accounts, and scientific prophecy. She pulls no punches in describing the potential devastation and the exact amount of pain the earthquake will extract from those defenseless against it. She includes quotes from interviews with persons of authority on the subject, and as each new voice is heard the prophecy becomes darker and darker.
“Twenty-nine per cent of the state’s population is disabled, and that figure rises in many coastal counties. ‘We can’t save them,’ Kevin Cupples says. ‘I’m not going to sugarcoat it and say, “Oh, yeah, we’ll go around and check on the elderly.” No. We won’t.’ Nor will anyone save the tourists. Washington State Park properties within the inundation zone see an average of seventeen thousand and twenty-nine guests a day.” (Schulz)
Lines like these are shocking, and intentionally so. But she includes them for much more then dramatic effect. They’re meant to open our eyes to a message that’s hard to accept- something violent and frightening- but at the same time all the more impossible to ignore because of the authority of the speakers.
“Curious” by Kim Todd
- What is her argument?
Curiosity in humans is inherent but usually also inherently damaging. The way we can tend to objectify the things we are curious about can cause us to devalue them and leads to all sorts of mistakes.
- Quote or passage supporting my claim that 1 is true
Her example of Bluebeard, his “collection—of women’s heads, which he could study without having to contemplate their subjectivity, their humanity.”
- Interpretation of 2, how do you understand it?
Todd is pointing out how things we are curious about become much easier to mistreat when we objectify them. She’s using an extreme example, but the connection between curiosity and wickedness is clear.
1. What is her argument?
Emily Graslie decides what goes on display in the field museum.
Things usually on display generally include experiences people haven’t had, and mysterious items such as, diamonds. Those that are stored and tend not to be displayed are those that are too complicated or not immediately formidable to be easily enjoyed.
She concludes these examples by saying that curiosity is valuable, but it can’t be explored solely through technology or the internet because those things are finite. Thus “curiosity correspondents” are essential, because people are the only real mediums for the furthering of exploration and curiosity to a limitless degree.
2. Quote or otherwise from Graslie supporting my claim that 1 is true
She states the at technically (or at least ideally) everyone is a curiosity correspondent.
3. Interpretation of evidence in 2, how do you understand it?
I think what she’s saying is that humans, as the source of curiosity, are therefore really the source of exploration. Nothing is new without someone to understand it and pursue it.
Why does our Transforming Science Topic matter?
Our products provide a renewable and independent energy source to satisfy a growing need for robust, portable electricity.
Differences In Presentation: Two Articles on the MuddyBot
The Georgia Tech Article:
-More detailed, lists specific contributing researchers and institutions.
-Gives quotes and dialogue from the researchers.
-Extensive video including interviews.
The Popular Science Article:
-More confined to general ideas, mostly just about ancient invertebrates.
-Much shorter, geared toward the populous.
-Very short “video”, gif comparison at the start, the full video is less important, at the bottom of the page.
Learning from Peer Review
My classmate had some very helpful input. One important note was about keeping a balance of content. I tend to run on tangents that stretch my topic out of focus. Following in the same lines, I must maintain some formal consistency of purpose throughout my work, particularly in coordination of the introduction and conclusion (where I could have done better in this case).
As far as revisions:
-All of my writing could be improved upon. The sentences communicate, but most do not do so in the most succinct, effective and pleasing way I think I could manage.
-I think my classmates comment about lack of reinstatement was perhaps a bit understated. This is a key aspect I can improve upon.
Evaluation of Josh’s Spinning Science Project
Rhetorical Awareness: Competent. A clear purpose to the article, fulfilled by the rest of the content. Very explicit argument, but the incites I read were mostly predictable, not as much unexpected.
Stance: Mature. Many different implications to each part of the project. Everything pointed back to your assertion that L’Occitane had an intricate and very effective ad strategy.
Development of Ideas: Competent/Mature. The ethos idea was very well thought out and described, as well as the logos example.
Organization: Competent. Partitioned well. The 3 sections did not seem to build upon each other as much as relate individually to your argument. Transitions were pretty smooth, nice.
Conventions: Competent. A solid groundwork. Combing over it a little more you could get rid of some errors (like “proven” instead of “proved” etc.). Basic edits, just a read through to get rid of them.
Design for Medium: Competent. All pictures of the add were relevant to their section. Some more variety could be had in terms of formatting to add interest to the photo essay, making it even more engaging.
Spinning Science Project: Gaming Hardware (Intro)
Gaming culture at present in the Western world is at an interesting stage. With the main focus being on immersive entertainment, little thought is given to anything outside the gaming world. In fact I would argue that gamers in today’s world game primarily as an escape from the rest of their lives. Not as damaging an escape as something like alcoholism, but nonetheless a complete separation from community, their work and their environment. It follows suit that gaming advertising has followed a similar pattern, hailing more from space and futuristic technologies than anything solidly grounded here on earth. In 2015 gaming hardware giant NVIDIA announced a new series of Graphics Cards Called the “Pascal” or “10 Series”. It was a massive step over their previous series, and NVIDIA was already well known for beating out the competition. Thus most of their rhetoric seems to center around the logical presentation of very cold, hard facts. It’s very interesting to note the undertone assumptions about gaming culture inherent in the visual representation of their flagship model. Humanity, the Earth, and people all seem very distant from NVIDIA’s plans for it’s consumers.
“Common First Week Video”
Here’s the video itself:
1. Describe the processes and their effectiveness.
Most effective: Writing ideas as they came to me, ie. not only sticking with the intro if I had an idea for another part. It was much easier to rehears with the video when I made the decision beforehand that what I captured that first time would not be published. I could do my best with less pressure and videoing helped me iron out a few things that were hurting my presentation.
Least effective: Writing to much. I ended up with a lot more content than I needed. If I’d been more structured with an outline and planned lengths I could have saved time. I like what I produced, but when efficiency is key I won’t be able to realistically pursue each facet as far as I like.
2. Which part of the project worked?
I’m fairly happy about my delivery of the writing. Even though it was rehearsed it felt relaxed and genuine on my last run through. This was my first time presenting in such a way and I like the way it turned out.
It actually helped me think about improvement in writing. That’s new.
3. What would you do differently and why?
Instead of writing in depth for every idea that came to mind, I could instead write an outlineish, condensed version that still contained everything I wanted to say. Then after brainstorming and writing some more ideas I could then fit them into an outline and write them out more fully. All that would avoid the excess of material I ended up with when I didn’t use an outline.