On Wednesday, May 25, we took our in-class final exam.
On Monday, May 23, we reviewed the purpose and scope of the writing tasks we studied this semester (summary, critical reading/critique, argument synthesis and explanatory synthesis) and discussed the second piece that will be utilized during our in-class final, which will be administered on Wednesday (May 25).
On Wednesday, May 18, we read and discussed one of the pieces that will be utilized during our in-class final, which will be administered next Wednesday (May 25).
At the end of class, the second article that will be used on the final was distributed.
For those who are interested, here is a link to Ross Gay’s essay, “Some Thoughts On Mercy,” which we spoke about briefly during class re: always feeling like you’re stealing something.
On Monday, May 16, we devoted the first half of class to discussing and working on final portfolios.
During the second half of class, graded research papers were distributed and, together with members of class who continue to have questions about MLA citation, a sample student research paper was reviewed. We concluded class by discussing successful strategies utilized by the student, as well as a few missteps she made.
On Wednesday, May 11, we began class by discussing our final portfolio, due May 18.
Following, by focusing on the contents of “A Balanced Psychology and a Full Life,” we reviewed the scope and goal of composing a summary, explanatory synthesis, and argument synthesis. We also discussed the purpose of having a throughline in our writing (an idea or topic that snakes through our paragraphs).
On Monday, May 9, we completed both self-evaluations and peer-reviews of our research papers. Feedback was centralized around three basic topics: strengths, areas for improvement, and things that surprised us/questions that came to mind.
Details about our final portfolio, due May 18, were also distributed and discussed.
On Wednesday, May 4, we spent class meeting one-on-one and discussing the research paper, which will be due on May 9. A few key takeaways:
- MLA resources are available through OpenLab (scroll down on this page, looking for the Feb. 3 entry)
- Formatting information can be found in our class syllabus (under the “Submission Guidelines” sub-heading)
- Reference librarians are available for one-on-one research support
- Works Cited pages must be submitted with research papers
- When editing, read to remove generalizations, epically long sentences/paragraphs, and logic inconsistencies
- Consider writing for a specific audience (e.g., readers who are totally unfamiliar with your topic, readers who are New Yorkers, readers who are your age)
- You’ll want readers to be able to answer the question, “Why does this paper matter?” — consider what you are teaching your readers, and what you want them to learn/feel/think when they finish your paper
- You are welcome to email me with questions as you write and edit your paper — you’ll want to send me a portion of your work and ask specific questions to help me to understand what kind of support you are after
On Monday, May 2, we reviewed two exemplars in our textbook — a sample explanatory synthesis essay (found on pages 122-128) and a sample argument synthesis essay (pages 148-157) — in order to identify and discuss writing strategies that can be employed when writing our research papers.
A question was raised, too, about how to properly attribute images through both in-text citation and a Works Cited page. As promised, here is the link to Colgate University’s related resource.
On Wednesday, April 20, we began class in the library, working with Instruction and Reference Librarian Nora Almeida who provided research/database insight and support.
On Monday, April 18, we completed a speed-dating exercise in order to workshop our research paper topics, discussing which text from the semester we plan to integrate into our work, how we intend to link the past and the present, and what additional research questions we can ask to help us explore our topics.
At the end of class, everyone submitted their answers to the above-questions for my review — those who did not receive feedback from me during class on the 18th will receive feedback at the beginning of class on Wednesday.
Note! Remember that we are meeting at the library on Wednesday — in front of the 4th floor entrance in the Namm building.
On Wednesday, April 13, we discussed “Dear Grads, Don’t Do What You Love” and “In the Name of Love” by: 1) summarizing each piece; 2) assessing each author’s credibility; and 3) stating to what extent we agreed or disagreed with each author’s message.
On Monday, April 11, we discussed the assigned texts by: 1) summarizing each piece; 2) assessing each author’s credibility (and, if applicable, the credibility of his/her sources); and 3) stating to what extent we agreed or disagreed with each author’s message. Following, we synthesized the two texts.
On Wednesday, April 6, we started class by thinking about the research that we do (or don’t do…) in our personal lives. We then compared our research strategies and successes to the strategies and successes we find when doing research for class.
Following, we reviewed pages 215-216 of our textbook to identify types of webpages (business/marketing; reference/information; news; advocacy of a view or program; personal). We then evaluated the websites we used in response paper 6 in an effort to assess their scope (did we use a variety of sources? could there have been more variety?).
We reviewed some Google Trends stats posted on Mic.com revealing the musical and tv searches of folks who Google “Donald Trump,” “Hillary Clinton,” and “Bernie Sanders” respectively.
Finally, the prompt for our research paper was distributed and discussed; the paper is not due until May 9 but everyone is encouraged to begin thinking through their prospective topics by paying attention to what makes them pause.
On Monday, April 4, we broke into groups and completed this exercise, meant to parse out salient information about the three “rumor” related pieces we read in our textbook and to help us think through how to synthesize information and cite sources.
The prompt for response paper 6 – work that is due on Wednesday – was distributed at the end of class.
On Wednesday, March 30, we recorded and discussed a working definition of rumor; examples of well-known rumors; opinions about whether rumors are good, bad, or some mix of both; and thoughts about why rumors exist and persist.
Following, we read Alan Glenn’s “‘Paul is Dead!’ (Said Fred),” which appears in our textbook (pages 499-503).
On Monday, March 28, we discussed Gabriel García Márquez’s “Sleeping Beauty and the Airplane,” noting the author’s use of hyperbole and how he plays upon themes prevalent in fairy tales.
On Monday, March 21, everyone wrote a letter of self-reflection, noting both the strengths and weaknesses of response paper 4.
Next, the Haruki Murakami story, “On Seeing the 100% Perfect Girl One Beautiful April Morning,” was read aloud. We then discussed both the story (the events happening to the narrator on pages 1-3, and the last line of page 5) and the story-within-a-story (the tale that is told on pages 3-5).
Finally, Gabriel García Márquez’s “Sleeping Beauty and the Airplane” and the prompt for response paper 5 were both distributed (note: the paper is not due until Wednesday, March 30).
On Wednesday, March 16, we broke into small groups and engaged in a debate, with each group evaluating ways to support one of the following claims:
Claim a: A fiction writer does not need to have personally experienced a topic in order to write authentically about it.
Claim b: A fiction writer does need to have personally experienced a topic in order to write authentically about it.
The debate unearthed new ways to support both claims, and underscored the need to define key terms (including personally experienced). We also toyed with whether and how Charles Horton Cooley’s “Society is in the Mind” philosophy could be used to support a response paper 4 argument.
On Monday, March 14, we reviewed an exemplar explanatory synthesis, using it to discuss the ideal ratio of summary to synthesis in our work (summary should be used to set up synthesis; synthesis should take center-stage).
Following, we touched upon the definition of argument synthesis, establishing that the purpose of an argument synthesis is to use sources to help persuade our readers of the validity of a debatable claim (see our textbook, pages 130-173, for more information).
After reviewing the prompt for response paper 4, we then discussed various elements of Mary Gaitskill’s “The Other Place,” paying attention to the story’s various themes, including the overlap between sex and danger, outlets for children whose home lives are stressful, and the notion of having an “other place.” Finally, the New Yorker’s interview with Mary Gaitskill was distributed.
On Wednesday, March 9, we started class by discussing Hulk Hogan’s/Terry Bollea’s $100 million court case against Gawker media, evaluating the “social realness” of Hulk Hogan as a persona.
Following, we discussed the research folks had unearthed related to heroin use and withdrawal, synthesizing these learnings with the behavior and routines of Bolaño’s narrator in “Beach.” Next, we broke into teams and conducted a peer edit, providing a classmate with feedback by summarizing his/her piece, noting what could be improved, flagging what was working, and asking a question relevant to what was explored in the paper.
Finally, Mary Gaitskill’s short story, “The Other Place” was distributed.
On Monday, March 7, we identified and discussed themes present in Roberto Bolaño’s short story, “Beach.” Class time was also devoted to reviewing the prompt for response paper 3; the paper is due on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, March 2, we defined “explanatory synthesis,” noting that it involves summarizing two (or more) sources, making judgments/critically reading the sources, and then determining the relationship(s) between said sources. The goal of an explanatory synthesis is to help readers understand a topic by presenting facts in a reasonably objective manner. In an explanatory synthesis, the writer does not emphasize his/her own opinion, but rather emphasizes the sources themselves.
To begin our literary fiction unit, we worked in teams to conduct an explanatory synthesis focused on the lore around Chilean writer Roberto Bolaño. Each team was given one set of New York Times articles. One team member read, summarized, and critiqued “A Chilean Writer’s Fictions Might Include His Own Colorful Past” while the other read, summarized, and critiqued “Stray Questions for: Roberto Bolaño?!” Following, each team determined a potential relationship between the two sources.
At the end of class, Bolaño’s short story, “Beach,” was distributed.
On Monday, February 29, we worked to identify our first understanding of what it means to be an American, and compared it to our current understanding. We then discussed whether any discernible shifts exist between our former and current understandings. As an exercise in curiosity, I shared related responses from 1st-6th grade students as published on Scholastic’s webpage, and also responses posted on a Yahoo answers page (including an instance of plagiarism…!).
Following, we returned to Wallace Shawn’s “An ‘American’ Publishes a Magazine” in order to better understand Wallace Shawn’s definition of what it means to be an American. Finally, folks shared their reactions to and opinions about Shawn’s essay. Related to Shawn’s apathy, I noted a study published in International Psychogeriatrics, which found that, “Apathy increases with age in otherwise healthy community-dwelling individuals, particularly in men.”
On Wednesday, February 24, we discussed “An ‘American’ Publishes a Magazine” by breaking into groups. Each group was asked to focus on one component of Shawn’s essay by first identifying language that relates to the component, and later articulating an assumption Shawn makes about the component.
Following, we reviewed content from pages 51-77 in our textbook to better understand what is involved in critical reading and critique. Finally, the prompt for response paper 2 was distributed.
On Monday, February 22, we revisited Charles Horton Cooley’s “Society is in the Mind,” this time discussing the essay in relation to links that each of us drew to our own lives / belief systems.
Wallace Shawn’s essay, “An ‘American’ Publishes a Magazine” was also distributed:
On Wednesday, February 17, we created a working definition of “summary,” determining that it is a recap of something we have read/heard/encountered, written (or uttered) in our own words that is markedly shorter than the original story/experience. The amount of detail contained in a summary is determined by the scope and purpose of said summary (e.g., if you were asked to summarize your day, specific details may not be relevant; however, if you were asked to summarize your mood, those details may be salient).
Following, we identified and discussed the abstract that precedes “Society is in the Mind,” which offers a summary of the essay that follows.
Finally, we reviewed Cooley’s “Society is in the Mind,” exploring his beliefs about childhood imaginary friends, the difference he draws between what is “socially real” and what is “imagined” (288), and why there are occasions when we want others to simply “sustain the allusion of sympathy” (285).
On Wednesday, February 10, we discussed Chuck Klosterman’s “Should I Protect a Patient at the Expense of an Innocent Stranger?” (found on pages 291-293 in our textbook), paying attention not only to what Klosterman wrote in response to the question posed, but also how he composed his reply.
- We also reviewed a few pieces of advice offered by Dear Abby in her long-running advice column, noting the pithy nature of her replies.
- Anyone wishing to learn more about “How the Internet Changed Advice Columns” is welcome to read Hannah Finnie’s article published in The Atlantic on December 15, 2015.
Charles Horton Cooley’s “Society is in the Mind” was distributed, as was the assignment prompt for response paper 1.
On Monday, February 8, we worked to gain a better understanding of annotation. After reviewing an annotation resource, we practiced annotation by engaging with excerpts from James Baldwin’s Another Country and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.
On Wednesday, February 3, we reviewed a number of handouts:
- Proofreader’s Marks
- Lakeland Library “MLA-Text Citations”
- University of Minnesota “MLA Documentation Style: Works Cited Page”
We also completed a quote integration exercise, to level-set and confirm that we share a basic understanding of how MLA citation works.
On Monday, February 1, we reviewed our class syllabus, and discussed the work we are going to tackle throughout the semester.
