I feel like the comments that are on the side are more centered and specific. She utilizes a more specific aim as to what she thinks the student should work on. For example, the fact that she highlights the word alone shows her concern to specifically that. Also, she asks questions that go along the line of elaborating and being able to breakdown a specific item. Whereas, when she gives the total comment, she gives an overview comment to the whole entire analysis in under five sentences. There's not many suggestions going there that say, "try changing this with that." Rather, I feel it's her total point of view on the total idea of the paper. Also, in the side comments, she freely compliments and agrees which shows interest. From student to student, I can understand that feeling because having a professor engage in a paper for more than just criticism is a great feeling.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Blog 10
Thursday's class was such a great discussion! It really shed a new light on just how difficult it can be to write a survey that is to produces desired results, whatever they may be. And even with a great survey, the genre of a survey is limited and can not tell you certain things. For example, the survey we looked at can provide the percentage of students who felt that they were good writers, but it can not provide insight on what exactly made these students feel this way. Thus with surveys, I feel one can really only produce, at best, truncated data. After all, how precise can someone be with only 4 fixed responses to choose from.
Another thing this analysis brought in to focus was language. I think it was this, in fact, that really got the discussion rolling. It was just so many technical words. At first, I thought that the one we were looking at was the one freshman were given, and had it been, it would have been completely unacceptable. We commented on how phrases like 'discourse analysis' would be foreign to most incoming freshman, and in using phrases like this, it was like we were expecting them to be adapted to our discourse community, though they had not joined yet. If I remember correctly, we said for most, the language would go completely over their heads.
Another thing this analysis brought in to focus was language. I think it was this, in fact, that really got the discussion rolling. It was just so many technical words. At first, I thought that the one we were looking at was the one freshman were given, and had it been, it would have been completely unacceptable. We commented on how phrases like 'discourse analysis' would be foreign to most incoming freshman, and in using phrases like this, it was like we were expecting them to be adapted to our discourse community, though they had not joined yet. If I remember correctly, we said for most, the language would go completely over their heads.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Student Learning Outcome #1: students will produce essays through a series of drafts that include exploratory writing or talk, as well as revisions that include addition, deletion, substitution and rearrangement.
#1: I typically revise my writing multiple times (gives students the freedom of starting all over again if needed)
#5: When I revise my first draft, I spend most of my time on issues related to purpose, audience, content, and/or organization (mentions the importance of drafting and addition/deletion and substitution)
#7: I use writing as part of my thinking and analytic processes (free writing, always necessary when drafting)
#12: When I revise my first draft, I spend most of my time on grammatical issues (addition/deletion and substitution)
#14: When I revise my writing, my revisions typically include additions, deletion, substitution, and rearrangement
#15: I typically brainstorm or do other planning activities (ex. freewriting, listing, clustering as part of the writing)
#16: Overall as a writer, I would rank myself (writing skills based on those components from SL #1)
#17: Overall as a critical reader, I would rank myself
Student Learning Outcome #2: students will identify central ideas/themes of a text through class discussion and writing.
#6: I am able to use discourse analysis to explore research questions (discourse is widely used mostly in class)
#8: I feel comfortable talking about the main ideas of a text in class discussions (participation required to engage in main idea talks and comfort)
#11: I am able to interpret the main ideas of a text (it offers students the opportunity to take apart the text and be able to further understand its content)
Student Learning Outcome #3: students will use two or more methodologies from English Studies to develop original research or creative products.
#2: I am confident in my ability to conduct primary research (research, research and more research)
#4: I able to use textual analysis to explore research questions (comparisons and first hand research)
Student Learning Outcome #4: students will demonstrate ability to give a compelling oral presentation.
#10: I am comfortable giving presentations
#13: I have given a presentations where the audience used writing to respond to my ideas
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Blog 8
The two literature sources I plan using for review and analysis are:
The church's weekly program (also called the bulletin)
Parts of the bible, specifically texts which the congregation bases it's most core beliefs on.
I have easy access to both of these pieces of literature so execution shouldn't be a problem. My research plan after Thursdays class is still pretty much the same. I plan on interviews a few people's and drawing on those interviews along with general worship observation to come up with data.
The church's weekly program (also called the bulletin)
Parts of the bible, specifically texts which the congregation bases it's most core beliefs on.
I have easy access to both of these pieces of literature so execution shouldn't be a problem. My research plan after Thursdays class is still pretty much the same. I plan on interviews a few people's and drawing on those interviews along with general worship observation to come up with data.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Blog 7
The purpose I plan on pursuing in this project is to show the traditional African American church as a discourse community. Specifically, I want to limit observations to my own church. Growing up in the environment, it'll be a lot of fun to research on especially the different lexis this community has.
To do this I'll need to get two literature sources. I plan on using out weekly church program and the Bible, but I' like to get one more. Also, I'm definitely going to need to interview one or two people. This shouldn't be a problem at all though.
I'll more than likely be using some web sources, YouTube being one of them. However, I plan to take a bulk of my information from observation, interviews, and proper knowledge. Needless to say, most of my research will be conducted on the grounds of my church.
To do this I'll need to get two literature sources. I plan on using out weekly church program and the Bible, but I' like to get one more. Also, I'm definitely going to need to interview one or two people. This shouldn't be a problem at all though.
I'll more than likely be using some web sources, YouTube being one of them. However, I plan to take a bulk of my information from observation, interviews, and proper knowledge. Needless to say, most of my research will be conducted on the grounds of my church.
Blog 6
I do not think that our classroom in and of itself is a Discourse community. I do, however, think that it is a piece of a discourse community inside another discourse community. The piece of the community being the community of English majors on the campus of Kean University; and that discourse community being a part of the larger Kean university Discourse community.
Kean University is a discourse community because it clearly has a lot more than two people in the community, it has its own lexis, such as 'UC', 'UC caf', 'cougar den', and so on. This also apply to different proffessors that students may talk about. This is a strong part, I believe in the lexis of the Discourse community of English majors. For example, I may say to another upper-class English major that I have Chandler for 3080. Because I know he is a part of the same community as I am, I assume that he knows what 3080 is, or at least has heard about it, as he probably is close to graduation and has looked at his dcp more tha once.
Kean University is a discourse community because it clearly has a lot more than two people in the community, it has its own lexis, such as 'UC', 'UC caf', 'cougar den', and so on. This also apply to different proffessors that students may talk about. This is a strong part, I believe in the lexis of the Discourse community of English majors. For example, I may say to another upper-class English major that I have Chandler for 3080. Because I know he is a part of the same community as I am, I assume that he knows what 3080 is, or at least has heard about it, as he probably is close to graduation and has looked at his dcp more tha once.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Blog 5
I have been really considering doing an ethnographic study on members in my church congregation, as I have realized in the last few years, how we use our own lexis. it is a Christian church so things such as goals will be pretty standard compared to other congregations, but specifically, African-Ammerican churches have a unique way of expressing these goals. I also figure that because I am apart of this community, I'll have easy access.
For one, I know I'll want to do some observation- probably in my church's fellowship hall, where I can observe members talking casually. Doing this, I think I'll be able to get a feel for how members intertwine community values in their personal lives, and more importantly, how the communicate this with each other. Another good observation scenario would be a prayer meeting, as members have place to openly testify at these services.
Second, I'll want to interview at least two people. Interviewing will give me inside information that mere observation will not, and I want to have as much information as possible.
Third, I want to look at two texts that are important to the community. First, I'll take a look at some of the groups go-to scriptures in their most important text- the Bible- and key in exactly where they get certain values. Next, I'll look at the church weekly program ( I have almost a dozen of them probably just in my room) and analyze that.
For one, I know I'll want to do some observation- probably in my church's fellowship hall, where I can observe members talking casually. Doing this, I think I'll be able to get a feel for how members intertwine community values in their personal lives, and more importantly, how the communicate this with each other. Another good observation scenario would be a prayer meeting, as members have place to openly testify at these services.
Second, I'll want to interview at least two people. Interviewing will give me inside information that mere observation will not, and I want to have as much information as possible.
Third, I want to look at two texts that are important to the community. First, I'll take a look at some of the groups go-to scriptures in their most important text- the Bible- and key in exactly where they get certain values. Next, I'll look at the church weekly program ( I have almost a dozen of them probably just in my room) and analyze that.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Shaggy Dog Story (individual)
Myself, Dana and Arlette in our last blog posed the question: What must a person possess or appreciate in order to find shaggy dog stories?
In this post I will examine the same question.
As established by our group, it is probably most evident that one must enjoy the employment of puns in a joke to like shaggy dogs joke. But in this post, I would like to argue that even more so, a person has to enjoy the structure style of 'set up, set up, punch line' as a comedy style.
Notice the structure:
SETUP: A string walked into a bar, hopped on the barstool, and said, "Bartender, gimme a beer." The bartender said, "I'm sorry, sir, we don't serve strings here."
>Disappointed, the string hopped down from the stool and went to the next bar. He hopped on the barstool and said, again, "Bartender, gimme a beer." The bartender said, "I'm sorry sir, we don't serve strings here."
>The string continued down the row of bars in this fashion. At every bar, he hopped on the barstool and said, "Bartender, gimme a beer." The bartender at every bar in turn said, "I'm sorry sir, we don't serve strings here."
>Finally he got to the last bar in the area. He was tired, he was sweaty, all he wanted was a beer. He trudged inside, climbed on the barstool, and said, "Bartender, gimme a beer." This bartender, too, said, "I'm sorry, sir, we don't serve strings here."
>Tired and angry, the string walked outside to think. He was a hard-working string. He deserved a beer. Finally, he came up with an idea. He had a passerby tie him up into a bow and frazzle his ends. Then he went back into the bar, and climbed up on the barstool. "Bartender, gimme a beer!" he said loudly.
>The bartender looked him over critically, and finally yelled, "Hey, aren't you that string that was in here a few minutes ago
knot." ?"
PUNCH LINE: The string replied cooly, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot"
In a video that was posted to our last blog, actor Raiin Wilson explained that Ricky Geravis capitalized on a generational shift in comedy. In fact, that Americans have shifted what they think is chiefly funny to reaction from behavior, perhaps from this older style of set up, set up, punch.
Therefore, if someone read these jokes with the mindset that they would find humor throughout, they most probably would not find it funny.
If you read the joke above, one would notice that the only two things that seem purposed to be funny in the setup stanza's are the ridiculous premise, and the agressive tone of the 'shoe string' toward the several bartenders. However, in my opinion, for the purposes of the delivery style, they downplay at least the ridiculous premise. In the first stanza, when the string is first introduced, instead of making something funny out of it, the bartender responds flatly, "sorry sir, we dont serve strings here."
The truth is, if my mind were prepared for this joke style, I would need anyone to draw out humor in the fact that it was a string. I most likely would just chuckle at it and keep listening. However, one who is not even familiar with this style would probably need direct humor, or an explanation for a walking, talking, string.
So, along with an appreciation for puns, I would say vital to the success of the shaggy dog stories is that the listener must listen find the set up, set up, punch line style of humor funny, or at least listen to them when that style in mind.
In this post I will examine the same question.
As established by our group, it is probably most evident that one must enjoy the employment of puns in a joke to like shaggy dogs joke. But in this post, I would like to argue that even more so, a person has to enjoy the structure style of 'set up, set up, punch line' as a comedy style.
Notice the structure:
SETUP: A string walked into a bar, hopped on the barstool, and said, "Bartender, gimme a beer." The bartender said, "I'm sorry, sir, we don't serve strings here."
>Disappointed, the string hopped down from the stool and went to the next bar. He hopped on the barstool and said, again, "Bartender, gimme a beer." The bartender said, "I'm sorry sir, we don't serve strings here."
>The string continued down the row of bars in this fashion. At every bar, he hopped on the barstool and said, "Bartender, gimme a beer." The bartender at every bar in turn said, "I'm sorry sir, we don't serve strings here."
>Finally he got to the last bar in the area. He was tired, he was sweaty, all he wanted was a beer. He trudged inside, climbed on the barstool, and said, "Bartender, gimme a beer." This bartender, too, said, "I'm sorry, sir, we don't serve strings here."
>Tired and angry, the string walked outside to think. He was a hard-working string. He deserved a beer. Finally, he came up with an idea. He had a passerby tie him up into a bow and frazzle his ends. Then he went back into the bar, and climbed up on the barstool. "Bartender, gimme a beer!" he said loudly.
>The bartender looked him over critically, and finally yelled, "Hey, aren't you that string that was in here a few minutes ago
knot." ?"
PUNCH LINE: The string replied cooly, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot"
In a video that was posted to our last blog, actor Raiin Wilson explained that Ricky Geravis capitalized on a generational shift in comedy. In fact, that Americans have shifted what they think is chiefly funny to reaction from behavior, perhaps from this older style of set up, set up, punch.
Therefore, if someone read these jokes with the mindset that they would find humor throughout, they most probably would not find it funny.
If you read the joke above, one would notice that the only two things that seem purposed to be funny in the setup stanza's are the ridiculous premise, and the agressive tone of the 'shoe string' toward the several bartenders. However, in my opinion, for the purposes of the delivery style, they downplay at least the ridiculous premise. In the first stanza, when the string is first introduced, instead of making something funny out of it, the bartender responds flatly, "sorry sir, we dont serve strings here."
The truth is, if my mind were prepared for this joke style, I would need anyone to draw out humor in the fact that it was a string. I most likely would just chuckle at it and keep listening. However, one who is not even familiar with this style would probably need direct humor, or an explanation for a walking, talking, string.
So, along with an appreciation for puns, I would say vital to the success of the shaggy dog stories is that the listener must listen find the set up, set up, punch line style of humor funny, or at least listen to them when that style in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)