Letter to new student

Dear new student,

               You should expect research and writing in this class. Each new genre is accompanied by readings that suit the genre so that you can learn how to write in it. Do the blogs on time and you will be fine. They are actually helpful to do and they teach you how to be successful on the papers. Do not do the papers the day before they are do because they will not be good. Doing well on the papers is integral to success in the class because they are worth around 70% of your grade in the class. Take advantage of the topic choices. You could be writing about the history of spoons, but you get to choose your topics and that makes all the difference when writing 2500 words. When choosing a topic, make sure that there is enough research on the internet or at the library for the topic and that you feel comfortable making points and backing them up. The most useful aspects of this class are the different genres that we have to write in. I had not been familiar with any of the writing topics until this class and it broadened my writing capabilities by conveying my messages through these new media. Enjoy the class and good luck

-Mike Valosin

Peer Review Huntington's Disease

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

The lead introduces a sympathetic tone to illustrate how devastating Huntington’s disease is. The claims are not common knowledge and were engaging.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

The lead is very clear that the story is about Huntington’s Disease. It is not mysterious.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The story is very structured and flows well. The science is backed up well with explanations.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

Each paragraph has its own ideas and they do not mesh with each other.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

I liked all of the points, I don’t think they need more development. I followed each point well.

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

I think that you have plenty of prickles. Perhaps you could add more goo to the writing, but the science flows well still without it.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

There are plenty of examples and statistics, just add a works cited.

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

The story is concluded with the current options and how they are not good enough. There is a need for newer and more effective treatment options for Huntington’s Disease and that is what the author conveys.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

The voice was very scientific and professional except in the lead, where the author wanted to express how awful of a disease it really is.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

The audience is an average person that has some experience with science and higher level material. The paper is not for a lower level reader, but it still remains interesting and does not bog down with challenging details.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure.

Mark other grammar issues and typos.

The vocabulary and mechanics were good.

Peer Review Autism

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

The lead takes the narrative of how autism has affected his life, and more importantly his brother’s, and entices the reader into the issues in autism.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

The lead is incredibly clear as to what the story is about. The reader does not rely on mystery.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The structure is good and the narrative flows well through the points. There may be too many questions at the beginning though.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

The opening paragraph seems a little cluttered. Maybe use less questions and focus more on those.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

You developed each point that you addressed.

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

There are no sections that are bogged down with facts.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

You did good research and your points are all supported with research. You used concrete ideas that were all explained with research and examples.

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

The story is concluded with a reflection of how autism affects everyone somehow. There are bigger questions asked about how we can change the lack of knowledge on the subject in the general public.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

The tone is shown through the care and interest for the topic. The author clearly wants the readers to take interest in the topic.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

The audience is everyone. The author wants the topic to be spread as much as possible and does not limit the audience at all.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure.

Mark other grammar issues and typos.

Read the first page again for grammar and a few small spelling things, but after that its fine.

Peer Review Video Games

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

The lead took a very interesting story about a small child who plays violent video game who killed his grandmother in real life. I think that the story was effective because it did not give away the plot at the beginning of the lead.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

The lead gives a clear segway into the topic of video game violences, but starts out with mystery. This setup works because the essay needs a little bit of mystery, but not enough to bother the reader. The reader is shown the importance through the mass of examples of shootings in recent history.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The story is effective because it takes the lead and works out an inquiry about whether shooting games inspire shooting in real life.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

Each paragraph is well focused and stays on topic throughout. Each paragraph has an individual focus and obeys it.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

You wrote that you were going to expand on some of the points you had no touched yet, so expanding on those will complete your points.

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

I think you meshed science with goo very well. Each study contains more text about the study than the data from this study, which is good. You reflect on the data and studies well.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

There is a lot of evidence for research in this paper. The abstractions are made concrete in this paper through the examples and research that you put in.

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

The story concludes with a reflection on violence in the real world. There are bigger questions asked in this conclusion and it is effective.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

The story has an engaging narrative tone that suits the topic well. The author has consistent voice throughout the story.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

The audience is anyone that cares about the issue as well as the general public because they are all affected by this topic.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure.

Mark other grammar issues and typos.

It was good.

Science Feature Narrative Lead

The topic that I am discussing is space imaging and the significance of analyzing bodies in deep space. I will draw my audience in with the narrative about Edwin Hubble and his discovery of the red shift in the universe. This story is scientific, but it doesn’t have equations and turnoffs to average readers. The story is a good segway into the topic because then I can mention how he has a space telescope named after him and that several of these telescopes provide us with all of the information we have about outer space. There is not much conflict that can be addressed in the story, but Hubble probably got criticism from the scientific community as most large and revolutionary ideas sustain. This conflict can be poised as an uphill battle in the narrative and show the readers that Hubble persevered and showed the scientific community that his ideas were right. The ideas had a huge impact on the community and the way that people went about looking at the stars. I can incorporate this context to help illustrate the importance of space imaging to the audience. I think this story can effectively gather interest to a broad audience because space is a topic that gathers natural curiosity and because the story addresses the topic of the paper well. Space is the vast unknown that everyone in the world sees and admires. Curiosity to know what is up there is hardwired into everyone and the right introduction can gather interest quickly.

Science Feature Outline

The topic of my science feature is space imaging. I am going to start with the story of Edwin Hubble and the original reason that we knew the universe is expanding. This story is integral to the topic of space imaging because it is the reason that we sent out telescopes and decided to observe the universe. Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding was so important that the most known telescope in space is named after him. The angle that I am going to address space imaging with is why we decide to explore the universe through it and what methods we use to do so. I aim to find the significance in different bodies in space and what they mean for humanity. What do planets orbiting in other stars’ habitable zones mean for us? I do not want to focus on whether extraterrestrial life exists or not, but I would like to focus on how we can tell these worlds can support life using space imaging. I want to explore the different filters and signatures that we use on these telescopes that give us results. The main focus of my paper will be to explore the significance of space imaging and connect that back to the normal human being. I think that will strengthen the relevance of my ideas and will interest a broader range of people. Everyone has an interest in space because there are so many unanswered questions. Some of the things that I do not know are which filters and lenses that are used on the telescopes. I also do not know which other space telescopes we use and what they specialize in. The main ones I will start to concern with are Kepler, Hubble, and Chandra.

Student Science Feature Comparisons

               The two student science features that I read were Abu Ghraib and The Neanderthal: An exploration into modern people’s common ancestry. Both of these essays were exciting to read because they used elevated word choice and interesting approaches to their topics. The essay entitled Abu Ghraib could have talked about military brutality as the main focus of the writing, but instead they went from a psychological approach and entertained the idea of why military prison guards may gain such a mentality. I believe formulating an interesting viewpoint and angle to the topic is crucial to gaining and maintaining the readers’ interest throughout your writing. That is what made these papers effective from an overall standpoint. The Neanderthal was very interesting because it was very personal at times. The author talks about how interest in this topic has affected his knowledge and opinion as well as how it has helped him learn about his ancestral heritage. An author’s impact on the paper can make it much more enjoyable to read and the author of the Neanderthal paper certainly accomplished that feat. His or Her use of this impact makes the readers interested in how it affects them. For instance, they ask “where am I from?” and “Could I be a descendent of a Neanderthal?”. When the reader is actively engaged in the writing, then they read it with more intent to reflect on it after they are finished. The goals of these writers were to get their readers from the start to the finish with a level of interest that would cause them to reflect on what the author had written. They both succeeded through their usage of author’s impact on the topic and through their interesting angles they addressed the topic from.

All is fair in love and twitter response

               “All is fair in Love and Twitter” by Nick Blinton takes a scientific topic and analyzes the social and economic aspects of it. Twitter is a social media application, so it is the cross pollination of social connectivity between people as well as a mass of code written by tech-savvy computer scientists. Blinton manages to utilize an approach that focuses on the people behind the company and their many creative differences rather than the science and engineering that stands behind the application. Blinton chooses to appeal to a more general audience when addressing his readers rather than the narrower technology crazed group that the title suggests it would please at first glance. This choice positively affected his writing because he covered an angle that is not generally covered and he chose to follow research that is not the same as everyone else’s. Differences in writing that make similar ideas seem different are what keep the papers interesting and the reader’s attention longer. I noticed that Blinton chose to write a lengthier piece about the twitter founders, but he was able to make that choice because he captured the attention of the readers by attacking the topic from a unique angle. In terms of the prickles that the author uses to make his story flow, he hardly uses any. There are seldom comments about the length of code or the marketing numbers that Twitter and similar companies can boast. Much like the approach Stephen Hawking took in his book “A Brief History of Time,” Blinton uses no equations or math in his writing, but altogether it remains a scientific topic. He still uses a mix of prickles in his story in order to keep the audience from drowning in goo, but the story remains mostly a narrative about the conflict between executives in the twitter company.

Drones Come Home response

               The science feature “Drones Come Home” manages to catch my interest through the title alone. Any possible threat to a person will be at least interest catching. The author starts off making it seem applicable to everyone, but then changes his description to apply to only hobbyists and the military, which are much smaller. This changes the view of drones as a threat to the public because originally they were of no threat to the public. The change in view on drones is what the author is targeting as the argument to be made. This change is what maintains interest throughout the beginning of the article. The rest of the article, however, maintains a similar voice throughout and does not hold interest as well. The author does not make the rest of the article as interesting as the first few paragraphs, which ultimately leads to the readers’ interest waning. The remainder of the paper has too many facts for the average person to enjoy it. There are so many technical names that each drone has and this narrows the audience to a smaller set of readers that will both understand and enjoy reading about them. The broad approach that the author went into his article with is diminished when he becomes more specific about plane types. The same message is in the writing, but it is shrouded by the technicalities. This gives me insight into an effective science feature because I have to choose an audience that I wish to interest and then I must maintain both the chosen audience and their interest throughout the writing. These facets are both integral to a successful feature because one without the other is degrading to the focus of the paper. Drones Come Home lost interest at the end of the paper so the message was not as focused as it could have been.

How Nerf Became the World's Best Purveyor of Guns for Kids

               “How Nerf Became the World’s Best Purveyor of Guns for Kids” by Jason Fagone can be compared to “Black Holes” by Michael Finkel through the use of effective rhetorical strategies. Fagone exhibits a lot of research and thought in his writing that elevates his opinions to the next tier of acceptance. By putting in more detail about the background and setting of his narrative about Jablonski, he relates to the readers’ interest in a story. If he can illustrate his points through a story that is moderately interesting, he will successfully hold the readers’ interest throughout the story. Unlike an essay that is solely argument, a narrative will weave arguments through something that catches the reader’s interest. This helps the author to not have to work as hard to keep interest through the essay’s entirety. This essay was more effective in holding the reader’s interest because the black hole essay did not have a story to have the arguments flow through. Fagone also maintains ethos on a relatively childish topic as well. The safety of children is not childish, but when the word “nerf” is involved, there is a connotation of childishness. He embraces the childishness when talking about grown men playing with guns for a living, but then he immediately refutes it with statements that call nerf guns marvels of engineering. This controversy that the author uses works because he addresses how they can seem childish, but the refutes it with a stronger argument. This style of writing was not used in the Black Hole paper too much except when the author refuted Einstein. By refuting an expert in the field, he strengthens his argument significantly and strikes the readers interest. This is a risky method though because it could destroy the entire argument if you do not effectively refute the expert.

Black Holes

               Black Holes was an effective essay in that it made an obscure and complex topic simple enough so that an average person could read it. The essay could have provided many equations with random variables and factors that are considered, but instead the author chose to use description rather than math to explain his points. This helps the author maintain ethos and the reader’s attention throughout the essay. I feel that when writing about science you have two choices: to write like Michael Finkel with Black Holes and use simpler examples and astounding numbers to hold the interest of a more general public or to write using the most elevated knowledge to accurately convey points to the smarter scientific community. Both of these styles have advantages and drawbacks associated with them. Finkel utilizes this style so that more people can understand his points, but the drawback is that he cannot go too in depth or his audience will lose interest. The converse is true for elevated science writing where many people outside of the science community will not take interest in the writing, but all of the facts are on the table and the knowledge is being spread most effectively. Greater significance that can be taken from this essay includes the expansion of interest in space. Perhaps this author is advocating the controversial expansion of the NASA budget and thinks that if more of the general public takes interest in the topic of black holes, then they will vote to get more money into the space budget. He leaves a lot of open questions to the readers that would definitely spark a thought in an engaged reader. Finkel effectively uses this technique and evokes thought from his readers that will maintain their interest throughout his writing.

Peer Review: Biomedical Engineering

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The question is not expressed clearly, but I assume it is something along the lines of “Is Biomedical engineering ethical”. The author does not phrase it as a question, but more like an argument.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the reader’s interest with the same tone as the rest of the paper. The interest can be gathered in a more effective manner than the opening paragraph of this paper.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author seems to have some prior knowledge on the subject, but uses research to back the important points up. The author has a stake in the inquiry, she seeks to show that the US should be more open to biomedical engineering.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is consistent throughout and is appropriate to the writing, but the author does not seem inquisitive in her writing.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The voice is consistent throughout.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

I did not find any big ones.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author expresses the paper more like a thesis, but it is smooth.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author  does not question her findings.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

Research is evident and the author uses quotes. The research does lead to more thoughts and elaboration, but not questioning.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintains my interest through the interesting research points and historical bans on biomedical engineering. My attention only lags in the fact that I was looking for more of a question based writing. It can be fixed by phrasing the paper through the exploration of a question.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader broadens the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

There isn’t really an answer because there isn’t really a question. For a thesis ending, I thought it was effective and it summed the ethics of biomedical engineering up.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

The ending is effective for a thesis paper, but this isn’t a thesis. To make it effective as an inquiry, explain how each research point affects the formulation of an answer.

Peer Review: Chips

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

Why can’t I just eat one chip? Is expressed clearly in the first paragraph.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the reader’s interest pretty effectively with a descriptive setting and an initial question.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author does not mention any prior knowledge, but it isn’t really expected for this topic. She does hold a stake in the inquiry through her self experiment.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is appropriate to the paper and is effective to talk about the addiction of chips. The author has a clear inquisitive tone.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The voice is pretty consistent throughout.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

The paper was specific and the author went into the details well for each of her points.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author strings her own story of eating her chip and each part of the journey in with all the research and personal examples. That was a really interesting way of formatting it. It could be a bit jumpy, but you kept each part of your chip story succinct so it flows well.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author does question her findings and explores them further with additional research.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

The author uses many source and quotes to keep questions flowing. A further question could be “What makes us stop”

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintains my interest throughout through her extensive research and interesting style. My attention did not lag.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader continues to broaden the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conclusion works in two parts: the conclusion of the narrative and the answer to why you can’t eat just one chip. The writing does open up further inquiry through the repercussions like getting obesity and how companies use chemicals to fool our brains.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

The paper was effective and I am satisfied with the ending because it had a satisfactory answer to the question.

Peer Review: Cell Phone Addiction

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

Are cell phone addictions comparable to drug and alcohol addictions?

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the readers interest through the relatable question of whether people have been impolite at a table by texting or checking their phone in front of you. It was an effective interest catcher. I’m not sure what import is, but if it is sources that guide the writing, then you did a good job picking sources.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author does not have specialized prior knowledge of the subject, but has experienced the subject matter a sizable amount. She holds a stake in the inquiry through her experiment and her overlook of people on their cell phones that sparked her question.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is very even toned and unbiased. It is effective to the subject material because too much bias could ruin the argument and make it seem like an argument. The author makes it sound like an inquiry.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

Generally, the voice is appropriate to the writing, but at a few points it seems to stray like when you talk about how your mom would react while you were out to dinner and did not have your phone.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

I didn’t notice anything too big.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author makes the paper flow smoothly from the general notice of cell phones being an addiction to experimenting why they are addicting to asking the followup question: what makes it addictive?

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author doesn’t question her own assumptions too much, but explores her reasons for making those assumptions in the first place.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

The author uses a good variety of sources that all provide different relevant information. She effectively uses quotes from each of these sources. She explores other branches of inquiry, but not necessarily from research. I think she expanded well.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintained my interest throughout, especially in the narrative style of the description of her experiment. My attention lagged a little bit in the research dense area around the general question. Perhaps spread out the research a little more throughout.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader broadens the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conclusion relates the ending branch of the inquiry back to the question. The inquiry is expanded. The next step is to investigate why social media is so addictive.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

I am satisfied with the ending because the paper was effective in asking whether cell phones are addictive and expanding it from there. If you were to take the next step and explore what about social media was addictive that would be optimal, but it could be straying too far from your original point.

Discussion of Inquiry Topic

               My inquiry is formed around the question: Why are there more women’s volleyball teams than men’s teams? I chose this topic because I have been involved with the sport at a competitive level for 4 years and the question has always bothered me on some level. As a high schooler, I played in a relatively dense area for good volleyball, but had I lived 20 miles, I would have had none. I consider myself lucky to have been in the situation, but it sparks the question: Why did I have to be lucky. Many schools carry girl’s teams, but not men’s teams and hardly, if ever, is the converse true. I am not sure why I seek the answer now except for the fact that the project presents a good outlet to follow through with it. I suppose that if a wild result comes through via research and analysis, I would share it with the world somehow, but if nothing novel strikes my interest, I will probably leave it as is. Having played for many years prior, I have significant bias in my head and my opinion is definitely charged. I already have my own views as a player who tried to get into a college program and the hope that was diminished when I found out the shockingly low amount of teams that exist at the college level. It always intrigued me how the Olympic teams were both equally good, even though there were significantly more players to choose from for the women’s team than there were for the men’s team. I wanted to keep my story inside the high school and college level, where there is the largest difference in terms of the numbers of players, so I am gathering the opinions and stories of my past teammates.

Invites to the Dinner Table Discussion

               My topic is posed through the question: Why are there more women’s volleyball teams than men’s teams? To express my topic via the dinner table analogy, here are some of the people I would invite to my dinner table discussion. First, I would invite a player who has been through the process of looking for a Division 1 scholarship and goes to a school where both a men’s and a women’s team exist. I hope to learn about how the process works and how competitive it is. Second, I want to invite my high school team’s mvp who has been involved with sport for 10 years. I value his opinion because he can give me insight as what his options are as a senior in high school. Third, I would invite the 2008 gold medal setter from the US men’s national team, Lloy Ball. He wrote a book a few years ago that I read and I can use his opinion to assist my question solving. Fourth, I would invite the athletic budget committee because I want to know if money plays a roll in whether or not the men’s team is feasible for this university to accommodate. Fifth, I would invite the author of USA today articles concerning volleyball because they talk about a potential spike in the men’s sport at the younger level. Sixth, I would invite the head coach for the women’s team at this university to get his opinion on the feed between high school players and college players. I would be looking for a correlation that perhaps the women’s game is different in some fashion that makes it more attractive to play.

Student Inquiries Comparison

            The two student inquiries that I read and analyzed are “Reaching Beyond Hell” and “Why do we need sleep? That is zzz Question.” Both of these inquiries were strong in their research and experimentation. Both authors chose strong sources from experts in the fields that they were drawing from. They drew from these sources in an effective manner and did not take away from their own ethos. Experimentation in these inquiries is the driving force behind their findings. Both authors harbor their realizations and new knowledge in personal experience and narrative. This is especially true in the essay about “Reaching Beyond Hell” because this author uses personal experience more than the other author. The author of the sleep essay uses more sources than the author of the Hell essay uses though and holds a stronger approach to the essay. Both essays were effective in creating a testable experiment for the question to be built upon. The sleep essay could have followed in the path of the Hell essay in using a comparison in the test to help show just how effective the findings are. The Hell essay compared the will to perform individually to the will to perform in a group, which made a clear distinction in the data. The sleep essay compared the school sleep schedule to the spring break sleep schedule, but perhaps the author could have looked into other people’s schedules as well. By using one person as the representation of the entire population, the results can be skewed very far away from the actual representation. In this case, I think the author was still successful because they were representing a narrow group of college students in the US rather than the entire population that sleeps. That level of personality can also keep the audience in mind as well.

Broadway Gang Response

            The Broadway Gang by Jon Raymond seemed more like a thoughtful narrative than an inquiry. There were rich descriptions of the settings, encounters, and history of the area, but a clear defined question was not altogether noticeable. The main idea of the story is the Portland riots and the eventual clash between the police and the protestors. The overall idea of a riot or protest seems out of place with the status quo of a city, which drives this writing seemingly to make a point. The author never really does state a point, but rather banks on the gut reactions of the readers to feel that the riots are askew. If someone reading this writing is a protestor who happens to think riots are alright, then the writer has no chance at selling a deeper thought to them and did not write effectively enough. This strategy is not effective because the author does not provide a question that readers can reflect upon. I do not think that I will use this strategy in my own writing because I want to firmly address the question I am writing about and leave a lasting thought with my audience. In terms of Huxley’s main points, I think that the author succeeds in a personal, authoritative tone. He tells the story with numerous connections back to his family at home and he includes personal reflection on whether he wants to continue to be involved in protesting anymore. I think his argument would be much more effective in the dinner conversation format rather than the three directions because he does not effectively grasp the other directions besides personal. His writing was not very universal or poetic as a whole. The conversation may have his family, the protestor he interviewed, the police, and the middle class. 

Is Google Making Us Stupid? response

               Nicholas Carr shares his fear of something tinkering with his brain to his readers in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid”. Carr establishes the juxtaposition to his fear in the form of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. The reason that Carr is paranoid about this change in his mental framework is that his attention span is waning and he can no longer focus for lengths of time that he was once capable of focusing. His transition to the research behind his claims was effective for several reasons. One of the main factors that caught my attention was the amount of personal narrative that he included at the beginning of his argument. This was effective because he appeals to the average reader’s need for a break from facts with a story. In fact, that is the very point of his article. His phrasing is effective in catching the reader’s attention as in a story does and then he eases into a voice that switches towards the research end of his writing. Readers identify with the same opinion as his because he makes them consider the same viewpoints and scenarios in their own lives. The author’s choice to make the title the same as the question he is attempting to answer is a strong foundation for his writing. Starting out with the question makes the readers think from the first sentence that he is out to prove his answer to that question or that he is there to ponder deeper thoughts on the question. A caveat to this is that if the topic does not interest many readers, then he loses audience before he even has a chance to catch interest. His thesis is out in the open before he has any opportunity to hook people into his claims.

Consider the Lobster response

               David Foster Wallace’s writing about the Maine Lobster Festival entitled Consider the Lobster starts off as a lengthy description about the history of the lobster industry in New England and the festival itself, but eventually switches into an exploration of the ethics. The charge of the ethics section is much greater than the background section of his review and presents an emotional appeal that makes the readers not want to be near a room with a boiling lobster inside. The switch in his focus means that he is attempting to appeal to his intended audience in a more directed voice. His original hook in the first several pages was to catch the interest of foodies and gourmet enthusiasts who would be interested in the huge festival. He intended later to switch his tone in a manner that would not be too off topic, but rather a slight change in the discussion towards a more provocative issue in the lobster business. Wallace attempted a risky sequence of writing when he switched the focus and parts of it were not successful. For instance, I think that the change in voice was too sudden and did not parallel the rest of the article very well. Had the author written a shorter background, he could have been able to focus more on the controversial argument. His decision to include the charged argument in his article tells readers that he personally is not sure how he feels about cooking animals while they are living. He does not express this until the end of the article, but he just wants to provoke thought on the topic, he personally has not decided on an opinion. The beginning of his article does not suggest this point at all and he shares his thoughts with the connotation that he is against cooking lobster alive. A second look at this point, however, yields that he may be trying to appeal to the lesser viewed opinion among his audience. An audience of foodies is sure to have a majority of people that are perfectly fine with cooking living animals if it means a tasty meal.

Overly Documented Life

               The overly documented life is an essay about how people would react to a camera following them everywhere. AJ Jacobs wrote this inquiry through his own personal research. He wore a camera around everywhere to document his life and people’s reactions to his actions. This experiment was the basis for his research that he used to back up his claims. Jacobs based his story as a narrative, which is an effective way to write because he maintains continuity in his story and he has firsthand experience from which to tell. The author maintains authority throughout his paper by taking the work of an expert and replicating it in his own experiment. He takes the work of Gordon Bell, who has been tracking his life’s data for years and decides to perform a trial of this experiment in his own life. His decision to do that allows the authority of the expert to bring his own credibility as an author up. The author’s use of pictures in his article are very helpful because he has a lot of evidence to fall back on with his narrative and argument. In terms of Huxley’s three directions, Jacobs effectively follows the autobiographical arrow through his narrative. His objectivity is strong too, even in his narrative. The writing is not subjective even though he is writing from his own perspective. The author avoids bias through his use of pictures and his focus on the argument rather than his own opinion about the things going on around him. He uses concrete details to express his points, but also adds a touch of personality. An example of this is when he is caught on the camera staring at the woman’s boobs. Readers can sense his slight fear that his wife will find out and this represents the same phobia that anyone would feel if they found this result from experimentation.

Looking At Women

               The question that Scott Russell Sanders presents us with is how we should look at women. To Sanders, this has always been a question of interest since he was very young which makes the setting very rich and enticing. It is clear that he provides a lot of detail about his topic from his own experience, even though it was so long ago in his life. I think the fact that he remembers the event so vividly after this many years is proof that this question is truly important to him and that he is passionate about his writing on the subject matter. This interest adds to the author’s large authority he gathers through great phrasing and an educated argument. Huxley points out that personal, autobiographical experience is essential to successful writing, and Sanders accomplishes this through his rich backstory that illustrates many facets of the question he poses.  The author uses concrete examples such as when he brings in the Jimmy Carter interview with Playboy that back up his points well. An influential figure that fits the persona that he describes is a great example to use to back up his point. It helps the author cultivate ethos in his writing. I believe that the author has a good abstract and universal direction in his writing because he targets an issue that every man faces in some fashion, but does not address in his life. His writing makes a man confront this issue and hear what he has to say about it. I also like the source that Sanders uses consistently by the author Beauvoir because by lacing these points through his he finds a new voice to keep the reader on his or her toes. Reusing this source throughout also allows Sanders to hold an expert’s opinion juxtaposed to his own, which too adds to his ethos.

Peer Review: Clerks

Clerks

1.  Initial Intentions and Impressions  Please give the author a brief description of what s/he is trying to achieve in the review (a convincingly reliable authoritative opinion of the subject), how the piece is effective, and other initial impressions.

Some parts of the paper were just summary, when your analysis would be more worth your audience’s time. The paper did have good insight and sources in the analysis though and you wrote it well. I would have liked to read more of your analysis because I found it interesting.

2.      Response / Analysis  Evaluate the review with regards to the following key elements:

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

You support the arguments well with description and many examples.

·       voice is authoritative and reliable, tone is consistent and appropriate

The voice is authoritative except when you have the plot summary area. The tone is consistent and fits well with the writing that you present.

·       introduction introduces primary source, general argument, and establishes voice

Yes, the author effectively does all of these.

·       conclusion wraps things up, making clear the evaluation of the subject (where it sits in relation to similar experiences)

Yes, you had a very nice conclusion that related to the type of audience that may enjoy this film.

3.      Technical Considerations 

·       Construction issues (the paper flows smoothly; transitions between paragraphs)

The paper transitions well.

·       variety of word choice (author doesn’t repeat words or phrases gratuitously)

I liked the word choice.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

Research is evident.

·       grammar and spelling

It is a little wordy at the top of the fourth page in the “his job, his current girlfriend…” sentence.

4.  Suggestions for Revisions and General Comments  Please summarize any suggestions you’ve posited earlier, and give 2 constructive suggestions. 

Reread the plot summary area and perhaps add some analysis to some of those parts to support them. I like what you already have because it is descriptive, but you may benefit from adding some of your own input, just not in first person. Secondly, just read the paper out loud and see if there are any phrases that you want to change, there is nothing wrong, but it may help you transition things more easily.

Peer Review: Romeo and Juliet

Romeo and Juliet

1.  Initial Intentions and Impressions  Please give the author a brief description of what s/he is trying to achieve in the review (a convincingly reliable authoritative opinion of the subject), how the piece is effective, and other initial impressions.

The piece clearly addresses how great of a film Luhrman’s Romeo and Juliet is. The author clearly has ethos in the review based on the amount of description and the word choice used. I really liked the review’s style and flow.

2.      Response / Analysis  Evaluate the review with regards to the following key elements:

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

The author uses reactions to many of the scenes in the film to support her arguments. The review talks a lot about the plot of the play, which could be seen as a spoiler, but I liked the commentary on each scene, especially the ending scenes. The language used to describe the actors was very enticing and kept authority.

·       voice is authoritative and reliable, tone is consistent and appropriate

The author cultivates a lot of ethos through strong word choice and interesting references and metaphors.

·       introduction introduces primary source, general argument, and establishes voice

Yes, it is very clear in the introduction that the author likes Romeo and Juliet and wants to explain why.

·       conclusion wraps things up, making clear the evaluation of the subject (where it sits in relation to similar experiences)

     

The conclusion was lacking. The final description of the death scene does not flow into the conclusion well because the conclusion could be elevated to match the same intensity.

3.      Technical Considerations 

·       Construction issues (the paper flows smoothly; transitions between paragraphs)

The paper flows very well except into the conclusion.

·       variety of word choice (author doesn’t repeat words or phrases gratuitously)

Word choice was exceptional.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

Sources are cited at the end of the review, but nothing is quoted or even paraphrased from those sources.

·       grammar and spelling

Take the contractions out such as Doesn’t and It’s. Rephrase some of the passive voice to make it active (word has filters under proofing to check for this). During the final scene, you use the word We to describe yourself and the audience, which flows well with the paper, but try to avoid first person if you can.

4.  Suggestions for Revisions and General Comments  Please summarize any suggestions you’ve posited earlier, and give 2 constructive suggestions. 

Use citations in your work, whether it is quoting or paraphrasing. Edit some of the grammatical issues with the paper. Those are my only suggestions because the description was excellent and kept my interest.