You Live, You Learn, You Write.
Daybook and Forum Entries
# 1 (Daybook Entry)
Chimamda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story
1) What is your "take-away" from this talk? What connections are you seeing?
2) What is Adichie's definition of the single story? What is the danger of a single story?
3) How are our identities wrapped up in these narratives?
My Daybook Response:
My "take-away" from this story is that we shouldn't judge a person or culture based on stories we are told about them. I think she really focuses on making a connection to being prejudice against those who may seem different. Adichie's definition of a single story is something we are told about someone over and over again until that story is what they become. The dangers are the fact that people can become very close-minded or stereotypical if they listen to a single story. I think our identities are wrapped up in these narratives because people have their own opinions about people based on assumptions or experiences. People may form stereotypes of people or cultures when they haven't been able to see things for themselves.
Why did I choose this peice?
I really enjoyed watching this video. I would recommend for everyone to watch this video because I believe that this problem is still occurring in our society today. For this daybook entry I had to really pay attention to the video to be able to analyze Adichie’s definition of a single story, which is why I believe that this entry demonstrates critical thinking. Having to decide if I agreed with her explanation gave me a chance to look at things from a different perspective. We were able to discuss this video in the classroom and I was able to think about ways a single story has affected our society.
Click on the link below to view Adichie's video on The Danger of a Single Story
http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story
#2 (Forum Post)
Reading Response to Barthes' Toys
1. What is Barthes' main argument concerning the function of toys? Aside from entertainment, what does he suggest that they do?
2. Barthes writes that "French toys always mean something." Can you think of a toy, product, or common object and interpret its social meaning? Focus on its function, material, and formal details. How could this object reflect social values?
3. How could you connect what Barthes is saying about toys and what Adichie is saying about the single story?Please refer to specific places in the text or quote in your response. Your total response should be around 300 words. Please upload to the forum by classtime on Thursday, 3/13.
My Forum Response
1) I believe that Barthes' main argument concerning the function of toys is that the toys should be created to teach children about things that are meaningful in life, but they should not prevent the child from showing creativity or imagination. When Barthes says "French toys are usually based on imitation, they are meant to produce children who are users, not creators," I feel that he thinks that the French made toys that helped children understand real life objects and situations at a young age, but also caused them to become people who are only able to have one perception of life. I thinks that he feels that toys that are very crafted and simple may have more meaning to a child versus the hard, plastic or metals toys that are more complex that most kids play with in our society.
2) As a child I use to have an easy bake oven which I think is geared towards girls to prepare them to cook since that's what a lot of women usually did around the house. I also had a big barbie head and I could do her hair and make her pretty, which depicts how women in society like to put on make-up and do their hair.
3) Barthes makes a point about the French children learning to accept all of the adult functions that they are shown because that was all that they were able too see with the French toys. I think this relates to when, as a child, Adichie would create stories with the images of the things she read about in British stories because that's the only type of literature that she was exposed to. Adichie was basically closed minded until she was exposed to something that could further her imagination just like the effect that the toys had on the French children.
Why did I choose this piece?
I believe that this piece made a lot connections between French toys and how they affect the way children grow up in their society. I was able to connect to Barthes' story by including my personal experience with one of the toys that I used as a young child. This story was hard for me to understand at first, so I was unsure about the connections that I made. I wanted to include this because I felt that this piece challenged my abilty to connect with the story.
# 3 (Daybook Entry)
Peer Response Workshop in Class
BE SURE TO HAVE A PRINTED HARD COPY OF YOUR DRAFT WITH QUESTIONS AND NOTES FOR YOUR GROUP.
My Daybook Response
My paper is about how image seems to be very important in the music industry. My inquiry question is, "What does the music industry value more, talent or image?" I am trying to show how our society has made music into more than just a song that you hear on the radio. I know my paper may seem hard to follow, but I would like to know if my paper seems like an argument? Also, what can I do to create a better introduction? What do you think I need to improve? What would make my paper flow better?
Why did I choose this piece?
This daybook entry would be an instance where I questioned something. I had a lot of questions that I needed feedback on to help me get through the revision process for my inquiry project paper. This entry was also based on a question, which was my inquiry question. I recieved a lot of good feedback from my group during this peer editing workshop and I wanted to include this because I thought this daybook entry was one of the most helpful entries this semester. My peers comments gave me more confidence and insight on what I could do to make my paper better, so I utilized the feedback that I received.
# 4 (Forum Post)
Response to Nacirema
I want you to use this forum as a space for you to start thinking about how language, writing, and rhetoric have the ability to change the world. Try to think in terms of how our culture (practices, concepts, institutions, beliefs, etc.) has been shaped by what we have been told and by what we read. This Inquiry Forum is intended more to think, wonder, and work through—you can create an original response to the piece, the concept of rhetoric, or the power of language OR you can continue to work through your thoughts and answer any of the questions that I posed in class:
How does Miner’s interpretation of American society alter the way you view American culture? Do you agree with his point or not really?
What does Miner do with his writing? His language? His choice of genre? What effect did it have you?
Would you qualify this piece as “good writing"? Why or why not?
What are some other examples of culturally accepted phenomena? (school calendar, pink for girls and blue for boys, ideas of beauty, etc.)
How can such purposefully manipulated writing or thinking become dangerous? Examples of dangerous language and thinking
What sort of power does language and culture hold for us? Why do you think so?
What is rhetoric? How does rhetoric play a role in all of this?
Remember that your response needs to be 250 words minimum AND include examples from the text or related examples from society at large. Please have your response posted by WEDNESDAY and REPLY to a classmate by class time on Thursday.
My Forum Response
When I first started reading Miner’s piece, I had no idea where the story was going to go. From the beginning of this piece Miner states that the Nacirema could be described as “an example of the extremes to which human behavior can go,” which led me to believe that this culture would be extremely different from the American culture. I completely breezed through the background details, so it didn’t occur to me that Miner basically gives the reader geographical hints connecting Nacirema to America by stating that they are a North American group. Miner’s choice of words, which are very creative, is what made me read pass the hints that he gave such as the Nacirema territory being between the “Canadian Cree” and other areas of Mexico. I thought that the mention of a highly developed market economy seemed a little strange because of my previous assumptions about the culture already.
For some reason when Miner starts saying that this culture spends a lot of time doing ritual activities, I started thinking of the religious activities or rituals that tribes of different countries may perform because I don’t consider our culture as ritual activity. Going back over Miner’s writing is actually very humorous to me because I can understand what parts of our culture he describes. I would have to say that his word choices are definitely what makes this piece of writing more difficult to understand. How are we supposed to know that the medicine men and herbalist Miner refers to are actually doctors and pharmacist? Or that the holy-mouth-man is only the dentist that we go to every year? Even though I already assumed that this was some type of bizarre culture, I was still able to relate parts of the culture with the American culture. The “holy-mouth-men” is actually what led my mind to compare the Nacirema rituals with the activities of Americans in society, like going to the dentist. After that, the connections began to make more since to me especially now that I know that Miner was talking about Americans all along. I really like the style of this piece. At first I didn’t particularly like the writing because it sounded so ridiculous to me, but now that I understand it I really appreciate Miner’s writing style. This piece showed me a new perspective of writing and it makes me want to understand other similar writing styles.
Why did I choose this piece?
During this class I really enjoyed learning about Miner's style, so this forum post is actually one of my favorites. I love how I didn't really understand his style at first, but I still made some connections. I was so shocked when I found out that Miner was descrlibing American culture. I chose this piece becuase this is what opened my mind up to a new learning style. Others may not like the style because of Miner's word choices, but I developed an appreciation for his style and his writing. This post has influenced my perspective on writng and the Nacirema piece is actually one of my favorite pieces this semester.
# 5 (Forum Post)
Responding to Straub
Responding to Straub:
After reading Richard Straub’s piece on peer revision (including the sample student essays with comments), please answer the following questions. Remember that each response should be well thought out with evidence from the text and past experiences to support your response. A thorough response should require at least 3-5 sentences per question.
1) Straub explains that your main task is a simple one. “You’re there to play back to the writer how you read the paper: what you got from it; what you found interesting; where you were confused; where you wanted more” (137). If this is your main task, then what role should “editing” or “mechanical correction” play into your response? What do you see as the difference between peer editing and peer response/revision?
2) What are some specific pieces of advice that Straub gives? Which 2-3 pieces of advice do you find to be the most important for good feedback? Why?
3) Take a few moments to write about how Straub’s perspective on peer response may be different from your past experiences. Look back at the comments on the student’s, (Todd), paper. How are the comments on Todd’s paper similar or different to comments that you may have received from peers in the past?
Have your answers to these questions uploaded to Moodle by class time on Tuesday, 2/11.
My Forum Response
1) I think that Straub made a good point telling us that as readers we should really focus more on being a good reader and giving good feedback. During some of my previous peer editing experiences one of the main things I was quick to pick out of a paper were the simple errors such as spelling, grammar, etc. Now it does seem like focus more on the content of the paper would play a bigger role in being a responsive reader. I think “mechanical correction” could still be just as important, but a responsive reader may be the one to get the writer to find ways to better their piece of writing versus just telling them what to do. That leads into the difference between peer editing and peer response/revision. Peer editing would probably be more like telling the writer, “This is what you did wrong. Fix it.” Then peer response/revision would be telling a writer, “I understand what you are saying, but what do you think about rewording the sentence?” Peer response/revision is giving the writer the room to edit their own paper as well as considering the writers suggestions.
2) I think one of Straub’s most important pieces of advice is “Don’t steer away from being critical.” He actually says that we should feel obligated to say what we do or do not like in a paper. I think a lot of people try to be too nice while peer editing a paper instead of giving honest opinions with constructive criticism. Straub also says “Ask questions, especially real questions.” As a reader it’s our job to make sure we understand what the writer is talking about. Asking questions could potentially help the writer to clarify things to make the paper easier to understand. Lastly I think that Straub’s advice to “Offer some praise, and then explain to the writer why the writing works,” is important because I’ve seen some feedback on some of my papers saying that the writing was good, but I didn’t know what was so good about it. It makes me wonder if they are just saying that something is good because they don’t have anything else to say or do they actually agree with what I wrote.
3) With my previous experiences with peer responses, my papers didn’t receive much of a response unless it was from the teacher. Even then it may not have been a response for me to truly reflect off of. I was used to getting my paper back with some spelling and grammar corrections and a few comments from students telling me what they think I should change in my paper. I think that I actually gave more comments based on the content of the paper, but that was simply because I didn’t know what else to do.
Why did I choose this piece?
This forum response is one of my strongest pieces. I had never thought about a good way to review a paper during peer editing and during this respose I was able to reflect on what I had learned. I think that I did a good job using examples from the text as well as including my own personal experiences. I believe that my reponses to each question were carefully thought out. I was able to find ways to make this piece easier for me to understand and to remeber by putting this into my own words. For example, I said that peer editing would probably be more like telling the writer, “This is what you did wrong. Fix it.” This shows how I was able to understand what Straub was saying in his piece by making my own connections.
