A Letter to a Future Student

Dear future student,

Professor Conaway is all you could ever ask for in an English professor. He will tell you at the beginning of the class that you have these things called blogs. They're kind of a big deal. When he says to not keep up with them, he means it. Do your blog posts as assigned, on time. Not only are they a grade but they will be very helpful in writing your papers. Blog posts are meant to help you.

The next part of this class is papers. You have three major papers. I enjoyed writing these papers because I really thought hard about the topics I wanted to use. If you pick fun and exciting topics, you  will enjoy writing your papers. Many of my classmates had trouble with their papers and this is likely because their topic was boring. You get to pick your topics. Take advantage of that!

The last thing: class itself. Its somewhat entertaining. You watch some great videos which illustrate Professor Conaways points. Additionally, he will tell you what he wants to see in the paper. Make an effort. Make a solid rough draft. Take criticism. And make English more than just a required class you have to take.

Development as a Writer

Development isn't exactly the right word here. I don't think my writing developed leaps and bounds in the course. This is only because I think that, because my high school was so writing intensive and I spend two years writing with the AP curriculum, my writing at the beginning of this class was essentially developed. I would say that my writing matured more than anything. While I wrote amazing essays back in high school under the AP standards, I couldn't answer reading comprehension multiple choice questions for my life. Additionally, we had very strict standards where a good essay looked like XYZ. This helped me develop strong writing skills, but at the same time, it limited my creative ability. I really liked how I was able to think about writing in a bigger picture setting. I was allowed to think critically and write how I wanted. The biggest accomplishment was finding my own tone and style which I think conveys ideas better than the AP standard. I liked researching and writing in this class instead of writing about useless crap that didn't matter like I felt I was doing in high school. I found my voice.

I really really realllllllyyyy enjoyed the metaphor in this class. It allowed me to connect what I've already learned and learn practical writing. Particularly, the prickles and goo idea and dinner conversations were awesome ways at looking at things. They were useful in writing something that has meaning. I wasn't the largest fan of the triangle because... well... it didn't need to be in a triangle. In highschool, we used SOAPSTone, which I felt was a better application of the same idea. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/preap/teachers_corner/45200.html

THANKS FOR THE AMAZING SEMESTER! TEACH CREATIVE WRITING! I'LL TAKE THE CLASS!!!

Scientific Feature C/C

Student Sample #1 and #6

The author picked a very interesting topic as it is more of an uncommon topic and yet its ethical component is very interesting. I really enjoyed the development of the topic as the paper progressed. Each paragraph smoothly transitions into the next. The paragraphs were focused, which helped the audience keep interest. At the same time though, none of the information was random, but all related back to the topic and investigated further into fining. At the same time though, the introduction and first few paragraphs poorly introduced the topic and i didn't understand full what was going on until i was a few paragraphs in. It is clear a lot of research went into this paper and the evidence is strongly supported.

Comparatively,  I really enjoyed sample #6 because of its focus and organization. The essay successfully introduces the subject of electrical vehicles and makes the topic interesting and entertaining. I really liked the subsections into the different sections because it allowed for catigorical organization where the topics were well focused without interference. The topic also looks to be broad yet the specifics are well investigated. There are also implications discussed, but I think the author could have gone further there. I will integrate the idea of subtitles in my paper to organize the many ideas I want to discuss.

Comparing Inquiries

Sample Essay #2 and #11

Sample essay #2 investigates the potential controversy regarding aspartame. I enjoyed the essay for the most part, mainly due to the human element present though out the paper. The author introduces herself as a diabetic and frequent user of the product. The outcome of aspartame is very near and dear to her. She also creates a sense of urgency as she relays the idea of most of the population consuming the chemical. Additionally, she tells of the potential it has as a carcinogenic chemical. While she states that it may be harmful, she equally supports the side that it may not be toxic, creating a well balanced and non-bias view. I would have to say, that while her informal language is ok, it is way to informal for this serious of a topic. She could still incorporate her own personal story while getting rid of all of the contractions and slang which affect the authors ethos. Also, at times, especially in paragraph two, the inquiry starts to sound much like a rant. There are too many explanation points and they begin to loose impact. She says the same think about 10 different times about how bad this could affect her. That's nice but move on, answer the question "so what", and go a different direction. Personally, I lost interest in these sections where she said the same thing again and again.

On the other hand, the essay about urinal etiquette was hilarious, informing, and engaging. While I don not really have anything negitive to say, in contrast to essay #2, this topic is much more appropriate for the informal language used. While being informal though, the topic is much heavily researched: observation, practical application, personal experience, and analyzing other studies. Because of all of this information and well versed argument, the author keeps the ethos needed to seriously argue his point. At no point was I bored, and I think this was because of the conversation and instructive like tone. It is relateable, for men at least. I enjoyed how the author explored all possible sides he felt could answer the question and was not afraid to dismiss a possible answer after investigating it. Overall, excellent paper and well researched topic!

Peer Review 3

Jamie Kraft

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?)

This paragraph can defiantly be made more effective. Most of the information is pretty well known and it does not introduce the topic: electronic cigarettes. The quote was kind of interesting but didn’t really still interesting in me. Also, look at the syntax- some phrases were awkward

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?

It talks about cigarettes but doesn’t even mention the main topic: e-cigarettes. Going from broad, cigarettes, to narrow, their electronic alternative, would be more helpful in focusing. Health is briefly discussed as an answer to why this topic matters.

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 feature is generally well structured. Each paragraph has its own idea and dwells a bit on that. It flows chronologically. It feels more like an argument though…. Transitions are basically absent and should be added to help with flow.

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

Each paragraph focuses on one idea! Great! It would be nice to see some more focus and depth into each of the ideas though. It feels as if the surface is just being skimmed. Dare to dive deeper.

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?

Yes. There are points where some more factual data can be inputted because I read something and my first thought is I know that that’s not true… One part I was just really confused about was where you said age to smoke is unlimited? What does that mean? I don’t think unlimited is the correct word.

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.

Most of what is included is just data and facts compiled into a paper. It would be nice for it to flow as a story or even add some metaphor or comparison to tie it back to the human element.

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 some evidence of research through the mention of sources in paragraphs. Adding specific states that outlawed public smoking would help. Also, prove to me the information that you’re giving me. Are e-cigarettes really formally known as electronic? Are they not still know as that? Are they really the most used alternative? I don’t believe that…

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?

It wraps up by attacking electronic cigarettes as more of a drug than a quitting tool. This is where it really sounds like an argument and not a scientific feature. The questions asked are not really that big and I don’t really want more at this point. I wouldn’t say that its effective. To make it so, simply tie up loose ends and look at the broader, world impact. Introducing hookah makes it confusing too- stay focused.

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).

Informal tone is fine. There are WAY too many contractions though which is not appropriate to use for a  scientific journal. The informal language doesn’t really give this paper anything since there is no story attached.

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 likely young adult audience. It gives of the feeling of an online journal topic investigating the harmful effects of cigarettes. It is a bit too dumbed-down and it would be nice to see a bit more depth.

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.

There was some awkward syntax, especially in the first few paragraphs. Also, cigarettes in the last paragraph  are not possessive.

Peer Review 2

Jazmine

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?)

Make this a cery active paragraph. “Scan through” instead of hypothetical. It will make it a stronger introduction. The rhetorical questions are generally effective. It isn’t really surprising, but relatable.

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?

I really like your focus on the science within the music. I think this is an under researched area and it sparks my interest for sure. The lead does indicate what the story will be about. You could do a bit more implication of why the reader should care though. “So what?”

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.

I really like your transitions! You wrap up one paragraph and go right into the next. The topics flow one after the other and are related. At the same time each paragraph has its own subtopic  and focus. I think more can be said though about why the audience should care. Thematic structure is good.

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

All of the paragraphs are really good and well focused. The last body paragraph about ASD really throws me off though. I don’t know what to think because it has nothing to do with the past paragraphs and seems jumbled together.

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?

Yes, a few. I think the research is really well done but that more could be said in general. Dive deeper and tell people why they should care. How does music impact everyone? Is music required in a persons like or merely indispensible?

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.

The topic lends itself to this being a more informal paper with strong human ties. You could speak less to the audience though. Less you and we and more of who you researched. Don’t make assuming statements because that is not solid research and you don’t know how I feel. Music is very interpretational.

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

Yes! This is very well researched and I bet that the current sources could be used to finish the paper through the addition of concrete examples. As far as sensory, how does one feel, physiologically, when listening to music? I think hormones would be good to talk about more. Do certain hormones get released with certain music?

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 conclusion is very blah… It doesn’t really say much or do everything. Tie up loose ends and then look at the big picture. Connect in a universal way where everyone can see the implications. Tie your paper together.

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 is rather informal. This works, but the “yous” need to be taken out and replaced with more formal language. Talking to the audience is somewhat uncomfortable with such a perceptive 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)?

This would be really good in a cognitive or psychological jorurnal. It discusses a lot of basic psychology and implications of such would be very compelling. The author is almost to the point, and will be after going just a little deeper, to effectivle address the audience.

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.

 Youtube or log on to spotify is weird syntax. In general, examine your sentence structure because it is very similar at times and becomes boring. No other grammar or typos that I saw.

Peer Review 1

Sarah Ahart

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?)

Beautiful introduction! Like really well constructed. It is interesting, introduces the subject, and new information to me. VERY effective at drawing in attention.

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?

It clearly introduces the topic in a relaxed manner through the telling of a story. The personal human element is clear very early on in the paper.

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 feature starts out with the basics by defining what synestisia really is in a relatable way It then dives into exploring each face in focus as well as the historical and current understandings. If you need to up your word count, it would be nice to hear more implications. Dig deeper into why all of this really matters and try to evoke some emotion from the reader. I also really like your transitions where you sum up the last paragraph and start a new one.

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

Each paragraph focuses on one idea! Great! It would be nice to see some more focus and depth into each of the ideas though. While you’re already getting technical and specific, look into some of the impacts. Relate to other conditions maybe?

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?

Your bases are covered and you have all the development needed to produce a good paper. Everything is clearly explained. It would be nice to hear a bit more about the impact that this has on the person and people around them. Is this just something they have to deal with? Why? Why should I care about this topic?

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.

Most of the paper includes the human element from early in the paper. I really like how the information just flows seamlessly from paragraph to paragraph and the human element just stays constant. I guess it helps that this is a human condition…

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

Everything seems to be clearly cited and explained. Try bringing in more sensory clues to help the audience relate physically and emotionally to the paper. I think this is a really cool topic and the paper could really impact the audience.

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?

So you’re sort of missing a conclusion, but you already know that… For your conclusion, I would make it very human focused, somewhat as a mirror on your introduction. Tie up the lose ends and make your you really make clear what this really is. Think big picture, worldly implications.

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).

Informal tone which really works in this human paper. The writing was great and vey engaging. Its tone remained consistent and facts were easily integrated. I really liked the interview point of view. Expand that into the paper and conclusion more, please.

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)?

This belongs in a psychology research journal because I feel this topic is more common than one thinks and there isn’t much awareness about it. The audience is addressed well. Maybe add more fact and sciency stuff.

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.

None that I saw.

Sarah, really amazing and interesting paper! Thank you so much for letting me read it!

Scientific Feature Outline

Lead: Long analogy/metaphor on how plaque is a temporary town and how tarter is a city.
Section one: Cavities
Discuss what a cavity is and what causes it. Talk about why one may still have a cavity but it may not hurt and why it should be fixed. Talk about how germs are involved. Look into how diet may affect cavity formation- ie, why candy is bad for our teeth.
Section two: modern restoration
Discuss the current restoration options and how some options are more expensive and time consuming. Link smaller cavities with easier fixes and deeper cavities with more in depth treatments. Make this a story and explore sensations: hearing, smell, touch, sight (not many tastes).
Section three: History and future of dentistry
Convey an understanding about how rudimentary dentistry used to be. Make people cringe here. It used to be painful. Put a big emphasis on the discovery of anesthetics here. For the future of dentistry, look at a few new technologies and answer the "so what?" Why does all of this technology make dentistry more bearable.
Conclusion: Here I will sum up what was just talked about and tie up any loose ends I feel were left dangling. This is also the place that I will make a subtle plea for people to take better care of their teeth.

What's the drill?

The science feature I'm writing is all about teeth, dentistry, and just oral health in general. While I am writing to explain some scientific ideas in simple terms, I also hope to create an urgency to keep one's teeth clean and to see a dentist on a regular basis. I will keep the article informative with little to no bias and try to focus on fact more than anything else. While oral hygiene is a relatively broad topic, I hope to cover these areas:

What is a cavity and how does one form?
Why should a dentist be seen routinely?
How are cavities fixed?
What happens if a cavity is allowed to continue growing?
History of restorative dentistry.
Future of restorative dentistry.

Because dentistry is a topic which makes some people uncomfortable, I will be using informal language in order to convey ideas. I want it to feel like a small group conversation. The paper will have three distinct sections with a subtitles separating the flow of thought since the sections will be distinct.

Inequality quantified

When I opened this article, I had no intention to actually read it and discuss its role as a science feature. After all, this article is about the gender gap in the science field. Not too science-y, right? Well, this article discusses inequality of the genders in a social science perspective, making it a rather unique science feature article. Prom the second I opened it, the prickles caught me. The interactive graph with data comparing the number of males to females in a given science field over time. While the field of psychology was relatively balanced according to the data, I was surprised to find how lopsided fields such as engineering and computer science were. These prickles made me keep reading. The shocking statistics grabbed me like a good hook would in any English paper while the goo of the article worked on my emotions. The article systematically broke down the argument into sections to promote equality in the field.  Common thoughts were brought up to be related giving the article a human aspect. Like many science feature, subtitles are also used, organizing and focusing ideas to keep the readers interest. While this feature did a great job at pointing out an issue in social science and presented a good amount of data, the amount of goo became overwhelming at points. In the equal pay section, it sounded more like a diatribe or argument than a science feature presenting factual studies, which the feature uses earlier.

Antibiotic Resistance. What Worked?

Creeping into a world where these super bacteria are broadening their ground, this science feature feature. With well balanced prickles and goo, CREs, a rare but growing form of antibiotic resistant bacteria are discusses. The articles is well organized being separated into subtitles: introduction, the trend, the alarm call, the spread, etc. Each section covers the usually deadly form of bacteria in great detail while not loosing the readers attention due to the focus on the topic. The article utilizes plenty of prickles in the form of statistics and quotes from CDC research. None of this information is too overwhelming though, as it is written in simple English. In fact, the entire article is written in easy to understand language. All of the information can easily be related to daily life and the topic is of great human interest. The author also maintains attention through creating a sense of urgency at the very beginning. He states that this strain of bacteria is rare but expanding yet also usually deadly. This speaks right to the human interest of sustaining life. This bacteria has the potential for killing life along with any human element, thus speaking directly to us. While it is usually easy to be critical of any type of science feature, whether it be not accessible enough or too dry, I don't feel the need to pick anything out of this one. I feel it is highly accessible and informative. If anything, it is not technical enough, forcing me to understand how complex this topic really is.

Black Holes

While there are many things that really work in this scientific journal article, there are points when my attention is completely lost. Beginning with the parts which work well, the author does a great job beginning the article with a unique definition and using commonalities to relate difficult concepts. The four line introduction explaining how Einstein was wrong really shows how large this topic is. It demonstrates how complex the topic is and how it is easily misunderstood. At the same time, this abstract defines a black hole in simple words. "A collapsed star" is actually what a black hole is, and that is how it is defined. Simple, yet understood. At the same time, when it gets to the later paragraphs and the finer detail, the author does a good job relating facts to common items. For example, saying that a "sugar cube sized" fragments weighs a ton really helps relate the ideas. On that topic though, all of these ideas compound on each other. There is a constant pounding of information at the beginning with no real ease into anything. Numbers are getting thrown around. Magnitudes of size and weight are compiling. There is very little discussion in between each inset of fact and it all becomes a lot to comprehend.

Madeline Inquiry Feedback

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Author: Madeline de Mello

Peer: Craig McKenzie

Introduction:

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

The author poses the question: are libraries really useful in todays society? It is expressed very clearly in the introduction as well as the title.

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 talks a lot about her personal experiences and tells a story somewhat to keep attention. The paper effectively expresses this interest.

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

There is a lot of prior knowledge in the paper. Most of this comes from the authors personal experiences and observations in a variety of libraries.

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 tone throughout is very informal. I think this is a good way to express the inquiry topic. At the same time though, I think the parenthesis are misused. Usually, when I see parenthesis, I skim over the ideas within them. I think the thoughts are very good and they should be used within a dependent clause offset by commas.

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

The tone is very consistent. I think the author does a good job sticking to the informal voice and not shifting.

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

This topic is very versatile. The author does a good job discussing libraries in general and specific libraries as well as their specific uses. I think this goes a long way in a paper like this.

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?

This paper had a lot of ideas in it and while there was some preliminary research,  I think the author could go further. First, there should be more quantitative ideas, such as statistics, introduced throughout the paper to back up claims. This would help support some of the more general ideas and bring magnitude to them. There is also room for more ‘expert’ observations.

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

The author assumes that what is happening here, is happening everywhere. Maybe in areas where not everyone has access to the Internet at home, the library is used more? I think the quantitative data would really help here.

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

Research was used well but it was not really taken full advantage of. I would like to see more quotes, as there are very few. Additionally, I think the information from the sources could be used more in depth.

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

My attention was held pretty well throughout the essay. At some points, because the essay is exploring so many different directions, it does get somewhat hard to follow.

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

The topic seems to generally stay at the same level of detail throughout. While I think it works as is, by going farther in depth with your research discussion you could do this is you see fit.

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 conculsion functions to tie together loose ends and sumerize the main points of the paper. I think it works well as the conclusion and really emphasizes your view.

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

I think it does a great job at not only summarizing but tying together the paper. While theres not much I would add, maybe discussing solutions to your answer since your topic allows for this.

Sieu Feedback

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Author: Sieu Tran

Peer: Craig McKenzie

Introduction:

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

The question is something to the extent of: what happens after we die? It is pretty clear. Make sure you check your grammer though. “Grew up in a catholic family” should be “growing up in a catholic family.”

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.)

While the topic holds interest alone, the authors inclusion of personal support helps keep the readers attention. It is held through the telling of a story.

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

There is a lot of knowledge that comes from personal experience. Everyone has a stake in the inquiry because everyone dies.

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 tone is personal yet reserved. While it is in first person, it gives formal vibes which I think are necessary for this topic. The tone is handled very well with the author’s voice. This topic obviously matters to the author because of his personal experiences with death.

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

The tone breaks every few paragraphs to halt the story to insert research and other’s ideas. I think it would work better if in these more formal paragraphs some informal references were added.

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

This topic appropriately moves from a very specific situation to more of a vague one. The story of his grandfather is told and broadened into death in general. I think this is done well.  

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 does a great job at research! There are many ideas introduced but they were all well thought out. If anything needs to be added, instead of adding new topics, I suggest going deeper into the contemplation of research already done.

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

There isn’t really a lot of questioning going on here. There is some exploration of both the science and religious sides of death, but I think it would be helpful to somewhat question reality and the findings for what the truth really is?

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

Research is taken from many different resources.  The ideas that were researched very well, but I wish there were some numbers for the more concrete thinkers to grasp. Maybe find a poll of who believes in what, when it comes to dying. I’m sure this can be found on the internet.

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

The organization is by far the strong point of this essay and keeps my attention. The distinct sections investigating one side of the argument makes the entire inquiry easy to follow and stay attentive to.

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

The topic seems to broaden as the essay continues. It starts with a personal story and adds to that by talking about death in general. I think this strategy works really well!

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 acts to bring everything together and add some more touchy feely stuff. It works to bring importance and personality too the essay. Just be careful about being so morbid.  

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

I think it does an effective job wrapping up the paper. It begins and ends personally and I feel like there is a sense of finishing upon reading the conclusion with all questions answered.

Ally Inquiry Feedback

Introduction:

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

The question is stated very clearly in the last part of the introductory paragraph: Are colleges doing an effective job at offering healthy food choices.

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 topic explored is interesting to the college audience. Many people are fascinated over heath and eating right is a big media endorsed initiative. It could be improved upon be adding additional coverage of both sides of the argument. The author makes it clear that we should be interested as it impacts our health.

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

The author’s stake lies in her being a college student herself and eating campus food. While she has knowledge firsthand, she does a good job bringing in many other peoples ideas.

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)?

Compared to the other essays people wrote, this essay has more of a formal tone. This is alright though, because the tone stays constant and evokes a certain persona which takes on many perspectives.

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

While the tone is mainly formal throughout, there are a few slips of first person. This usually isn’t an issue but is a little weird to come across, especially after the first paragraph.

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

The paper is fairly specific with the examples chosen. There are specific restaurant details, specific college details, etc.

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 ideas are really good, and the thought process is evident. However, the question is not equally explored on both sides and there is an obvious bias from the beginning. There needs to be more organization with the paper. Transitions and breaking up longer paragraphs would also be helpful.

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

There are a few side questions and assumptions which distract slightly from the paper. Because these questions aren’t explored too deeply though, I don’t think they really hurt the paper. They don’t make it better though.

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?

I liked how research was pulled from all over the place: surveys, personal experience, and the experts on the internet. On the other hand, I think they could all be used a bit more and the experts could become a larger part in better depth. The quotes were also useful.

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

The attention, for me really lagged during the long paragraphs. Sometimes there just wasn’t much going on as far as discussion or evidence from a solid source. The opinions lost me sometimes.

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

The inquiry does become much broader. I think the author stopped at an appropriate point: any broader and the discussion and significance to the question would have been lost.

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 is a lot going on in the conclusion. New ideas and information is introduced along side the wrapping up of the paper. It becomes a little much. I would suggest focusing on the ideas discussed in the body and making sure to tie up loose ends.

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

This kind of feels more like another body paragraph. It would be better if there was another paragraph added to just tie up the inquiry and answer the question.

My Dinner Table

Discussing a topic as complex as visual correction requires input. While I am one person and have my one opinions on the matter, I want to explore all sides of both arguments. To do that, I will invite several people to my dinner table.

1) An eye doctor: Who knows more about vision than someone who works with the eye on a daily basis? No one! Either through a personal connection or through internet articles, I will consult the opinions of an optometrist to determine the best method of vision correction.
2) The daily glasses wearer: Through an online survey, I will consult those who primarily wear just glasses. I want to know why they chose glasses as their means for correcting their vision.
3) The daily contacts wearer: Through an online survey, I will consult those who primarily wear just contacts. I want to know why they chose contacts as their means for correcting their vision.
4) Those who wear both: This group should be particularly interesting. I'm interested to see what strengths and weaknesses seen in both.
5) A historian: I want to know the history of vision correction to see how it has evolved into today.
6) Designer: We all know that a major reason for wearing contacts: aesthetics. I want to see what is considered fashionable in the realm of glasses and maybe see why people still think contacts look better.
7) Biologist: Vision has to do with how light is perceived in the retina. Does the method of vision correction chosen affect anything from a biological standpoint?
8) Psychology: Some people think they look really good in glasses. Others do not. What in our brain picks up the perception of how we make ourselves out to look/

What am I questioning and why?

I close my right eye. Blurry. I close my left eye. Clear. "How is this possible", I thought? At every past eye appointment my vision was perfect. Heck, it was better than perfect. What's going on? How is my vision blurry? I couldn't understand. I am a senior in high school, at this point, and always told myself, "I will never wear glasses." When I walk into the chain eye store with my $99 pair of glasses and eye exam coupon, I never intend to use it. I tell the doctor, I want contacts. When I walk out though, what is making my eyesight like an HD TV? Glasses. Full framed, silver, 'made in china' glasses. I lost.

Only six months later, I go back to the same McDonald's of vision correction. I wait in the waiting room for about 10 minutes and then walk back to the exam room. After a few measurements and a check of my prescription, I open the backing to a plastic reservoir. There were the contacts that would free me from those hideous metal frames. That first time it took me an hour to get the contact lenses into my red, wattery, swollen eyes. My eyes were mad at me and I could feel it.

Seven days later, eyes still not very happy with me, I wake up and put on my glasses. This is a victory. I am freed from all of the troubles that contacts caused me. My frames are my friend, ever-present yet reliable. While I've made my choice, I am curious to see what everyone else thinks. There are those that prefer glasses for their style and health.  Then there are those who swear by their invisible alternative. Well, what really is better? Glasses or contacts?

Overdocumenting and Overacheiving

The argument is all about trying to prove a point and get everyone on your side. On the other hand, the inquiry is more of an exploration. In A.J. Jacobs' inquiry into "The Overly Documented Life," the inquiry strategy is used. Jacobs begins by introducing a subject which is an idea of walking around recording every moment of his life. He does this in order to inquire in to what the effects might be. He then writes a generally informal essay using facts, thoughts, and observations in an attempt to answer his question. All sides are examined to create a well balanced argument that, yes, carrying around a camera changes the way people act around someone.

What I really like about the essay is the voice and focus. With regards to voice, Jacobs is more informal. He is not sounding 'pushy' nor is there any clear bias. He simply inserts all of the information available to him in order answer the question. The insertion of stories, such as the one where he tries to gossip but is instead ignored. Personal flair makes Jacobs not only credible but interesting as it is obvious that he is interested in his subject. The focus in the essay makes it very easy to follow. Everything discussed is relevant to the question. The personal stories are relevant, the  images are relevant, and the facts are relevant. While they all answer the question in the same fashion, they act as compounding evidence not redundant facts.

The Unitasker

 AJ Jacob’s writing is inspiring and makes me want to try unitasking for one day. First, the way is structures his essay is clear to follow and really relays his point. The essay is structured into sections with defined subtitles. One knows what they’re about to read and they are mentally prepared to focus on it. This is almost how Jacob’s focuses on his single tasks. Next, Jacob’s is sure to bring in personal stories and several expert opinions. Not only does this provide ethos behind the writing, but it also provides for some interest. His hook at the beginning answers why he is asking to what extent can we unitask. Personal stories continue into his sections. By the time he begins talking about his quite dinner with his wife, it is clear that he is taking his experiment all the way. The personal connection makes the audience develop a relationship with the author and continue interest in what he is saying. I enjoyed the testimony of the experts as they really answered the effects. How multitasking was dangerous, as proven through statistics and studies.

The major question Jacob’s is asking is what effect unitasking has and how possible it is to attain. He begins by giving historic examples. When there was no television or Internet, unitasking was normal. Then, explaining how distractions have evolved, he examines the modern day unitask. So while he proves that it is or at least was possible in the past, I feel as if he is infinitely approaching a limit with modern applications. No matter how much he is trying, he still is constantly getting distracted and thinking of other tasks even when physically only doing one thing. Even on his last day he slips up.

Feedback 3

Peer Review; SLA Argument

Author’s Name:             Jazmine                                                Peer Review’s Name: Craig Mckenzie

What is the main point, the argument?

Last paragraph: “The audience is who makes it appear daunting and distasteful, the reason stereotypes even exist is because people judge the way others are living. Adams’ work exposes what he feels and sees in Appalachia, and his photography may end up dismantling the idea of said stereotypes.” Good argument but I would want to see it more directly linked to the commentary in the body paragraphs.

How does the argument refute potential detractors? [

Starting in your introduction you make sure to take a neutral stance and not upset anyone. You acknowledge there are two sides to the argument. Your paragraphs also do a good job at showing both sides.

Introduction:

I would take out the “blah blah once said” because it is boring as none other… You can easily start with just the quote if that’s what you want to use. It will create a larger shock facter. Good about of background

Paragraph Concerns:

They seem to be a good length. The ideas within are related. Try to condense the amount of evidence you present and spend more time discussing the implications of the quotes/examples. Make sure you answer the “so what” behind each point you are bringing up.

Evidence: 

There is a lot of evidence and condensing it would do wonders but it is well organized in paragraphs. I like that you rely more on the quotes and hard evidence instead of what you may know. Omission of personal pronouns makes your argument much stronger.

Transitions:

They’re kind of lacking. You have a somewhat transition at “after questioning” but I realize that this really ahs to do with what you are talking about next. It would be good to include a quick subordinate clause to wrap up the last paragraph and then talk about what’s next. That way you tie up and relate to the next idea. “while I just talked about this, in the same way I will be talking about something similar but different”

Conclusion: 

You propose a new idea but then continue to wrap up all of the loose ends talked about in the above paragraphs. I think your conclusion is very strong but I would suggest cutting or somehow getting rid of the rhetorical questions. You are trying to conclude not spark new thought.

Voice/Audience: 

I’m not a big fan of the rhetorical questions in your conclusion. You did a great job excluding personal pronouns which I think made your argument stronger. You kept people with other opinions in mind. Nice!

Revision Suggestions:

Turn some of that evidence into commentary and talk about the implications more that what happened. We all saw the pictures and know what he did. Don’t ask questions in your conclusion. Add transitions to make the paper flow.