Readers Response #12

 In the article, “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies” by Dennis Baron focuses on the effect that technology has on literacy. Baron does research on the history of different writing technologies. He introduces the fact that even pencils can be considered as technology and that writing never lacked technology. Baron shows the reader how technology and literacy intersects.

I can relate Baron’s article to Debrah Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy”. Both authors introduce the fact that literacy has a big impact on what resources you have and what social background you come from.

Before You Read:

2. My definition of technology is basically a new and faster version of something. Some examples include books to kindles, computers to laptops, and landline phones to cell phones. I think anything that is an upgrade of something else can be considered technology.

QD:

2. I agree with the fact new technology changes and shape the nature of writing. I believe as the world’s technologies grow the concepts and resources make writing a lot easier and more available to a wider audience. I do agree with this fact, technology is growing rapidly every day and is a lot different now than from when I was kid.

I really enjoyed this article about the effects technology has on literacy. It made me want to redefine what exactly I thought technology was. It also made me really think about what were actually doing when we write.

Readers Response #11

In the article, “Sponsors of Literacy” Deborah Brandt introduces the ideas that people can’t become literate on their own. She portrays that literacy is “sponsored” by people, institutions, and circumstances. Brandt discovers after interviewing a large amount of people, literary sponsors are everywhere. She also talks about the fact that people “misappropriate” literary sponsor’s intentions by using the literacy for their own reasons rather than the sponsors, portraying tensions between the two.

I can really connect Deborah Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy” to James Porters “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”. Porter introduces the idea that every text has a trace of another text. I think that really connects to the fact that although people often have their own personality, who they become has a lot to do with who their sponsor was while they were growing, and that has a big effect on them.

Before You Read:

2. I have seen U.S. culture and my own local community encourage and emphasize reading in many different ways. Growing up, our teachers stress the importance of reading. In today’s world you can rarely get a job without knowing how to read. Teachers as well as parents stress to kids about the importance of reading.

AE:

1. My literacy history compared to those of Branch and Lopez were quite different. I would say I was somewhere in the middle of the two. Growing up in a middle class family I went to a public school and learned to read and write through school. I had early education, plenty of access to books and computers, and a lot of parental support. My primary literacy sources would have been the teachers that taught me to read and write. I think I definitely had an adequate amount of access provided by my sponsors, and I took advantage of that. I think I have had access to all the literacies I could even hope for growing up.

I really enjoyed Brandt’s article, I never really thought about all the advantages I have had when it comes to previous schooling. Unknowingly, literacy sponsors have a lot of effect on you as a person which is a topic most people don’t even usually acknowledge.

Readers Response #10

In the article “Good English and Bad” Bill Bryson explains how the rules of grammar are simply fading. He starts with the history of English, explaining its complexity. He talks about the fact that since there are not grammar police, the rules have been broken. Bryson believes that this problem was created because of how we teach grammar.

When Reading Bryson’s article “Good English and Bad” I could really relate it to James Porter’s article about the discourse community. Although different topics, they both touched on the idea of having to fit into a certain community with their writing. They both realized that what we write depends on the community you are in and whether it’s there or not determines if you follow the “rules”.

Before You Read:

1. I would consider good English from bad English depending on the usage of words, variety of vocabulary, and sentence structure. Bad English would be more considered as simple and full of error. I think this because growing up our teachers would show us clips of good writing and bad.

QD:

1. Bryson is challenging grammar. Bryson states “Consider the parts of speech. In Latin, the verb has up to 120 inflections. In English it never has more than five…” when explaining how watered down the complex language really is. He also mentions “We seldom stop to think about it, but some of the most basic concepts in English are naggingly difficult to find” and explains the fact that the definition of a sentence is a lot different than how we use it.

AE:

2. I think what Bryson means when he says the English is fluid and democratic is that it is always changing with the popular crowd. I have seen this in writing because it is always changing and writers sort of change their style with the popular demand at the time.

MM:  Verb. Noun. Adjective. When I write I am never really thinking about the part if speech. You learn about parts of speech in middle school. I think when your younger knowing the parts of speech does help you with writing. It’s what shapes the sentence and helps you get a better understanding of it. I think as you get older you don’t really think about the parts of speech when you’re actually writing it just happens.

I thought Bryon’s article was kind of interesting. Grammar is something that’s not so important to people more so now a days. I really think grammar needs to be enforced a little more. Grammar is something we deal with in everyday life whether realizing it or not.

Project 1 Intro/Conversation

When defining plagiarism, one might say: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author, or without the fancy terms, cheating. What do we really do to avoid plagiarism? What is the real purpose of plagiarism rules? If I were to rewrite the rules of plagiarism I would make sure to separate the people who aren’t guilty to the actual cheaters.

In today’s academic world, plagiarism is something that can ruin someone’s life if you’re not informed of it properly. Plagiarism is often misconceived as something easy to avoid because of paraphrasing, but what it really is to writers is a burden. When trying to inform someone about the facts of a topic, the last thing you want to do is rearrange the words to make the statement less efficient. But hasn’t it all been said before? While were busy paraphrasing someone else’s words to make it our own, how do we know that the same combination of words we are using haven’t been used before? We don’t. Writing has been around for hundreds of years. Every combination of all the words in the English language has been used once before. This takes originality to a whole other level. It questions if originality can even exists in today’s writing. More people struggle with trying to watch how they re-word a sentence so there not considered “cheaters” rather than focusing on how to draw in their audience with facts. There is a fine line between someone who has their motive set out to copy someone else’s writing, to put their name on the top of it, versus someone who just wants to get facts out there.

James Porter draws out the idea of intertexuality when it comes to plagiarism. He proposes the idea that every text has a “trace” of other texts. He also touches on the fact that every text draws some ideas from other texts. So who is given credit for being original?

Darise Bowden describes plagiarism “On the one hand, plagiarism is a nasty, venal, and immoral crime that needs to be eradicated while, on the other, plagiarism cannot be a problem--sharing and borrowing is inherent in the nature of language”, explaining the many sides plagiarism can be looked at. But can plagiarism be taken so lightly as to not have a set definition?

Readers Response #9

In the article "Seeing the Text”, Stephen Bernhardt discusses the concept of how a text is presented and its effect on who picks the text up. Visual appearance has a lot to do with how appealing it is to certain people. One of the most important ways to draw someone into text is through images or the certain way the text is set up. In most of the advertisement, resumes, and many other documents we use a mixture of images and words to make it look presentable to the reader. In this article, Bernhardt shows us that these work together when it comes to how it is portrayed.

This article is really in a way connected to McCloud’s. They both introduce the way that people unknowingly connect images to different symbols and in this case presence. Without realizing it, how you present a text has a lot to do with the attraction people have to the text.

Before You Read:

2. With a text heavy advertisement I am most drawn to the image. I think the text emphasizes the image by drawing your eyes to the image. Being the only image, your eyes are horizontally drawn to the image.

QD:

4. I think you are supposed to write an essay in a specific format to make it easier to understand. Unknowingly your eyes are drawn to specific things when it comes to

AE:

4. A website I visit often is the Ohio University home page. It guides me by having a directory bar on the side of the page. I think the website does a good job at guiding someone to finding what they’re looking for. They also have a search bar to help with guidance.

After You Read:

1. I think that McCloud would have represented this argument just like Bernhardt. They both cover the concept that by taking first look at something you associate it with other things and presence can draw someone into a text.

MM:  In all the formal writing assignments in this course I think that questioning constructs requires the most visual thinking about presentation for text. In order to complete this assignment you have to really think outside the box about how a construct is constructed.

I really enjoyed this article. I can relate to seeing a magazine or text that appeals to me so I end up picking it up and taking a look. I also think that presentation can go a long way with how successful something turns out to be.

Readers Respons #8

James Porter in “Intertexuality and the Discourse Community” covers a major point in writing. He starts with questioning the construct of originality. What is originality when every text has a “trace” of plagiarism? He believes that everyone is guilty of drawing some ideas from another text. He is questioning how we should even define plagiarism when originality is so hard to find.

Porter’s article to me has a different purpose than previous articles that we have read. You can, however link it to Kantz’s article. They both pertain to the usage of sources, but have a very different meaning and audience.

Before You Read:

2. I get help from various books, websites, friends, and teachers when it comes to my writing. I explore different views on the subject in order to take my own stand.

QD:

4. I agree with Porter. I believe that when it comes to evaluating writing they key focus should be on its “acceptability” rather than its sources. Porter states “…choosing the “right” topic, applying the appropriate critical methodology, adhering to standards for evidence and validity…” when explaining what really is important in writing (96). I think that this relates to the writing I have done in the past because the teachers are so focused on how good I reworded the text than the actual text itself.

5. I think his own work reflects on the principles he’s writing on very well. He’s explaining that nothing is really original! The fact that everyone gets these ideas from somewhere just supports the claim that he is trying to make.

AE:

2. I think they should rewrite plagiarism by telling students you can’t copy a paper or take credit for work that isn’t your own. I don’t think as a student is writing a research paper they need to re-word every sentence that they come about in their research. I also don’t think the way you word a sentence is crucial to plagiarism because hasn’t it all been worded before? This differs than the original definition of plagiarism by eliminating the need to change every word you come in counter with and just get your point across without worrying about getting kicked out of school because you forgot to paraphrase.

MM:

1. Porter’s idea has not changed the way I view writers. I never really thought that good writers come up with brilliant ideas without any help or all by their selves. Adopting his notion might be a relief to me. It won’t necessarily change the way I write a lot, but I will be more comfortable presenting ideas in the way they were meant to be written and not paraphrase so much that it takes away from its own meaning.

I liked Porter’s argument, it made a lot of sense to me and I support his ideas. I think that plagiarism is sort of a wall put up between the writer and the information. If someone is going to steal someone else’s work they should suffer the consequences, but don’t hold everyone’s work accountable. Let the cheaters be aside from the writers who want to get their point across.

Readers Response #7

Peter Elbow in "Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" addresses the arguments that come about writers write when it comes to “voice”. He states that this argument is one that’s been dead for quite some years now but it needs to get woken up. He argues that voice is still in everyone’s writings today, whether they realize it or not. Elbow also addresses the positive aspects of using voice in your writing. He states “With practice people can learn to write prose that “has voice” or “sounds like a person,” and, interestingly, when they do, their words are more effective at carrying meaning.”(Elbow 52) He also lists negative outcomes from using voice in your writing. “Ignoring voice is necessary for good reading.” (Elbow 54) He touches on the fact that students improve their ability to understand the context by ignoring the voice.

I think that Peter Elbow’s “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries” is very similar to Greene’s “Argument as Conversation”. Although both articles have different topics they are also alike. I think both articles point out to you that while writing, you’re doing something you never even realize. In this case, putting yourself into the text.

Before You Read:

1. You construct an identity on Facebook by what you post and what you write about yourself. I think your identity online can be more made up rather than in person. You can exclude all the negative things about you and only focus on the positive. You can also lie.

QD:

1. Voice is putting yourself into your own writing, whether it’s past experiences, cultures, or anything that shapes you as a person. I think my definition of voice has always corresponded well to Elbow’s definition.

4. Elbow closes his argument with stating that he supports utilizing both ways of writing or thinking. He acknowledges the necessity of using both forms. If the tension between both ways of thinking was completely gone there would be no growth in writing. He states “Just as we can see more about texts through if we learn to look at them with two lenses in succession- the lens of voice and not the voice- so, too, in our thinking game we need to learn to use both intellectual modes: the doubting and believing games.” (Elbow 58)

AE:

2. When you read something out loud you’re more likely to listen to your words and understand what you are reading. “Ear training” has affected comprehension of words. Reading it out loud makes students more comfortable to speak. I think it is a great tool to use, and you should implement this when reading a more difficult text.

3. Elbow addresses the positive aspects of using voice in your writing. He states “With practice people can learn to write prose that “has voice” or “sounds like a person,” and, interestingly, when they do, their words are more effective at carrying meaning.”(Elbow 52) He also lists negative outcomes from using voice in your writing. “Ignoring voice is necessary for good reading.” (Elbow 54) He touches on the fact that students improve their ability to understand the context by ignoring the voice. I think these coexist with a single piece of writing because we want to have a more effective meaning and understand the text at the same time.

MM: I think for both perspectives on voice to co-exist you need to establish the right time for either or depending on the article you are writing. I believe that it is not possible to do such a thing at the same exact time.

I thought this article was very easy to read, but at the same time dragged out. It was a little difficult to comprehend in some ways. He got his point across but I think it could have been done a little clearer. Other than that I enjoyed learning about voices in writing.