So this was.. interesting...
I couldn't figure out if I should talk in first or third and ended up bouncing back and forth, so I'm not sure how much sense it made.. I'm glad it's just a draft because I was bouncing around everywhere and I'm sure I didn't make much sense at all. I have all my ideas out in the open now though!
Basically all that I need to do is use the information I have, fine tune it, and make it make just a little bit of sense. ^.^ It shouldn't be that hard, but I'm curious about how much sense I was making bouncing between first and third person, when talking about my own blog.. Oh well any help with my thesis would also be appreciated. Establishing an identity about yourself is really hard without being biased knowing who you are.. Is it bad to just say I know this is true about myself, this is true, this is true, and so on..?
Thanks for any help available!
CMART
I thought your essay was done well. I like how you used many examples from your blog in order to find the identity you express. However, I kind of found it awkward by the way you switch point of views throughout the essay. Overall, it was good. Nice job!!
ReplyDeleteProfessor Thompson emailed your essay because you need a second reviewer. I'd be more than happy to do that if you'd like?
ReplyDeleteHi Chris. My name is Kylie, I'm from the TCORE class after you. Professor Thompson sent me your essay so that you could get some feedback. Here is your review which I will also email to you along with a marked-up copy of your essay. Hope it helps!
ReplyDeleteI noticed in your essay a tendency to use words like "this" and "we" and "the book" without qualifying your meaning. Part of what we read about in They Say I Say is the importance of giving your reader little summaries and restating main ideas as you go along so that your reader always knows what's going on. An example of this is the beginning of your third paragraph which you start with "This is relevant" but your reader doesn't know what "this" refers to. I suggest getting into the helpful habit of catching yourself every time you use "this" and checking that it's obvious to the reader what you're referring to. Keeping this in mind will help with coherence and organization in your paper as well as adding in those guideposts that Prof Thompson often mentions.
I see that you use Rettburg, Panteli, and West as your three sources to join in on the academic discussion.
I noticed that a lot of time is spent at the beginning of the essay saying how you're going to pretend that it's not your blog so you can analyze it more clearly, but then the paper goes on to say all these things about the classroom context and how you felt when writing blog entries which is inside information a random person looking at your blog probably wouldn't have. So you might want to reconsider how that's organized.
There's a sudden shift on the second page to third person that is very confusing as a reader. I think that you can objectively analyze your blog without referring to yourself in the third person. Plus in the beginning you say that you will be analyzing your own blog, then you say you will be analyzing a blog entry by Chris Martinez. So you can see how that could confuse the reader as to what you're looking at, how many blogs you're looking at, ext.
When you discuss situated identities you cite a quote from your blog and say what situated identities are what the identity you found is (educated machoist) but there isn't the connection between the two of what in the evidence shows this situated identity. It is also confusing having situated identities and meanings in the same paragraph, I would suggest splitting each into it's own paragraph for more clarity and organization.
On page four when you talk about the comical tone in a post as evidence of social language you are using background knowledge that wouldn't be known to a random reader. From reading the blog post it isn't evident that the feedback is relating to the teacher.
I don't see a place where the paper defines what you mean by "educated machoist", the term just kind of appears without explanation of what it means.
You do a good job in most places analyzing evidence to find further meaning of what it says about you as a blogger. However some areas need more analysis and connections so that the reader doesn't have to work to piece together your argument (especially where you talk about Panteli) or figure out who/what you're talking about. Be aware of using qualified language and not assuming that your reader knows what you're talking about. The paper is missing disciplinary awareness, you need to find a way to connect your argument to the bigger picture. For example maybe you want to talk about what the identities you found in your blog with regards to learning say about how blogging helped you learn and how that might be similar to other students using blogs. Or something similar where you can discuss how your findings fit in with blogging/learning as a whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUgh. Sorry about the million comments. Originally it said it wouldn't post because it was too long so I split it up but then it did post so I deleted all the smaller ones. Just read it in the email if it's still messed up haha.
ReplyDeleteThanks Emily, sorry it took me so long to respond, Kylie already reviewed it and gave me alot to think about so I think I'm fine, thanks to both of you!!
ReplyDelete