Response to "Sponsors of Literacy"

            In her article “Sponsors of Literacy”, Deborah Brandt argues that literacy is inherited; not learned by people on their own. She claims that sponsors are necessary for learning and shaping ones literacy and the way the literacy is developed is based on the sponsor’s own literacy.

            This article relates to the article Greene’s “Argument as Conversation” in that the sponsor idea is similar to the idea that arguments are ever present and ongoing. Brandt saying that literacy of a sponsor is spread to the sponsored very well illustrates this point.

            Overall I thought this article was interesting but it also seemed like an obvious concept worded in a way so that it sounds special. To me it is obvious that Brandt’s sponsors shape the sponsored’s literacy. It just like being raised by your parents, you are bound to end up kind of like them. The sponsor idea seems the same to me.

Before You Read

            The reasons usually given for being a good reader/writer are that you need to be able to read to get a job. People take your writing and reading skills into consideration when it comes to jobs. Whether or not you are fit for the job not being able to read/write is a major turn off for employers. Most people think that people with bad writing/reading skills are uneducated and in general unintelligent although this is not always true. The people who put these reasons in place are usually higher educated people who read and write well and are biased in the situation.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2.)

            I have had literacy sponsors who have withheld or at least tried to withhold certain kind of literacies from us as students. Certain, usually inappropriate books were banned from our school. The administration would not assign, lets say, 50 Shades of Grey for reading. We always had a reading list in school, from “To Kill a Mockingbird”, to “The Great Gatsby”. Me, not really being that big of a reader, was introduced by some books not mentioned in schools by my brother and parents, although it wasn’t often I would read one of those books.

Response to "Good English and Bad"

            In his article “Good English and Bad”, Bill Bryson attempts to show how some grammatical rules are irrelevant, and how those irrelevant rules came to be. Bryson argues that these rules were formed for no logical reason, but solely because people wanted these rules to exist. These added rules, Bryson argues, makes language much more confusing in general.

            “Good English and Bad” relates to Stuart Greene’s article “Argument as Conversation” in that both articles present ideas that are not usually thought about. Greene does this by attempting to shake the construct of arguing as pointless and negative, and Bryson is showing readers that some of the rules we follow in writing (grammar) are confusing and just plain worthless. Bryson’s article also relates to Peter Elbow’s article “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries”. Elbow is explaining how voice in writing can be used to get a point across, in “Good English and Bad” Bryson explains how a man named Robert Lowth changed grammar solely because he wanted it changed. Robert Lowth used his voice in order to convince people that grammar should be changed the way he wanted.

            I personally was a little bit bored of this article. To me it seemed quite mundane; learning about the origin of strange grammatical rules is not something I am excited about. Although with this aside, I never would have thought about these things. It never occurred to me that ending a sentence with a preposition is a rule that is obviously in it’s name, but I had not looked at it like that before.

Before You Read

3.)

            Technology has changed the way we speak to each other in that we no longer want to/need to write things out and use proper grammar. Spell check is now a necessity for some and abbreviations are becoming commonplace. I think technology is taking a lot of emotion out of what people are writing, not only due to how people write, but also the medium. Texting doesn’t have the emotion that writing a letter does. I think some ‘new’ words would be words like “bro”, “dude” and the ever-hated-by-me, “swag”. There are also abbreviations such as lol (laugh out loud), brb (be right back), and omw (on my way).

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.)

            The Construct that Bryson is challenging is that all the rules of grammar always need to be followed. Bryson argues that this isn’t necessarily true. The phrase “you were” is not logically correct. “You was” makes more sense logically but no one uses that phrase anymore. You can still get your message across without having to follow all of grammar’s rules.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1.)

            Bryson says language changes over time. Some of the ways this happens are when self-appointed authorities say something wrong and it sticks, or they just want to change it and say X is now Y because I want it to be. An example of this in modern English would be the change from “you was” to “you were” as I explained earlier. I think Bryson would condone this change.

Meta Moment

            I don’t normally consciously think of parts of speech as I write. Normally writing is a subconscious/muscle memory kind of thing. Everything about the English language that I know I have learned in school throughout the years. I do think that knowing the parts of speech helps me write better, but not because I am consciously thinking about it, but because I know what needs to go where subconsciously. If I had never learned them I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to write nearly as well as I can currently.

Intro/Conversation

            In society today there is a huge construct about argument. To understand this you first have to understand what a construct is. A construct is a misconception about a certain topic. The construct held about argument is that all arguments are negative; there is nothing to gain from arguments except for an angered release. This is a large misconception. Arguments should be viewed more as a debate; a conversation with sides, where each side is explaining their point. You see this way there is no negatives, and you can also now see that each argument has the potential to last forever, always being added to.  Through research and writing it can be proven that arguments are not negative, but informative, helpful conversations.

            The article “Argument as Conversation” by Stuart Greene, this construct is explained and put into new light perfectly. Greene argues that arguments are more scholarly than people tend to believe. He explains arguments as conversations that need to be entered into with background knowledge on the subject and once in the conversation a person can debate and attempt to change other participants’ minds on the subject.

            In his article “Vocabulary of Comics”, Scott McCloud attempts to prove that most things people see are in fact icons; things that represent an actual object.  This article is perfect for helping to see past the construct of argument being negative.  People see arguments as something that they are not, negative and violent. What they are actually seeing is the word argument and the negative connotation that comes with that word. The argument itself is neither negative nor violent, but helpful and scholarly.

            In his article, “Argument Structure: Representation and Theory”, James Freeman explains the logic and point behind arguments. Freeman states that the point of argument is to draw conclusions about problems based on facts. He then explains the logic being arguments. This article as a whole is all about how arguments are a scholarly method of proving points. This, again, is helping to disprove the idea of arguments being negative.

            Caroline Park, Cheryl Kier, and Kam Jugdev conducted a study using debate (argument) as a teaching strategy, and published their findings in the paper “Debate as a Teaching Strategy in Online Education: A Case Study”. They attempted to prove that arguing is a good form of education by conducting a case study. They came to the conclusion that arguing was a useful method of learning/teaching, once again fighting the construct as arguing as negative.

            In David Jonassen and Bosung Kim’s article “Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Design Justifications and Guidelines”, Jonassen and Kim explain that “learning requires deep engagement with ideas.” They go on to show how arguing encourages this deep engagement, and also explain how to argue. This helps to justify that argument is a positive thing that helps arguers learn and come to a conclusion about a topic.

Response to "Seeing the Text"

            In his article “Seeing the Text”, Stephen Bernhardt hopes to show readers and writers that making a text visually appealing can change a message and alter appreciation for a text. He argues that fonts, color, graphics, and other visual aspects can really have an effect on how an individual reads and understands a text.

            This article is very similar to the article “Vocabulary of Comics” in the McCloud uses a comic to visually show readers what he is talking about. The articles differ in that their messages aren’t the same. In “Vocabulary of Comics” McCloud is showing us HOW things represent objects, whereas Bernhardt is showing us what representing objects can do for us.

            I found this article very interesting. Before I read this article I never thought to change my font from Cambria to anything different when writing something not for personal use. Now I see that changing font, font size, color, etc., can actually be useful in sending a message, and how the message is received.

Before You Read

            It is hard to look at a written article and not read it. I am writing this before I have read the Framing the Reading section and I can see two pictures, some indents, titles, and a heading (the number 1).

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

3.)

            I do feel like I am writing the same paper repeatedly. Writing always seems so formulaic to me and each research paper always seems like the same process. If I add visual clues this will stop because my writing will no longer feel like a list of facts, but more like a collaboration of facts to create a well-written paper. Bernhardt would recommend I do this by leading the reader instead of showing the reader.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2.)

            Changing the font can have a profound effect on a paper. If I change the font to a bold, heavy font, the paper seems to come off as aggressive. If the font is changed to Comic Sans though, the paper comes off as annoying (I hate comic sans). When typing in Cambria, what is being used now, the paper doesn’t necessarily seem boring, but it does seem formal and informational.

After You Read

            Scott McCloud would have represented Bernhardt’s argument perfectly, as visual elements are obviously and extremely important in comics/cartoons. McCloud would have drawn out pictures and used different fonts and font sized to show the reader information visually.

Meta Moment

            To me the most appropriate time to visually think about a text is when the text is about something physical, which is just what seems natural to me. The writing assignment for this course that calls for the most visual thinking about presentation of text would be project #2.

Response to "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community"

            In his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”, James Porter tries to show readers how “all texts contain ‘traces’ of other texts” (86). He argues that plagiarism is harder to define than it is usually defined and that originality is hard to find due to all the ‘traces’ in writing.

            This article is related to the articles “Argument as Conversation” and “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries”. “Argument as Conversation” has a concept very similar to Porter’s ‘traces’ idea. This is the idea that all arguments stem from previous arguments. “Voice in Writing Again…” is also similar to the ‘trace’ concept because the traces you use can be used to relate to cultural events and subjects in a way that will help persuade readers to swat one way or another. This is shown when Porter describes the Pepsi commercial relating to Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

            This was a very informative and interesting article in that it really makes you think about what you are reading. Where did the idea for X come and how do I as a reader view this subject with my previous knowledge. It kind of gives you an insight into the psychology aspect of writing for persuasion. The more I read in this class the more my view on writers and writing changes.

Before you Read

            What is the difference between an author and a writer? A writer is someone who puts information down on paper and articulates the information to be understandable. An author is the person who originally comes up with the idea that the writer writes about. An author can also be a writer, but one does not necessarily have to be the other. I would call someone an author when they create something and I would call someone a writer when they put something (not necessarily their own) down on paper.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

4.)

            I did not think about the specific communities before I read this article. It makes more sense this way though, that writing should be evaluated in a community that has knowledge of the traces used in it. Most of my past writings were evaluated from a community that had knowledge of my subject prior to reading my writing. This is mainly because most of my writings have been for classes in which most of the students wrote about the same 3-4 topics.

5.)

            His own work reflects the principles he’s writing about quite well. He uses quotes and cites other articles that demonstrate the purpose that his article is demonstrating. I’m sure if I went through his multitude of sources he has cited in his reference page and read them that it would be very obvious that his work is reflecting his principles.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2.)

            I think that plagiarism is looked at as oversimplified but in reality that is just the shorthand version that teachers and professors tell us. Plagiarism is using someone else’s work and calling it your own. This is basically the same as the typical school definition, but I think people are just worried that being ‘unoriginal’ is the same as plagiarism and that is where the confusion takes place.

Meta Moment

            Porter’s study has changed the way I imagine writers and writing in a way that I now see writers as having more of a logically based way of doing things. The more they read/write the more information they add to their arsenal of writing tools. Now writing seems more of a science than just sitting down and scrawling letters onto paper. It also made me think of the psychology behind choosing how and what to write in order to get people to see things certain ways.

Response to "Voice in Writing..."

            In his article “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries”, Peter Elbow tries to explain to readers how voice in writing can be used to get a point across. He argues that voice can be used to persuade people in an argument by showing sincerity and resonance.

            This article is similar to the article “Argument as Conversation”. I use this comparison often because when reading these articles I am thinking about how it relates to my project topic. Both of these articles show how one can use arguments, and “Voice in Writing…” is showing how you can use voice to help win an argument.

            I found this article interesting yet confusing. I did not fully grasp the “Either/Or Battle” part, but I found his definitions of sincerity and resonance very helpful. I never thought about creating the illusion of being correct just by being sincere about a certain topic.

Before You Read

1.)

            Constructing an identity on Facebook is mainly done through your “Likes”, photos, friends and statuses. You can make a completely false identity on Facebook if you wanted; there are so many resources on the Internet. You could use pictures of someone else and even say you live in a place where you do not. On Facebook you can virtually be anyone.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.)

            I would define voice as the self of speaking and writing. It is the expression of who you truly are, when you write/speak with your voice you are truly exposed. There are different definitions, anywhere from the literal (the sound produced in your larynx/mouth etc.) to Elbow’s definition. Elbow defines voice as the true self and rhetorical power.

2.)

            Online info graphics are not always voiceless. If they are trying to sell you something they usually are, but sometimes, in cases such as charities and other non-profits, they often have a voice, this voice is usually spoken by someone who has a connection to this subject emotionally. I do agree with Elbow in that we should also practice being voiceless for the transmission of pure information, such as with outlines. I think if we had a voice with these it would be too confusing, they key is to take a voiceless outline and add voice to it in order to expand and make a fully developed paper.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1.)

            Sincerity is the innocent (or seemingly) persuasiveness. Resonance is the lively filling material. It was kind of difficult defining these terms due to the simplicity I had to use to put each into one sentence.

2.)

            When you listen to a passage rather than reading is silently you get an actual voice. This helps you indentify the sincerity and resonance easier in the material because you can actually hear how the material is spoken. “Ear training” has affected my comprehension a lot because I take into account the way someone says something with the material they say. It adds another dimension to the material. I think “ear training” is a tool that should always be used.

Meta Moment

To not compromise and still use both of his perspectives Elbow says you have to take extremes from both sides and use that to make a mix, you cannot just meet in some middle ground. I believe this to be possible, but it will be much harder and take more work, but will definitely be worth it in the end.

Response to "Decisions and Revisions..."

            In her article "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer", Carol Berkenkotter attempts to find out and show readers how professional writers go about their writing process. She argues that most researches done on how writers formulate their works are lacking in technique and goes on to show how Donald Murray truly writes.

            This article is similar to the article “Ways of Seeing” in that Berkenkotter took Murray and showed him, from an outside perspective, his own processes of writing; she showed him a new way of seeing his own work.

            I thought this was an interesting article because it looked at how writers formulate their writing and it is really interesting to see what exactly goes through their head while they do it. Berkenkotter took it to the next level and recorded what Murray was doing even while not writing, making it really feel like your current work is an expression of what is happening around you not only when you’re writing it, but also when you’re taking breaks from writing.

Before You Read

            Do I have any writing rituals? When I sit down and write I really have to get myself to do it. I pack up all my things I need, especially my headphones, and head to the library. If I am in an environment with any kinds of distractions I will not be able to focus on my writing and won’t be able to do it to the best of my ability. I usually like to have some sort of drink with caffeine in it before I write whether it be a red bull or coffee. Most of the times I do not write anything before I start writing I just go with it and end up with a draft that I revise from there.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.)

Murray’s writing processes seemed to me to be a lot different than mine, although I have never gone out of my way to study my own processes. Murray’s were that he would plan, incubate, ‘reconceive’ and then revise and edit. The only things I do similar to Murray are revise and edit at the end.

3.)

            This study changed Berkenkotter’s understanding of writing processes mainly in her understanding of planning and revision. She found out that Murray’s planning stage was a lot longer than most suspected. If he needed to revise he would first ‘reconceive’ which was a complete re-planning of sorts that was a lot different than she suspected his revision would be.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1.)

            The time I spend writing is mainly focused on writing and revision. I will write a draft and go back through and revise until I am happy with what I wrote. My level of writing experience is not that great, I have never gotten seriously into writing, I only will write papers for school, and although I write poetry outside of class, that is much different, in my opinion, than writing papers. With more experience I think I would tend to do more planning before writing, as well as more revising after because I would want everything to live up to my higher, more experienced standards.

Meta Moment

            One thing I have learned from the Berkenkotter and Murray readings is that planning and revising are large factors in writing. I already revise my writings quite a bit but I think I could use more planning in them.

Response to "Ways of Seeing"

            In his article “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger attempts to show readers that there is more than one way to see things. He says that you can look at things for how they are put but you can also see why they are put that way and how they are put that way.

            This relates to “Argument as Conversation” and “Vocabulary of Comics”. All of these articles are telling us that things are not always what they seem. They go from breaking social norms (arguments as negative), breaking constructs of images (a pipe is not a pipe, it’s a painting, and drawing, it’s an icon), to the actual inner workings of seeing something in a different way (women as nude compared to naked).

            I found this article a little bit confusing at first. I wasn’t quite sure where Berger was going with it. Once he described the difference between nude and nakedness it started to click. It’s really interesting to look at images of women in advertising and understand why they are posed certain ways now.

Before you Read

            If I were to draw a picture of a woman, I would make her face the viewer. This is because you can put a lot of emotion into facial expressions and add more to the painting. I would put her in a room with typical furniture in the room, couch, dresser etc. I think if one is to draw a woman naked that it could add more artistic expression, so I would draw her naked.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.)

            I do think that the artists of these paintings knew what they were doing, and they did it because they knew what they wanted to see and what other men wanted to see. And Berger would definitely agree with this.

2.)

            A lot of advertisements have posed women in them, and they seem to be posed in a way that captures men’s attention, kind of in the same way as the images used by Berger. This is because our portrayals of women haven’t changed much and the fact that the majority of men seem to be at the top of households. If you catch a man’s attention you capture the household’s attention, and this would get companies more money when used in advertisements.

3.)

            I think the assumptions made comparing men and women’s presence is not much different than they were when this article was published. It still seems to me that men, in the majority of our culture, make most decisions.

4.)

            The audience seems to be males. The way that Berger words the article would suggest this, words such as identifying men as “men” and when he talks about women he says “she”.

5.)

            I think the “other” is the woman’s actual self, her un-objectified person. With this change in perspective we no longer objectify the woman, but we look at her as another person. This takes the ‘fantasy’ aspect away from the image.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1.)

            There are some advertisements that represent men in a similar way, but they are from a later generation that Berger. That gap definitely contributes to how the image is viewed.

2.)

            We can apply the spectator/subject ideas to our interactions with texts in a way that opens up the text for interpretation. Mainly we can now look into a text as a subject and identify with the text personally. In a fiction we can enter a relationship with the main character that puts us in their shoes, or at least we can identify with that character.

3.)

            When looking at modern images of women the positioning of the woman is an important factor on how the image is viewed. If she faces us and is showing a lot of skin she can come off as an object. If she seems to be doing something unimportant to us as spectators it gives her her own personality and we can assume that she isn’t involved with us.

4.)

            I believe that humor defines a person very well. If someone makes a crude joke you can assume that they have a side to them that is crude, and so on. I think that humor is an opening up of kinds for people and their original jokes and what they find funny can define a person quite well.

Meta Moment

            I think reading an article concerned with nudes, nakedness, spectator, viewer, art, and advertisement all relate to concepts in writing and reading, and therefore audience and authorship. This article shows that you can look at readings and see the internal workings of the readings themselves; the thoughts that the author had when writing. This also means that as a writer one can look at their own work from a spectators point of view and see what other people are interpreting and how other people see the author.

Response to "Vocabulary of Comics"

            In his article “Vocabulary of Comics”, Scott McCloud attempts to prove that most things people see are in fact icons; things that represent an actual object. He argues that when we see a picture and say this is (object) that what we are actually saying is this is an icon representing (object).

            This relates to the article “Argument as Conversation” in that they both are trying to prove that one thing is not what we normally see it as. In “Argument as Conversation” it is trying to be proven that Arguments are not actually bad things, but just a conversation taken a different way.

            I think that “Vocabulary of Comics” was really thought provoking. When McCloud was talking about the pipe, I felt as if my head was going to explode. It got me thinking more about reality, than the story itself. I’m not sure if that was McCloud’s intent, but it was very interesting nonetheless.

Before you Read

            My favorite cartoon is Fry from the TV show Futurama. I definitely, or at least hope, I do not relate too much to Fry. He is clueless and just stupid in general. I definitely put myself in his place though, which is why I think the show is so entertaining. I think it is fun to be someone who you are not, which would be me becoming Fry when I watch Futurama.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.)

            I think adults enjoy the simplicity of cartoons because they can create any feeling at anytime. Cartoons do not need to follow any logic, nor do they need to be illogical. The possibility of a cartoon is endless. I do not think there is an appropriate age for cartoons or comics, nor should there be. McCloud would definitely agree with me here.

2.)

            McCloud uses the comic book format to convey his ideas to the reader because it’s very image based just like his message. He wants to show his readers that everything that says it is something is not necessarily that thing. Without using the comic book form this message would be a lot harder to explain.

3.)

            I think that if the comic character looked more realistic that we would be more distracted. I personally would think that it would be cheesy. With his approach, the simple character, it had a more ‘fun’ feel to it. I would say that most cartoon characters are ‘blank slates’, with the exception of some (Fry from Futurama as I stated earlier). For a character to be a ‘blank slate’ I think that they would have to not be a highly developed character. The character has to have ‘gaps’ in his/her personality where we can make things up as we watch/read.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1.)

            I think that visual imagery can really help when it comes to learning. The more information put out for people to study the better I think. I can’t think of a time when visual imagery for teaching would be a bad thing.

2.)

            I think McCloud contented that we see ourselves more generic than real people because we never talk to ourselves from an outside perspective. I have looked at a photograph and identified with the person. If someone is expressing an emotion in a photo one can easily relate to that person.

3.)

            I think some adults grow out of cartoons because they don’t take enough time to fill in the gaps needed to indentify with the characters. They are too preoccupied thinking about things that they ‘need to get done’ such as work or something than to sit down, relax, and use their imaginations.

4.)

            McCloud’s concept of the mask affects my perception of myself and others in that it gives me an identity and I can then compare it to what I see/think of others to make an opinion of them. Without my mask I wouldn’t be able to be aware of others, I would think that everyone is the same because I have no point of reference to judge them by.

Video Summaries

Finding Full Text from Citations

            To find a full text from only a citation you will first need to dissect the citation itself. Find the author’s name, the title of the article, and the date of the article. Then go back and search for the title. Then you will select which article it is you are looking for (find the title that matches yours with the same date and author). If they do not have the full text you can file a request, they will find it, scan it, and send it to you for free.

Finding a Book

            To find a book in the Alden library first search the book title on the library website using ALICE. You can then cut your findings down, sorting your search in specific ways (date, author, etc.). When you find your book you can then check to see if it is available. If so, write down the call number, or you can have it sent to your phone. The call number has details to where the book is located. Go grab the book, take it to checkout on the 1^st or 2^nd floor, have your Ohio ID ready, and check the book out.

How to get a Book from OhioLINK

            If you are looking for a book and the book is not in Alden Library, and you are ok with waiting 3 business days getting a book from OhioLINK is for you. Go to the library’s website, click on search OhioLINK, and that tells you if there are copies of said book in the state of Ohio. Click request, select Ohio University, login with your Ohio ID and password, select your pickup location (Athens Alden). Click submit. You should receive an email when the book arrives (approximately 3 business days).

Project 1: The Proposal

Project 1: THE PROPOSAL

I am choosing to argue the construct that arguing is always negative. We started to discuss this earlier when we read the article, “Arguing as Conversation”, by Stuart Greene. Since reading that article I have started to think about this more often, and even outside of reading. Whether I am in my Anthropology class arguing that Alfred Wallace originally had the idea for Natural Selection, not Charles Darwin, or out on the weekend listening to drunkards argue about sports, I am now always thinking not about who is right or wrong, but about what each person brings to the table.

It is close-minded individuals who keep this construct going. People who fail to see that most of the time there is validity in both sides of an argument. This causes people to write in the exact same way their sources do, without questioning them, or examining them for bias. With this construct people don’t write ‘good’ papers, people really need to create their own argument by reading between the lines and analyzing specific details about not only the text, but where the text comes from and so on.

Key Terms:

Argument
Negative
Inquiry
Research

Contribution

Response to "Helping Students Use..."

            In her article, “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively”, Margaret Kantz attempts to get students to use creativity when researching to debate facts and learn to develop a unique, original argument. She argues that facts are not always true and are used in order to get readers to see things in a certain light.

            This reading is similar to the article “What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One – and How Can We Get Students to Join Us?” in that both articles the author is trying to get the audience to see that creativity is a very important factor in writing.

Getting Ready to Read

            A fact is something that is proven to be true and will always be true. A claim is something that someone says to be true but has not yet been proven. An opinion is an idea that someone has on a particular subject. An argument is a debate over a particular subject between two people with different opinions, usually backed up by facts.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.)

            Kantz states that facts are claims that an audience will accept and not need proof, although they may want explanations. Opinions are given to an audience who will then ask for proof and take that proof then make their own decision on whether to believe it or not. Kantz says that arguments are things that need debating; one would argue facts over specific things.

2.)

            The main thing that I got out of Kantz’ article is that many people will read something and will accept it as truth. Kantz says that you need to understand that facts are debatable and use this to come up with your own, original argument. I never have done this before, which is probably a bad thing. I always accepted my textbooks as truth. Why argue ‘the facts’? Kantz has changed my mind on this now.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2.)

            Prior to class I thought that research and creativity were completely separate. As I said above, I would always accept text as truth when I would research. I always felt as if I was taught this in school before now; read, transcribe, and put it on the teacher’s desk. Kantz says that you need to think creatively to research, to come up with your own arguments. I really can’t see these two ideas overlapping as I never put creativity in the same category as research.

Meta Moment

            Kantz is trying to analyze the construct of research being an activity that requires only fact, and fact is unarguable. It would be useful to understand her findings and claims because she explains that researching requires us to be creative so we can come up with our own ideas and original arguments on our topic of research. With this we can then come up with a more developed, unique paper.