My Blog List

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Things to avoid

1. Reading
2. Filler words
3. Speaking quietly
4. hands in pocket
5. Summarizing the commercial
6. gum in your mouth
7. speaking too fast
8. 

Things to Avoid

Make a list of things that you should try to avoid or overcome and post it as a comment here. 

Schedule for Rehearsals

Monday
Cannell, Grace , Zellner, Leah , Cramer, Jake , Rojvachiranonda, Nat , Paletta, Zoey , Marks, Jonah , Rude, Eric , Los, Ashley , Zhong, Wenkuan, Jiang, Siyue 

Wednesday
Kocher, Paxton , Grimes, Megan , Tulley, Jack , Coppola, Anthony , Harris, Klaire , Callaghan, Ryan , Zheng, Jason , Picchietti, Matthew , Lindsey, Konnor , Rober, Alaina

Speech Anxiety

Individually (spend 10 minutes)
  1. Do you experience speech anxiety or stress?
  2. What do you think are the causes of your anxiety? List all the potential causes. 
  3. What do you normally do to overcome your speech anxiety or nervousness? What works and what does not? List all the things that you often try to do to avoid nervousness. 
  4. Now find a reliable source online that talks about strategies to overcome speech anxiety. State what you learned from the source and the new things you might want to try for this speech.
  5. Post your answers to your blog. 
In Group (5-7 minutes)
  1. Discuss the sources of anxiety and the strategies you often use to address them. 
  2. Post a comment here including the sources and the specific strategies to address those sources of anxiety. 

Outline Workshop

  1. Show your commercial and the outline. 
  2. Discuss some potential ways to improve. Focus on:
    1. Clarity and specificity of the claims about purpose and effectiveness. 
    2. Sufficiency and relevance of reasons to support the claims. 
    3. Sufficiency and relevance of specific evidences to back up the reasons. 
    4. Effectiveness of the introductory hook and the closing hook.
    5. Overall organization of the outline. 
  3. Each member should offer at least two substantive suggestions. 
  4. Finally, go to your outline on your blog and revise it based on the feedbacks you received.  

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Speech Analysis




When you watch the speech, make a list of things that you think the speaker did well and a list of things that he did not do so well. Overall, based on what you saw, do you think it is a good speech? Post your lists and your overall impression as a comment here. 

Questions about Speech #1

Post your questions as a comment. Include at least two questions. 

Unit 1 Reflection

1. What were the most challenging parts of the assignment? What do you think could be changed/done to make it better/more useful?
2. In preparation for the assignment, we did several things like
  • Discussing basic analytical concepts (SLR, AATP, etc.)
  • Outlining papers and peer-reviewing them
  • Analyzing sample papers
  • Peer reviewing first drafts
  • Conducting individual conferences
Which of them were the most useful and which were the least useful? 

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Peer Review Guidelines

Use these instructions for providing feedbacks to your peers' first drafts.

A. Questions to think about while reading the paper. Whenever the instruction says "write," write a brief comments on the margin of the paper. 
1.     Read the report quickly and see if you clearly understand the main points. Did the paper flow well on your first reading? Briefly describe what part(s) of the essay flowed well and what part(s) seemed choppy or incoherent. What strategy(ies) are used to organize the information gathered from a variety of sources? Make some notes to suggest some ways to improve the overall organization of the paper.
2.     Now read slowly. Read the essay up until you identify the writer's thesis (not as a claim, but as a statement of findings).  Stop reading at this point and answer the following questions:
a.     Does the introduction give you enough background to understand the possible direction of the whole essay?
b.     Is the background too broad or merely tangentially relevant to the main purpose of the paper?
c.     Does the intro provide relevant background about writing in a particular profession or discipline?
d.     Does it provide a brief description of the methods used to gather relevant information to address the problem/enquiry and develop an analytical report?
e.     Is the thesis/statement clear? Does it make an argument/claim or does it state the most important information about writing in a profession/discipline?

                        Write down some points to provide suggestions for improving the introductory part.

3.     Now read through the paper, using the point-predict method.  Pause every 1-2 sentences or so and summarize the writer's main point and predict what will come next.  Clearly identify any places on the paper where your expectations as a reader were not met or where you were unclear on the writer's point.  If possible, indicate what you were expecting.
4.     Does each paragraph adhere to a single main idea?  Note any paragraphs that seem to have multiple topics competing for attention.
5.     Are paragraphs connected with transitions?  Identify any places where transitions between paragraphs can be improved. Mark those places and provide some feedbacks.

6.     Does the writer provide sufficient evidence for each of the main points?  Note any places where you would like to see more evidence.  Make suggestions for what type of evidence the writer might include.

7.     Does the writer use quotations and paraphrases of sources effectively?  Are the quotations relevant?
8.     Is the overall order of paragraphs in the paper logical?  Do the paragraphs in the body of the paper follow the order suggested by the thesis?   Does the overall organization seem to have some sort of ordering principle—such as comparison and contrast, steps/processes, etc?
9.     Does the author focus on features of writing or the aspects of writing process in analyzing written sources? How could he/she improve the analysis?
10.  How well does the writer integrate the information gathered from interviews with the information drawn from analyses of the writings?
11.  Does the essay have an interesting conclusion that does not simply repeat the main points of the essay?
12.  Does the writer include a correctly documented “References” page?
13.  Do you see any pattern errors (grammatical) in the paper? Can you offer some suggestions for improvement?
14.  In what particular aspect(s) of the paper has the author done an excellent job?

B. For your written review:
After reading and analyzing your peers’ papers, write a review for each of the papers focusing on the following aspects:
1.     What is your overall impression?
2.     What are the 3-5 most important areas for improvement? You can take assignment rubrics (analysis and synthesis, organization, use of sources, and completeness and mechanics) as a basis for your suggestions. Your suggestions have to be concrete and specific. That means, you cannot simply make general comments like “you can improve the organization of your essay” or “you need to improve transition.” You need to show where and provide some concrete ways for improvement.
Your review should be at least 3 substantive paragraphs (most probably 4-6), first paragraph stating your overall impression and a few other paragraphs explaining 3-5 suggestions for improvement). After you finish writing, post it as a comment to your peer’s blog.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Sample Analysis

Individually:
  1. Read grading rubrics.
  2. Go through the papers quickly if you need and rank them.
  3. Assign letter grades to the papers.
  4. Make a list of three weaknesses and three strengths based on your analysis of all the samples. 
Group:
  1. Finalize the ranking and grading.
  2. Make a list of 2-3 strengths and weaknesses for each of the papers.
  3. Post your ranking, the letter grade you've assigned, and the list of strengths and weaknesses as a comment to this post.