You are called use Kantz's arguments and claims as a lens to analyze one of the student papers assigned. Explore the moves that one of these students makes that demonstrate mastery over concepts, ideas, and claims that Kantz makes. Effective postings will provide concrete examples and will show how Kantz's claims and points can be demonstrated through the work in one of the student example papers.
Quality
High (A and A- grades)
Your contributions to each topic indicate your mastery of the
materials assigned. Your responses might integrate multiple views
and/or show value as a seed for reflection for other participants'
responses to the thread. You provide evidence that you are reading the
assigned materials and other student postings and are responding
accordingly, bringing out interesting interpretations. You know the
claims being presented and are able to analyze them and handle
conceptual ideas.
Examples of high quality posts include:
- continuing the discussion by adding additional information;
- elaborating on previous comments from others;
- presenting explanations of concepts or methods to help fellow students;
- presenting reasons for or against a topic in a persuasive fashion;
- sharing personal experiences that relate to the topic; and
- providing a URL and an explanation for an area you researched on the Internet.
Medium (B-, B, and B+ grades)
You have meaningful interaction with other participants'
postings. Posts that state "I agree" or "I disagree" include an
explanation of what is disagreed or agreed upon and why, or they
introduce an argument that adds to the discussion. However, you may have
rambling, lengthy posts that show no sign of having been re-read and
refined before posting, and the writing occasionally suffers lack of clarity and
comprehension. Your posts demonstrate some confidence with the materials
but may be just a bit off target in one area or another.
Low (C+ and below)
You will receive little credit in the week's discussion if
you just show up and make trivial comments, without adding any new
thought to the discussion. At the low end of the spectrum, not
participating gets a zero. If you are not in the discussion, you do not
earn any points.
In student paper 3, the writer clearly did not have the same issue that Margaret Kantz claimed that Shirley had. Unlike Shirley, Tiffany Gagnon was able to complete an assignment that involved her having to write an original paper based on textual sources. Instead of just agreeing or disagreeing with an idea, Gagnon was able to analyze an issue. She chose to analyze how people act on social media and how people sometimes assume different identities online. Kantz claimed that it is easier to quote than to paraphrase, and a very large part of Gagnon’s paper, is paraphrasing. Gagnon also created an original purpose which is made obvious by the ideas she purposed, and the way that she supported the ideas. A perfect example of this, is Gagnon’s paraphrasing of two articles by Suler and Wardle. After she paraphrased an idea and cited the source, she defined what the statement meant and interpreted it in her own original way. In addition to this, her methodology was based mostly on her own experience. Kantz stated that it is important to write about something that you are interested in. For Gagnon, as a Reddit user for two years, she decided that this topic is clearly something that she is interested in. She also had an abundance of knowledge about this website and that made it easier for her to write about it. Kantz wrote that it is easier to write about a familiar topic which may be why Gagnon chose it, but Kantz also said that it is more difficult to write using many different sources, which is what Gagnon chose to do. Kantz stated that a helpful tool for understanding rhetorical situation is Kinneavy’s triangle. It is made up of 3 parts including the Encoder, the Decoder, and Reality. In this rhetorical situation, Gagnon is the Encoder, and we (students of this class) are the decoders, and the Reality is the disinhibition of Reddit users.
ReplyDeleteStudent Paper #4
ReplyDeleteI think that the way this student organized their paper shows that they are considering the bias and point of view of their sources. Kantz stated that one should do this while there are analyzing their sources so that they can get a full understanding and make a better interpretation of it. By organizing the paper in the beginning to show a Side A and Side B it shows that there was consideration to this aspect. It also gives the reader a better understanding of the issue at hand and that there are academic authorities out there that are involved in the discussion as well. Kantz put a lot of emphasis on having multiple sources for your paper. This is seen right away in Student 4s paper as both sides of the argument have multiple sources cited in the text. By providing view points and evidence to support both sides of the argument they are cited supports another piece of advice given by Kantz. This other step is to try and avoid quoting text from your sources. By paraphrasing the material, it shows a better understanding of the text and it will flow better with what is being discussed. Any writer can find a quote that may relate or support an argument in an article. But by paraphrasing or summarizing what is being said you will show a better analysis of what is being said. Kantz discussed that when forming an argumentative essay, you should build upon an existing conversation and give the original argument. Though this isn’t flat out stated to the audience, the opening paragraph of the paper does spend time to introduce the topic to the reader and give them a little insight to the topic that they will be reading about.
In "Students Use Sources Persuasively" Kantz speaks of common problems with writing in modern collegiate circumstances. Kantz speaks of the importance of using heuristics to set up complex goals, and make the topic more interesting to the writer. I believe that the student paper example 5 by Brittani Couch demonstrates this concept effectively. In student paper 5, Couch speaks of the psychological influences that film-scores have on audiences. The entire discussion is framed by a quote from Boltz in the introduction which states that emotions can be influenced by film scores. In delving into this portion of the paper, one may notice Couch's intuitive research on psychological terms that may describe this phenomenon. I believe that after reading Boltz's article (heuristically), Couch discovered a new topic, to which she researched strategically to put into terms that would function effectively in her arguments about the psychological aspects of viewing cinema.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Brittani's paper, I noticed perhaps a fundamental flaw in her methodology. I feel her research would have been more effective if she conducted a focus group and recorded their reactions while watching the films, seeing that her own personal reactions and method of data collection might be biased. I say this because she already knows what point she is trying to prove and by self recording her reactions, rather than watching others' reactions, she can have skewed results. Additionally, her reaction is not representative of the whole audience because other members could have reacted to the scene differently. Otherwise, I agree with your point that she framed a proper argument and developed her paper nicely. This resulted in valuable information that was contributed to the research platform.
DeleteThat's a very good way to look at it Delaney. I hadn't thought of that prior to reading your comment. She can infect have skewed results by only self recording reactions. This shows that research studies can become very complex and there is always a new way to look at them. I think that it is important that we all remember this when conducting our studies because the better the study, the more effective the results are.
DeleteIn "Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively" Kantz brings up a very helpful strategy that students may use when writing a research paper. "Kinneavy's triangular diagram of the rhetorical situation" is a tool that helps students to recognize that every article that they read has 3 important components (a speaker/writer, an audience, and a topic. ) This tool not only helps the student to pick apart every article they read and analyze what the writer was trying to say, but it also helps the student think for themselves and possibly come up with their own opinions or arguments about the article. Student paper #4 showed a great example of this. The writer talks about "Combating Internet Piracy: Is the Cost too Great?" and does a great job of analyzing each source and describing who the speaker was, what audience they were targeting, as well as the topic and their opinion on it. The student makes it even easier to see their use of this strategy by organizing their paper so that you can see the way they picked apart each source and explained whether the writer of the source was for or against anti-piracy legislation. Then the student goes further on to explain why that person may be wrong, thus creating their own original argument which is something that Kantz suggests for writers to do.
ReplyDeleteRichie Hartig, writer of “Combating Internet Piracy: Is the Cost Too Great?”, did precisely everything in his paper that Margaret Kantz recommended in the article “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively”. Margaret Kantz explains how writers should use existing texts to create a unique, original one. She uses a college sophomore named Shirley as an example of a student who is smart, but writing ineffectively. Unlike Shirley, who stated claims as facts in her paper to support only one side of an argument, Richie portrayed two sides of the argument concerning anti-piracy legislation. Both sides contain several different sources that are paraphrased with comments, instead of quoted. Kantz suggests in her article that although it is easier to quote, it is more effective to use paraphrasing as “evidence in an original argument (Kantz). Throughout his paper, it seems that Richie was able to analyze his resources correctly and view facts as claims. Pulling information from an abundance of sources and tying them together in to one unique piece of work led to a successful, well-written paper. At the end of his paper, he took what he learned from the different sources and gave his own personal argument on what he believes concerning the matter. All of the factors put in to Richie’s paper seem to correlate with all of the points Kantz made in her article.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to find someone who worked on the same student paper as I did. I 100% agree how strong of a move it was on the students part to use the Side A and Side B format to represent different sides of the argument at hand. It shows that the student is aware of the different views from source to source. I think the way the paper was set up was good in terms of how it sectioned off the sources views and then he kept a section to discuss what he has taken from the research to create his own argument. Sometimes when someone is paraphrasing a lot with their quotes it becomes easy to mix up what they are saying with what the sources said. I think with the Side A Side B method it worked really well for this student but it shouldn't be used for all papers. It could be easy to show a lot of evidence for the other side and then never attack their side of the argument.
DeleteThe best part of the paper was how the author chose to represent the different sides of the argument. This made the paper not only more easy to understand, but also made the paper overall more convincing. You can tell that the author is interested in the topic and did not go into writing this paper with a closed mind. The method worked for this paper and although it wouldn't work for all topics, it can definitely be used again.
DeleteIn “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively” Kantz describes the main causes for error in creating an original argument. Brittani Couch’s analysis of thematic elements and their relation to psychology (in Student Paper 5) definitely does not include these errors. Couch was able to construct a proper argument for the relation between the structure of certain films and the psychological impact it had upon its viewers. Kantz’s description of Kinneavy’s triangular diagram of the rhetorical situation does come into play in Couch’s paper. The concepts of The Encoder (the film’s story and musical score creators) and The Decoder (people that watch the film) is easily seen in Couch’s analysis. However, Kantz also describes the concept of a rhetorical gap in Kinneavy’s triangular diagram. Kantz says that a way to learn the necessary heuristics is to connect the paper to the idea of teaching someone or solving someone’s problem. Couch’s use of thematic terminology unquestionably assisted her in this endeavor. Her use of terms like “Leitmotif” and “Mood Congruence” display her ability to take specific pieces of her research and use it to answer the question. Furthermore, Couch cleverly chose specific theories that addressed specific questions and then used examples from popular films to highlight her argument.
ReplyDeleteI also did student paper 5. Couch was able to analyze texts without just using the facts as support for whether or not she agrees or disagrees. I like your use of in text examples like "Kinneavys triangular diagram"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStudent paper four “Combating Internet Piracy: Is the Cost Too Great?” did a great job of conveying most, if not all the points made by Kantz. As the reader or the Decoder and Kantz puts it, I could easily establish an audience. That being anyone who really uses the internet. Based on the information Hartig presented, I could tell that he analyzed points from both sides of the argument before coming to a conclusion, then directed that conclusion of research results towards answering the question he presented as the original topic of interest. Justin also made an excellent point in saying that Hartig organized his point very well which made it easier to understand where he was coming from and the idea he was trying to convey to audience.
ReplyDeleteIn “Helping Student Writers Use Textual Sources Persuasively” Margaret Kantz talks a lot about Shirley and some mistakes she made in writing a persuasive original argument. The mistakes made by Shirley, I do not believe were made by Brittani Couch. She came up with a very good original argument having to do with a link between psychology and visual media saying that certain elements in films such as the film score and character personalities links with a person’s emotions. It seems that Couch uses extensive research to answer her main question as well as smaller more specific questions throughout her argument. You can tell she did research by her terminology and wording in the argument like “leitmotif” “mood congruence” and talked about mood congruent music. She also talks about the databases she used to find her research such as JSTOR and who articles were written by. Couch also does not use familiar patterns as Kantz mentioned in her article such as, “the first point, the next point.”
ReplyDeleteThe author of Student Paper #6 did a really great job and had so many examples demonstrating mastery over concepts, ideas and claims that Kantz makes. One that greatly stood out to me was on Page Two in the second paragraph. The author paraphrases their source of Marie-Laure Ryan, but then says, “What Ryan didn’t know when she wrote her article back in 2001 is how absolutely immersive video games would eventually become.” Then, the author goes on to explain why they disagree, making many valid points. When Kratz is explaining Shirley’s research paper journey, she explains how Shirley is like many other average college students, just regurgitating words and ideas onto their paper. You can see that in Student Paper #6 this is not being done; they are actually taking someone else’s opinion and not only disagreeing with it but showing how that way of thinking has affected others’ perceptions on video games. When I was reading the paper, after this one paragraph, I stopped and thought, “Wow, that is a really good point.” Kratz believes that a paper should be new ideas, not a history lesson, or a bunch of other people’s ideas thrown together in an seeimingly intelligent way. I thought this was the most obvious example of what Kratz believes makes a compelling argument in Student Paper #6.
ReplyDeleteRegurgitating the words back on to the paper is very hard to avoid when using sources to write a paper. Sometimes, it is easy for students to do this without even realizing (at least for me.) I too noticed how the author of student paper #6 managed to completely avoid this and I feel as though reading this paper, will make it easier for me to do the same. The author paraphrased and incorporated original ideas which is hard to do when you are writing about facts.
DeleteThis was something i noticed too. I liked that he used these points to not only disagree, but I believe this in fact strengthened his argument. I also think that the two games he mentioned were some of the best possible games he could have picked for his points.
DeleteKantz' article discusses the importance of being active in research. In the example, Shirley was passive in her research because she only searched the Internet for articles on the Battle of Agincourt. From there she paraphrased the information and put them into her own paper. She offered no further analysis on the Battle. Feedback she received on her paper suggested that she could have made a point on the different accounts from each side of the battle. This presented a struggle for her because she did not challenge the beliefs of the textbook, in the way a strong headed researcher would do (questioning everything). Rather she paraphrased the facts and her grade reflected it.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really think Paper 3 did a good job of contributing helpful information to the Reddit topic. Although she did research and looked into the Reddit community, she described the different ways people act differently when they hide behind an online identity. Her new information was nothing exceptional in the field. I now realize her research was similar to the Ethnography I did last semester for ENC 1101. Looking back on it, I personally looked into the Yelp community online- conducting my own research within the community- but the information I brought forward was not really helpful for any further researchers to use. I could have explored questions deeper within the community.
Delaney,
DeleteYou did a great job of analyzing how Shirley's situation shows Kantz's view on being active in research. Also, it's impressive that you were able to find how you can relate to Shirley's situation with your own work. I'm sure if any college student were to really critique their own work they'd find that at one point in time, they did not use research in the most effective way. I think another good point to add is that Shirley's research resources were not the problem, but that she didn't use them correctly. If she had thought about the Battle of Agincourt from a different perspective, her paper would have excelled.
ReplyDeleteIn Krantz's essay she discussed how a student, Shirley, could write average but did not know how to write papers based on textual sources. She could only agree or disagree. Brittani Couch wrote a paper titled "Interpreting Cinematic Elements: Psychological Elements". In this paper she was researching which psychological theories best explain how audiences interpret characters and musical elements in film. She doesn't use sources to prove her opinion, she uses them to answer the question being asked. Krantz's paper also made a point of essays with "first,second..." During Couch's essay she was moving on to different parts without using those words.
Morgan, I like how you phrased your statement in that Couch utilizes her sources to answer the question, not to prove her opinion. Also, I agree that Couch transitioned rather seamlessly and did not make her essay choppy with the use of basic transitions like "first" or "second". In doing so, she made the paper simple to read and allowed it to flow smoothly.
DeleteI agree the Couch didn't use her source to only prove her opinion. Learning to use sources the answer questions is a very important skill and I think that is what the most difficult part about researching to answer inquiry questions will be.
DeleteStudent paper 6 in my opinion did a great job of writing an original paper using textual sources. he did not agree or disagree on a topic. He rather chose a topic and used his textual sources as well as his own experience to document on how video games are already narrative based and discussed what nuances that these games incorporate to immerse the player.
ReplyDeleteStudent Paper 4 shows most of Kantz points, especially when he talks about comparing sources to show different points of view on a certain topic. Hartig supports all the information he provides on his paper with sources that explain thoroughly the topic he is trying to defend. The way he divided his argument into side A and side B to compare how the two sides had different opinions on the same topic makes it very interesting, because you get to evaluate and have a better understanding on why there is such a big conflict about the topic.
ReplyDeleteIn the article," helping student writers use textual sources persuasively", Kantz argues that facts people use in papers are widely accepted by most people reading it. Although these are facts students are still able to argue against them because these claims may not be completely factual. In student paper 4 the author states his claims and gives background information in the introduction of his paper. He picks apart anti-piracy legislation and analyzes its proponents and opponents. He examines the claims and the supporters of the claims, for example he shows the supporters are is the music industry and the opponents are regular people who can't afford to pay for music.
ReplyDelete