April 13, 2011

RB#6: Stage 2 of the Argumentative Essay

by gayleyg

This final blog entry includes two parts:

1. A brief reflection on how things are going in regards to the behavior you wish to transform so that you have a strong ending to your semester?

2. Stage 2 of the 312_Arg Essay_Staged Rubric.

Part 1:
1. Reflect on the goal or behavior you chose to change or focus on in the Goals Check-in activity we did in class on Thursday, April 7. How are things going? Do you want to continue, stop or change anything you’re doing to better meet your goal?

Part 2:

Stage 2 of the Argumentative Essay Staged Rubric:

A. Deliberation Log Criteria: (please use the template provided Delib Log_Arg Essay and attach it to your blog entry)
o D Log is completed in a correct; comprehensive manner
o D Log clearly identifies:
1. Central & subordinate issues
2. Commonplaces on the issues that span the deliberative community
3. Key terms of concern to the entire deliberative community
4. An overview of claims in support of your perspective on each of the issues
5. An overview of evidence in support of your perspective on each of the issues
6. Values and assumptions underlying your claims

Please insert a DOWNLOAD link to your Deliberation Log doc. See below for instructions.

B. Outline or Concept-Map:(please either insert a DOWNLOAD link into your blog entry OR attach as an IMAGE link (doc, pdf, jpeg, png, etc.)
1. Linear, traditional outline
2. Concept map (visual)

Instructions on how to insert a DOWNLOAD LINK:

Instructions on how to insert an IMAGE LINK:

Criteria for either format:
o Clearly shows how each aspect of the deliberation log will be organized into the final paper
o Includes evidence of a compelling introduction and a memorable conclusion

You have the same Peer Review Pods as RB #5. Please see that post for details.

This entry is DUE by 12 MIDNIGHT, FRIDAY APRIL 22
The Peer Review Period ends 12 MIDNIGHT, WEDNESDAY APRIL 27
Author Responses & Revisions are DUE 12 MIDNIGHT, FRIDAY APRIL 29

April 3, 2011

RB#5 Getting Started on the Argumentative Essay

by gayleyg

Please download this 312_Arg Essay_Staged Rubric for details on the Argumentative Essay Assignment. (This was the banana yellow, 2-sheet handout distributed in class on Tues, 3/29.)

For RB#5 you will need to complete all 5 items for Stage 1, a-e. There are no word limits but please note the suggested length of each section and strive to communicate clearly with an economy of words.

For this post peer reviewers should pay particular attention to the clarity, logic and reasoning of their podmates’ posts and give helpful feedback wherever you are confused by the author’s writing and/or description of their issue, reasoning or position. For this final essay assignment you will be required to take a clear stand or position on your controversial professional issue and provide logical and coherent support for this position.

For RB’s #5 & 6 you will have a new POD; your third and final. Since we’ve been having trouble with some being able to access the googledoc I’ve also copied and pasted the 3rd and final pod groups below.

Final Pods for RB #5 & 6

Click on this image to maximize the size

March 16, 2011

RB#4 Clarification on Section 1 Questions

by gayleyg

If you look at page 221 in your Makau & Marty text the first paragraph describes the purpose of the questions in Section 1 of RB#4. (if you keep on reading through page 223 there is an example)

Basically the reflection questions help us look at the communication context of preparing for the Roundtable within the larger community. The Section 1 questions have to do with the interactive dynamics between your standpoint, the topic, your teammates’ standpoints, and the class as a whole. In this section each of the 3 questions asks you to provide concrete examples of: 1. how/whether you and/or your team paid attention to issues of standpoint, 2. whether or not you considered relevant criticisms from others’ views, and 3. how fully you considered the actual effects of your recommendations on the lives of those who would be affected by them? (also called relational accountability)

March 7, 2011

RB #4–Roundtable Reflections

by gayleyg

The purpose of this blog entry is to reflect on various aspects of the Roundtable assignment. Please respond to each part fully in your Word Press blog. Try to focus on reflecting and thinking deeply on each question. Ask yourself, Why? three times. There is a clarification of the Questions in Part 1 in a more recent post.

You have up to 750 words to accomplish this.

Part 1
1. How might relevant perspectives on our topic (How can we strongly address the issue of childhood obesity and the parents’ contribution to it while at the same time, recognize that there are many other factors?) be informed by individuals’ standpoints (including self)? And how might perspectives on the subject be informed by relationships with other standpoints and views? Be sure to use concrete examples to illustrate and support your claims.
2. In preparing for the Roundtable and deliberation log assignments, to what extent did your team consider the relevant criticisms of members’ views? Be sure to use concrete examples to illustrate and support your claims.
3. How fully and effectively has your team considered the actual effects of relevant decisions on the lives of those affected? To what extent did the group construct a means of accountability for responding to critique and unintended consequences—both positive and negative—that allows for continued responsible action? Be sure to use concrete examples to illustrate and support your claims.

Part 2
1. In your view, given the research, circumstances and perspectives uncovered during the Roundtable, what do you think are the most just, thoughtful, and viable recommendations for addressing the Childhood Obesity epidemic? Please provide adequate support for your claims. (Consult the Deliberation Logs provided in class by each team for support for your claims)

Part 3
1. Reflect on your role in the Roundtable. Consulting the role-specific criteria on the grading rubric (Moderator, Speaker 2, etc), how would you assess your contributions to the Roundtable?
2. After consulting the team member evaluation criteria agreed upon in class (see below) as well as your team’s specific Charter, how would you assess your fulfillment of these two agreements?

Team Evaluation Criteria
1. Attendance at meetings
2. Maintaining phone/email contact
3. On-time contribution of work
4. Behavior facilitated the work of the group
5. Behavior helped build team cohesion
6. Fulfilled assigned role

Remember, spelling, grammar, punctuation and deadlines always count.

After 3/18 your podmates have until Wed, 3/30 12 MIDNIGHT to provide peer feedback. (we are taking the week of Spring Break off) Then you have until Friday, 4/1 12 MIDNIGHT to respond to their feedback (required) and complete any revisions (up to you). Prof Gayle will grade after this point.

See the googledoc in iLearn for the details. (It’s the same as for RB#3)

Check your blog daily during the one week review period to moderate/approve comments and converse with your podmates.

February 14, 2011

Perfectionism-Letting Shitty First Drafts Just Happen!

by gayleyg

I attended a “teaching writing across the curriculum” workshop before classes started this semester and was reminded of the insightful Anne Lamott essay “Shitty First Drafts,” from her book Bird by Bird. I was also introduced to her essay “Perfectionism” in the same volume. The title reminded me of the first time I came face to face with my perfectionistic writing tendencies while completing my dissertation for a PhD in Communication Studies. At that point in my student career I was writing ‘academese’ quite well. The initial feedback on my proposal was positive; I was “on track.” And then a bit of the unexpected happen.

I became pregnant and found myself eating saltines, sipping chicken broth, and trying to stay out of the emergency room. Progress on the dissertation all but came to a standstill. I started writing again after my son was born. I picked up the proposal and read it through; and then read it through again (blah, blah, blah). What was odd was that I couldn’t relate or engage with what I had created before becoming a mother. It was like someone else had written it.

Restless and tinkering with it for several weeks I eventually put it aside. I began writing about the process of writing my dissertation. I wrote about my life and various difficult experiences while growing up. Through writing I found and followed the thread of my interest in people, organizing, communication, emotions, and ultimately healing. This was my first experience with writing as a way of knowing (Richardson, 2000). On the written page I could see the connections between my life experiences, my interpretations of them, and my professional values, insights and strengths.

I wove this autobiographical content into my dissertation proposal. The technical term for what I was doing was ‘autobiographical ethnography’ or autoethnography; at the time a newer sub-field spanning the social sciences (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). This new methodology was a tough sell to my dissertation committee but I was hooked. I’d never felt more alive through my writing! I couldn’t go back to the academically ‘correct’ way. I remember thinking, “If I’m going to finish this dissertation and be away from my family, what I am doing must really matter to me.” Changing my approach to my learning process was what mattered and what made it all worthwhile. I was in my learning paradise (hooks, 1994).

We moved across the country twice; first to New Mexico and eventually to California. Laboring over my field research I attempted to weave together the old with the new in my writing. One morning in California I got up to write. Sitting in front of my computer and reviewing the introductory chapter for the 100th time I knew I needed to shorten the autobiographical piece so the chapter flowed better. I’d try to reword it and couldn’t find any more words to excise. Good and stuck, I knew deep down if I didn’t figure something different out it would be tough to move forward and finish. Terrified and frustrated, I couldn’t figure out how to get past this huge boulder (I had put) in my way!

Then a friend said something like, “if you delete something you can just write something else to replace it. You might come up with something even better.” This possibility had never occurred to me. As Anne Lamott might say I was too busy being cowed by the “voice of the oppressor,” (1994; p. 28) or my inner perfectionist. Also, because this section of writing was autoethnographic it felt like hitting the delete key was losing a part of myself that I was just beginning to understand, even though this self-knowledge had already become a part of me through the writing of it. I “might” come up with something better (and I also might not). I did hit the delete key and “lost” those two paragraphs after having clung to them for quite some time. And I felt free, lighter than air, and able to move on to write something that was actually better suited to what was needed!

I still struggle with editing while I’m writing but I’ve gotten pretty good at letting go of sentences, paragraphs, and sometimes pages. Can you let yourself go and get through your shitty first drafts? Do you have a revision habit in place so you can improve your writing further? Are you struggling with perfectionism (like me) and want to get it off your chest? Do you notice any of these issues in your writing process?

Ellis, C. & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733-768). (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. NY: Routledge.
Lamott, A. (1994). Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life. NY: Pantheon.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923-948). (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

A link to Anne Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts” from Bird by Bird.
A link to my dissertation on OhioLink.
Sorry, there is no ‘published’ version of Anne Lamott’s Perfectionism article online, although you could find it in the CSUMB library in her book Bird by Bird.

January 31, 2011

And even more info- RB #1 questions for reflection

by gayleyg

This first RB entry should be between 250-500 words in length and should be posted in your WordPress blog (NOT in iLearn).

Please respond to each of the following questions fully in your Word Press blog:

1. Reflect on your ILS (Index of Learning Style) results. What about your learning style preferences were confirmed? What was a surprise or didn’t ring true for you? What do you want to be aware of and explore more this semester?
2. What is one strategy you could pick to focus on improving your learning and study skills this semester, based upon the suggestions from the creator of the ILS? How might you do this?
3. Reflect on the selected topic for the Roundtables. What is your prior knowledge of this topic? Which perspectives peak your interest for conducting research? (We will use responses to this part of RB #1 to help form student learning teams.)

Remember, spelling, grammar and punctuation always count.

After 2/4 your podmates have until the RB entry 2 due date to respond. See the assignment guidelines below for details.

For Month 1 your podmates will be the same as your Roundtable Team.

January 31, 2011

More info-RB Assignment Guidelines

by gayleyg

A broad overview of this 312_RB Assign Guide_Spring 2011, including the 7 Reflection Blogs, the Peer Review pod process, and the Final Portfolio pages.

January 28, 2011

Welcome! HCom 312–WordPress tutorial attached

by gayleyg

Hello! Please find attached a tutorial with instructions for setting up your very own WP blog for our class this semester.

Please have your WP account and blog created and your “ABOUT” page completed by class time, Thursday Feb. 3. HCOM 312_Wordpress Tutorial A