Q and R #4

What are the views of writers that are experienced and those that are students?

The article by Nancy Sommers talks about the revision strategies of student weriters and experienced adult writers. Throughout the article the author talks about the importance of revision. Most student writers take short cuts in order to do less work on the revisions of the article that they are given. Many people write without thinking of revision. Like speaking, writing simply flows from your brain and revision is always an after thought. Although most students do not like that term revision, it is a fact of life that is what fixing a paper means. Students use “scratch out and do over again” to symbolize that they need to change certain parts. That statement is far too broad to be useful for revision. “Marking out: I don’t use the word rewriting because I only write one draft and the changes that I make are made on top of the draft. The changes that I make are usually just marking out words and putting different ones in” this statement clearly reflects the lack of effort to rearrange ideas and points in a student writers article to make it sound right. Student writers do not revise content but “when revising they primarily ask themselves: can I find a better work or phrase?”

Furthermore, experienced writers “rewrite as they write” this shows a good amount of attention is going into writing. Also experienced writertry to make more of a point in revising the content and structure of their article rather than searching for more complex words or grammatical errors. Experienced writers are more concerned with the writing as a whole, and are more conscious of conveying the details clearly. “for experienced writers the heaviest concentrartion of changes is on the sentence level, and the changes are predominantly by addition and deletion.

Q and R #3

What is a good alternative to general commenting to writing?

Students must realize a short generalized comment on what they see and read in an article is fear from what professors and the original writer are looking for. Writing “change this” and “change that” do not do much to give an idea to what really needs to be fixed to convey the point across better to the reader. This method of short changing proper reviewing for the sake of not having to do work defeats the purpose of peer revision. If a peer is not willing to “rhetorically” read like H&F stated, the text that you wrote will be foreign to them.

Furthermore, it helps to have developed a general language between the writer and the reviser. As two students, peer editing can be a great advantage. A peer can identify and give an account of their experience to your writing. The language built as a “vernacular” gives flexibility to communicate the ideas easier.

Using the “PQP” method is a good alternative to general commenting because it goes into detail about what is wrong with the article, and how it can be fixed. Praise offers a way of telling the writer this is what you like about the work as a reviser. It is positive reinforcement to the reader. Questioning the writer on his motives of writing is a good way of make sure that every word and phrase is relevant to the topic. It also trims the extra fat off the steak of writing. In the end you are left with a good, entirely relevant piece of information. “Polish”ing make the review of the article complete by suggesting what changes will make an article better.

In conclusion, taking time to really read and understand what the author is trying to say is the best way to revise. To see from the authors perspective will help judge your revisions so that you make the right choices.

QandR#2

What are the pros and cons of using the contextual strategy to better understand a piece of literary work?

Many people simply read a report or story. Very few readers infer parts and pieces to know what they are reading. Like zombies, many readers have no idea what or how to comprehend what they are reading. However, to properly take anything away from spending minutes or even hours reading, one must have an opinion or at minimum inference on what they read.

Although reading a report or story includes you reading every word and detail of what the author wrote, when using the content strategy you must try clearly understanding what is being said. Content is what is in the article itself. All readers are supposed to take what is said and make sense of it. It can be difficult to do this, but it is imperative that readers know what they are reading and what the meaning is behind it. Otherwise what is the point of having read every word of the work? The content strategy is in my opinion the bare minimum of reading compared to other methods of comprehension. Content reading is doing the easiest form of reading. When content reading, most of what you do is sum up what you are reading or paraphrase.

College professors want students to break the habit of what we as students learn from elementary school up to high school. I myself as a young reader am lazy. After reading this article I realize what these college educators desire. I hate reading, I will do anything not to read, unless it peaks my interest. So naturally reading things that do not interest me will make me do what this study is analyzing. I read with no attention to detail on what exactly the author is trying to say or if to see if there is underlying meaning to their words.

During the course of the study with inexperienced and experienced readers it was clear that both types of students used the content strategy while they were reading. This result shows that it is just human nature to pick the easiest way of doing things. Therefore, the fact of the ease of the reading and how it works is a pro for the content method or analytical reading. Using the content method of reading you can get the full view of everything in the article, also building a clear representation of the reading.

One of the cons of the content strategy compared to the rhetorical strategy is that using the rhetorical strategy gives less attention to what the author’s purpose is. The rhetorical strategy offers more of an in depth analyzing of what the author is trying to say and what the message is. While the content method focuses mainly on what is in the article, the rhetorical focuses on why things are in the article and who they are meant to target to be able to understand why they are there. Rhetorical reading is used to focus more on the author and their purpose of writing and what they wrote.

In conclusion the content method of analyzing a reading is good in building a representation of what you are reading. It is a simple and more of a natural way of reading and thinking while you read. However, content reading leaves a gap in thinking where rhetorical reading is superior is giving the reader a chance to see more of what the author wants them to see. To see through the authors glasses is the point of rhetorical reading. Content reading is very effective in finding information and making a picture in your mind on what the author is saying.

What type of writing would develop writing skills to better describe a topic?

Writing about a topic can be difficult if you have no prior knowledge on how to explain what you are trying to say. I feel that firsthand experience is the most beneficial method to gaining the knowledge to tell someone about it. Actually seeing the sights, smelling the smells, doing the jobs offers an unlimited pool of knowledge to clearly tell someone what you want them to know in a report or any other work that you are trying to do.

Furthermore, in order to understand the audience’s perspective on a subject, you must remember what it is like to not know anything and be ignorant about whatever it is that you want to discuss. Once you experience or do something, it opens the door to be able to tell people about it. Living proof of doing or studying your topic lets one give great detail so that one can educate others who are as naïve on a topic as you once were. Many authors have produced very successful works because of their clarity and attention to clearly tell people what they want them to see or understand what they want them to understand. Some authors have secondary sources which they can refer to in order to gain knowledge. However, this method contains a flaw. A secondary source will see things through their own perspective and have their own tone to the information that they give to the author to write about. Directly being a source an author can make up their own mind on a subject and write about it according to their discretion.

Also, your writing can grow more if you have an opportunity to see, do, and go through whatever you are writing about. Even if your mind lacks the ability and detail to write about a topic the right words will naturally come to you. You can be able to be able to share your thoughts with others, with such detail that they feel like they are actually there if you do the job or research your topic. It is not good if a reader has to put on a blind fold and feel around to get a grasp of writer one is writing about. It is an advantage to give the reader some of the foresight that you do if you use the correct words and details. The enjoyment of the reader rests on the shoulders of exquisite details and proper description.

Naturally people will assume that writing and telling someone something in a report is easy. Simply writing is not enough in some cases. What better words can explain with clarity than those from a wise person? Some people actually try to go around research or the truth of some matters. The fact is that there is no better information than that of a veteran to the job or subject. Which advice on life would you take the advice of an old man or of a six year old child? The ability to write is a power; the common knowledge of whatever you are writing is an even greater power. You can educate people to even greater lengths with better wording, sourcing from a memory or current experience is a great advantage.

In conclusion, there are many ways to improve your writing skills and clarity. There is also multiple methods on how to write to an audience. However, I believe that through direct experience, one can tell an audience every aspect of their chosen topic. No person, even the most experienced of authors has the sight to write reports and describe things to others if they know absolutely nothing about. The best story tellers or authors are the ones that have lived it.