MA3 asks us to take our research work and turn it into a visual. Asking us to take whats applied from analytical intelligence to our creative intelligence. Even with the information already crafted, it still takes a whole other type of ability to throughly reflect that information visually.

Different people learn differently. A visual aspect really helps expand on your audience. Allowing people who can read, analyze and reflect already and those who do not posses those analytical abilities to also have access to information (a very important idea to me is that information should be 100% accessible to all). I don’t really see any cons to having information shared in multiple contexts. I do believe all information should be accessible both analytically and visually for the aforementioned reasons. Otherwise the cons do form.

You have to take into consideration that the visual work does have to 100% accurately reflect the analytical work (and vice versa) as there cannot be any inconsistencies to prevent confusion and misinformation. Consider those who have difficulties using that analytical intelligence and understand how to tap into that creative mindset.

Sternberg- Three Intelligences

      – Analytical (Book Smart) (Problem Solving)

      – Creative (Knowledge in Novel Situations)

      – Practical (Street Smart) (Adapts Easily)

I understand the idea behind students not applying the (FYW) into their future courses. Reason being, it’s a lot of new concepts that challenge the definitions of words and new verbiage that apply to what we knew. Changing what you’ve been taught for Ten years can be very difficult and only having four months to change all of that IS difficult. It may not even be on purpose… it could be subconscious and accidentally forgotten.

Personally I feel being out of school for six years may actually help me here, because the old information is no longer fresh to me, so the new information is easily applicable. I do feel like I will apply what I learned in this course in the future, but I could see how the younger students (those fresh out of high school) would definitely struggle in applying this information.

I would be able to apply this knowledge in ways that allow me to look at things differently. Seeing genre as more than just the theme and understanding lexus.

After reading Bazerman I see more emphasis on interpretation and not so much on intent. Meaning that while a project may be intended for a specific audience it can be interpreted multiple ways, therefore, having multiple meanings. However, I am not sure I agree with that. If a project is intended for a specific audience, but someone from outside that realm decides to interpret it as “speaking to them” that is entirely subjective. I do believe genre is objective. An example of poor interpretation would be the bible. Multiple religions or individual people claim to have the proper idea of what the bible is trying to say, but wouldn’t you think a book as important as “the word of god” at one point did in fact have an objective point and an intended audience. However, I could argue my counter point myself with my own specific example. If Trap music was created as a way to simply have a “hot beat” and talk about drugs, I as a person who has no experience there, will interpret it as such. However someone who had to do that to survive may see it as “the voice of their past” I could go back and forth with myself on this but I do believe our ideas of Genres far diverge at the core premise. I believe Bazerman see’s it as “Subjective” where as I see at as “Objective”.

Bitzer defines rhetorical situation as “thoughts on a circumstance”.

*Persuasion – although he sees it as more than such, discourse requires persuasion.

*Fleshed – discourse requires fleshing out your points to make sense

*Discipline – you must be able to remain calm, and to the point

A Rhetorical situation in my own definition is a situation that causes thought. A situation that causes inner discourse and “rhetoric” between yourself (or and yourself) and another party. Rhetoric allows room for questioning and bring forth discourse the option for dialogue.

Combining these two thought together to create one definition, I would say Genre is a tool that defines a conversation. It is everything from the material to the actual discussion it creates.

Grant-Davie saw writing as limitless with rhetoric being involved. I would agree with this because even though the rhetoric, in my opinion, is created by an objective audience of the genre. It is still open to conversation by anyone leaving. This lead to the conclusion that rhetoric does not always have a purpose which is where I disagree. That is not how it works, or at least, not how it should. Knowledge has to be created and passed down through meaningful rhetoric and if there is no purpose the conversation is meaningless. While you can have conversation that has no basis of knowledge, those rhetorics are not memorable and typically left behind.

I really liked Greene’s point of argument being conversation as it is something I can relate to and definitely see myself using in my own research paper as a way to convey information.

The sample essay’s purpose was showing how students are better in their writing when motivated.

“Knowledge” and “Learning” to me are defined as such. “Knowledge” is the source of information that is typically built upon, passed down, and used to teach but also, be taught. Learning is using the knowledge and either having it passed down to you, or, expanding (or taking away) from it. Whether it be adding new information or taking away false information. Hyland defined knowledge similarly to my own as a “hunch” which a person may initially form and from there it is further expanded upon. Knowledge and information is a little different. Knowledge is the actual information that is still being built upon, discussed, or ideas that are still passed around. Information is the solidified knowledge that has been set and may not be as likely to be built on. It’s important to recognize this distinction because it’s how we differentiate teaching, being taught, and expanding. Collaboration plays a HUGE role in knowledge because the collective ideas and information may lead to something others didn’t know, building upon this and allowing time to be allocated to new information.

Welcome to “Mechanical Engineering”: Influence of Plastic Deformation on Fatigue of Titanium Alloys.

What to expect:

Knowledge comes from research, theories, and experimentation to prove said research and theory as fact. From there this theory that has become knowledge is passed down, reflected upon, and improved. Once we have an understanding of the knowledge it is taught to educate others as well. This was the information can always be improved upon or built on top of to continue an educated society.

Reflection is a tool that can be used to help advise yourself on revisions to be made on your text. By using reflection it allows you to truly look in depth at your own work and look for discretions, further information, or a way to relay your current information in a more precise manner.

Reflection and rhetorical situation goes together because it allows the rhetoric to expand by reviewing the information internally both received and relayed.

Reflection and genre go together because they allow you reflect upon the info you’ve provided to make sure you’re relaying it throughly and accurately.

Reflection and audience go together because it allows you to look back at the rhetoric and the genre being discussed at that time and gear it towards the specific audience the genre is originally produced for.

https://toonclips.com/design/10309

an image of a guy picking his own brain. Much like reflection. You must go about your own mind and see where and what to change.

A discourse community I am apart of is a Football Group Chat.

*Our common goal is the discussion of stats, teams and games.

*Our method of communication is through text on Imessage.

*We participate in communication in the same manner.

*The genres that define the discourse is football, sports, and statistics.

*The lexis, or words we may use, would be things like “Td’s” “Picks”, or fanship.

*The standard of knowledge would really be subjective. From just knowing a team to knowing football as a whole.

A time I was apart of a discourse community was when I used to kick it a group of bad guys who did drugs and were into guns. I never assimilated to that community and eventually ostracized myself.

Audience: To me audience is defined by whom the content or “genre”, is being created for. Audience is important because it allows content to be catered directly for a specific demographic. Which is important cause it can help inspire and create a source to write from. It allows you take content and directly effect the lives of whom it is for. Examples would be creating a story about your culture and being forced to assimilate to another one for conformity. Without Audience, the text would be too general and unable to be applied to any specific source, leaving too many variables and open ended questions. Audience allows you to “tie up loose ends” if you will. Looking at audience this way allows me to recognize Anzaldua’s text because it makes it clearer that the text is being made for minorities who are forced to conform to a white America simply to be “Accepted” (and I use accepted loosely). But with that it also allows the subjectivity that Bazerman uses for his definition of Genre. While Anzaldua’s text is CLEARLY made for other minorities dealing with conforming to a white culture, it could also be seen as a way for white America to be forced to “Watch their privilege”. Wilcha complicated audience by introducing a first person viewpoint into the world of the white man. It was simply a self diary that was meant to show his day to day in the facility and provide a less relatable context to minorities but more so to the privileged of America. Unlike Anzaldua’s text which is made to be a relatable “guide” into navigating a white mans world for minorities, this simply showed the difficulties he himself dealt with in the same world. An outside view vs an inside view. I can’t really say Anzaldua’s text introduced any ideas about Audience that I hadn’t already previously considered. I feel as if she touches on everything that I considered audience to be, therefore, I do not believe my view has changed.