Olivares_AnnotationWorkshop_02/28/13

1) The process for consuming the text for me is to read it and take notes as I go through on Google docs. The reason for this is because there is a lot of information and since I have to summarize it later, it is good to be jotting down notes, quotations, unusual words, and key phrases for later. This also helps me keep a map of where in the text something was said so that I can go back if needed. If this text was more in a story format, genre, I wouldn’t need to use this technique, but because of its nature, no matter the interesting information, I will get bored and drift off if not concentrating fully.

2) I briefly looked up on a slide show about how to annotate a piece. It gave me some useful and non useful information. Connecting the text to myself, the text, and the world was useful. Looking for the plot of a character’s actions wasn’t that helpful.

3) This text helped me because it connected with the text we read in class last time about genre theory. For example, the author of the text I read made reference to the fact that defining genres is difficult because they are dynamic, changing, and a social communication tool.

Olivares_Annotated Rough Draft_02/28/13

Joining the Club:

A Suggestion about Genre in Early Jewish Texts

            This journal seemed an odd choice, but religion fascinates me so I thought I’d give it a read. What’s interesting is that the author makes references to what we read about Genre Theory in class. That they were dynamic, changing, and rely on a social communication with the language. The author, Benjamin G. Wright 3^rd, wrote the paper with the goal of defining Wisdom and Apocryphal genres through the prototype theory. The prototype theory is a more abstract way of defining genres and is a big move from how wisdom genres were typically formed in the past by biblical scholars. An example is probably the best way to look at what prototype theory. Imagine yourself seeing a new animal for the first time. Most humans wouldn’t make a mental list of the parts that this creature has. They would make the connection based off of other animals that they have seen. If the said animal was say a bird, we’d classify it as a bird because it looks like animals we’ve already classify as birds. Most wouldn’t make a mental checklist of the parts that the animal has or doesn’t have. The prototype theory works in a similar fashion. It doesn’t describe a set of characteristics that make a genre a genre, but has examples that define the genre and radiates from that. By making the connections between texts you get an expanding genre that goes from the “best” examples to the “fringe” examples that begin to encroach on the territory of other genres. Biblical scholars in the past tended to create genres based on classification, definition, and on a list of features. But, according to Wright, this is limiting because it creates exclusionary categories that make it so either a piece fits in a genre or it doesn’t. It’s also limiting because it fails, in the authors opinion, to make connections between different texts which is the overall goal of his paper, to make connections of wisdom and apocalypse genres to the spectrum of Early Jewish Literature.

Olivares_ShafferAttempt_02/21/13

The Shaffer process is good for beginners, but it lacks the ability to fully challenge students to advance their writing. Limiting writing to a pre-constructed format is not good. Some students may want to write more than how much space can fit into the space of two sentences for their commentary. Or maybe they can get it done in one sentence, but have to then think of some trivial point to put into the paragraph to fill the quota. “Writing formulas are attractive, precisely because they render the ‘messy’ more manageable.” The appeal of the structured writing form makes it easier to grade because kids know what to expect and teachers can easily find a benchmark to consistently grade. And if it is the only system the students know they can be good at it, but they are limited and inefficient when it comes to other writing. Students should know and understand the Shaffer method because it does provide some valid information on structure and id terms, but it they should not limit themselves to just this form.

"The Truth will set you free, but first it's going to piss you off"

Wooly Ess
Concept Art Forum

funny little comic

Olivares_Formulaic Writing_2/18/13

            Whether or not you argue for using the Jane Shaffer method, one thing is clear and that is that the Shaffer method has limits and should not be stuck with just this method at your disposal. It is a valid method and it does teach important concepts structural concepts like paragraphs, intros, and conclusions, but it’s a beginner’s tool. “Teachers, while acknowledging that students must move beyond the Schaffer method if they are to continue improving, were nevertheless left wondering what to do next. Unfortunately, there is no next in the Schaffer approach.” The method if followed to the letter doesn’t give the students the room to be creative and that’s what should be taught after the Shaffer method; the ability to go beyond this simple structure and expand on important ideas and talk about your opinions. Shaffer s claims that “students resist writing commentary because it means they must say what they think, a task they are not used to and one they find difficult.” If this is difficult then the next step is to find ways for the students to practice writing their opinions. This could be done by giving the students more leeway in their topic selection so that they can write about something that deeply interests them. Writing essay types like persuasion and pro and con with an emphasis on the getting the writers ideas expressed. Or even having them speak out loud in small and large groups, or individually about their opinions so that they can get those out. Students need to know that their thoughts matter and finding ways to encourage that is giving the students a path to success; one that can be expanded on in new and different ways.

            I remember in high school having a method of writing essays that reminds me a lot of the Jane Shaffer method. I don’t believe any of my teachers taught it with that name, but there are similarities to the style and I remember using that style for a while. When I was just starting out and I felt stuck not knowing what to write I used this formulaic method of writing my papers. Luckily for me I didn't feel constrained by the style and I didn’t stay with it for all my writing. I attribute this to my voracious reading habits. But I understand that some students might feel very comfortable using this style and may stick with it because they are not confident that they can do it another way.

            I agree with James Collins that this method should be taught as just one of many strategies to choose from. The Shaffer strategy may get students the grade, but it lacks the ability to transform writing from a boring school subject to something that the students can get into and willingly use for the rest of their lives. We should be training these students in a way that gets them to want to write in their lives and not just for a grade.

Mind Blowing Quote of the Week

you know hippos. Those big, fat water land animals that swim in the river. Yeah those big  guys can run 19 mph <30 kph>. So unless you run at the Olympic level that's faster than you.



BOOM!!