Quick Access Ch 28, 30 and 31

28:
Chapter 28 is telling the reader how to be organized while preparing to write a research paper. It begins by advising the reader to develop a "search strategy". These strategies outlined in the book seem to have one common goal of moving the process of searching towards a specific topic. In my opinion the Expert Method and Chaining Method are both good choices. They lead the writer or the research paper to ask questions that go deeper into their area of research. However I am under the impression that the Questioning Method is quite useless. Instead of delving deeper into the subject matter, this method only covers broad topics that relate to the area of research. Instead of going towards the core of the matter, this method seems to get at everything around the chosen topic.

The chapter continues on to describe the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. This is very useful information, because many people skip over the importance of including primary sources in their work. One thing I don't agree on is what the chapter had to say about the point of view that secondary sources might have. "However, you need to evaluate secondary sources carefully to make sure that what's being relayed to you isn't distorted or biased in the process." I would argue that statement because having a good secondary source with some spin on the topic is what a lot of papers need. Without a biased source, much of what we would consider research topic-worthy would be a waste of time, because no one could argue a side. Aren't research papers supposed to be about presenting a side to what is hopefully a controversial area? Or at least the thesis is supposed to make a claim about a controversial topic. Without a biased, there would be no different points of view to debate. So I think that including a slightly distorted source can be beneficial to a paper. However, if the statement is so distorted or warped that it loses its original meaning...well that's another story.

30:
Chapter 30 discusses how to use the internet as a source, something that can be very tricky for most people. With the introduction of advanced technologies, students are turning away from libraries and text books; they are now headed towards the internet for their information source. What this chapter is trying to do is inform readers on how to use the internet properly so any information found on it can be a legitimate source.

The first thing people do is use search engines such as Google or Yahoo. These sites are great for starting to search for articles and journals. Students do not have any problem with using keywords or subject directories, after all they have grown up with the technology and it is nothing new to them. The problem that they run into is choosing a valid source. Many times students will turn in papers with many, if not all, internet sources. These sources often end it ".com" and that alone causes a suspicion in the reader. Websites ending in ".com" are not all bad, but students often have a hard time in distinguishing valid sources. They often will site a blog about an issue and not realize that it is not the opinion of an expert. Instead students are told to focus on web sites that end in ".gov", ".org" and ".edu". These sources have a little bit more claim to them than others because of who they are sponsored by.

I am not trying to say that one sponsor is better than the other, but students do need evaluate their sources. Blogs are not sources, instead they need to find journals or newspapers, something with merit behind them.

31:
Chapter 31 addresses plagiarism and how to avoid it. Simply put, plagiarism is using someone else's work and taking credit for it. The chapter is taken up entirely with examples on certain types of plagiarism and ways to get around it.

I think it might be me but certain types of plagiarism seem perfectly acceptable. In cases where quotes are required, I think that makes sense, but paraphrasing or summarizing seems a bit of stretch. On page 201 the book shows how to write a correct paraphrase. What I don't get is that if you read the correct paraphrase and the unacceptable paraphrase they both have the same information. So it seems pointless to me to have a correct and incorrect way of paraphrasing if you're just going to have to cite your source anyway. After all, at the end of the paper you usually have a works cited, regardless of if you paraphrased correctly or not it still has the same information and it's still cited.

Another thing that I haven't taken a liking to is the use of ellipsis in the middle of quotes. Ellipsis (...) are used to take out phrases or sentences that aren't necessary. The problem is that some people have used ellipsis for other purposes. Some use it to make a quote mean something else entirely. For example if someone said , "The ice cream truck stopped for all the kids who wanted to buy chocolate ice cream for their parents."Instead they might include ellipsis and make the sentence say, "The ice cream truck...wanted to buy chocolate ice cream..." which is completely different form the original sentence. In that sense, anything can have a biased, so it's important to find the primary source to make sure the meaning hasn't been construed.

Writing Beyond the Portfolio Committee

After reading the Portfolio Guide I am aware of what is expected of my writing. The whole purpose of the portfolio is to determine if the writer can write with critical understanding. It deems whether we can express complex ideas or feelings in a readable form to an academic audience. It also asks that we know the difference in many styles of writing i.e. persuasive versus reflective papers. Included in the portfolio is a cover letter, it is supposed to be a written explanation of how the writer has grown and developed. Using examples out of the submitted paper, the writer must prove his or her strengths and how they were used. Bottom line, the student is supposed to pass a set standard of writing skill to move on in academic classes.

It was stated in the fifth paragraph of the Portfolio Guide, "The portfolio system enables your teacher to be a coach and editor rather than simply a judge. Rather than debate grades, instructors and students create responses to writing, thereby establishing a collaborative writing environment rather than a competitive classroom environment." If the teacher is not a standard, then the portfolio committee is. This has raised the question of what is beyond the standard of the portfolio committee? Once a student passes the committee's standards of writing are there others that we are not told about? Or does standard after that point come down to personal opinion?

Let's say that a person has passed the portfolio committee and is continuing to write for academia. If his written material is turned into a professor with certain views about writing, the student could be docked points. If the written material is publicized people choose to base worthiness on the subject and if the writing is easy to follow. In either case, the writing standard vary from reader to reader and personal opinion becomes the driving force for "good writing."

This raises the idea that one would be distracted from the real purpose of writing, to state an idea or emotion, because of the reader doesn't agree on how it was written. The whole purpose for the paper is gone. Instead I suggest that a new standard is applied even after the portfolio committee, in doing so it would create a standard that all can agree on and focus on the idea, the whole purpose of writing.

The short story, "Writing About General Apache," seems like a very pointless reflection piece. Obviously it covers a story about someone's experience but it doesn't seem like something that matters to a lot of people. It's more of an expression piece that the author produced. However, the one thing that the author leads to is that he becomes a better writer when he learns what stimulates his students. In other words, once he understands his students, he can write about them with a better quality. This article does a decent job on setting the scene and descriptions of events, but in relating it to the reader is where it lacks. Besides the one sentence claiming how the author writes quality work after understanding his student, it becomes a so what sentence. I want to know what happens before, during, and after the process, not just some little quick story to tide the reader over. I want details on what the author was going through and what he thought his student was going through. Then talk about how he was right or wrong, or if his view of the student, writing or anything else changed.

"Simplicity" is a hypocritical article. It claims that writers write in a confusing manner. It tells of how authors use big words that confuse the reader. According to the article we need to simplify our writing, bold words for an article that also struggles with long drawn out sentences and big vocabulary. A better article might be the words, "We write too much. We need to take out unnecessary aspects that impede the topic." I just summed up an entire article on simplicity in two sentences. That's the type of writing that should be done according to the article. It has great examples to back up its thesis, but no practice. The author even states that the reader may be too lazy to finish. An improvement would be to have one concise paragraph about the readers habits and continue on to why it's important to write with simplicity. This article was meant for writers in the first place, not for readers.