• The most helpful comment that I received was one from Whitney on my poem. I knew that one part didn’t sound right but I couldn’t figure out how to fix it. Here’s what she wrote; “I wonder what I will do when I can’t remember a thing,
  Will I talk, laugh, sing, love – the things I do today?” I think maybe you could ask I wonder how I will act when I can’t remember a thing
  Will I love the things I love today – to talk laugh love and sing. I did what she suggested and my poem sounds much better.
• A comment about my e-mail exchange surprised me. Meridith wrote, “The only thought I have is to maybe convey some more emotion through the wife, so the reader can better understand how this is affecting her.” I understood what she was saying and revised the e-mails with her comment in mind.
• Whitney and Meridith had the same comment for the power point presentation, “My only suggestion is to maybe add some pictures.” I hadn’t thought of this before but I think it’s a good idea after seeing the others, and I am going to try to do that.

2. Quote three specific pieces of feedback (not the whole responses, just parts of a response) that you gave to someone else that you believe were most likely helpful to them in revising their own work.

• A comment that I wrote to Erica about her poem said, “In the second section of the poem “Don’t change my routine” is added at the end. I think another section that refers to the routine would be great and would give more explanation about that.” It was something that I felt I would like to hear more about as I read her poem and I thought maybe others would feel the same way.
• Another comment that I wrote to Erica was concerning her e-mail exchange. “In Julie Tweel’s response she was explaining what pragmatics is and then in the same sentence began writing what children with autism don’t do pragmatically…”appropriate eye contact, intentional communication (where there is an intention to communicate with another), initiating conversation or responding to the initiation of others, RIGHT HERE- lack of using language in a purposeful way, doesn’t share attention to an object, – ENDS THERE maintaining appropriate distance, being able to use and read appropriate body language, and so on”. You might want to take a look at this.” I was a little confused when I read it and was trying to help as best I could by giving specific and clear feedback.
• I read Whitney’s poem and felt that some of the lines were expressing the same thought but were separated with periods. This may seem like an editing revision because I’m talking about punctuation, but my goal was to express to her that I think certain lines should be connected because they share the same idea. My comment was, “I also think that maybe some lines could be connected with a comma such as lines 5 and 6 because I think they are expressing the same thought.”

3. Examine your examples for the first two items above and write about what this information tells you about the kind of peer responses you give.

• I think that in most of my reponses (not just the first two listed above) I am looking for clarity and flow as a reader. I tried to review my peers’ work as someone unfamiliar with what we are doing in this class and unfamiliar with the topics. I think I gave practical responses that didn’t intend to change the idea behind the work, but hopefully gave the writers information about what they can do to make their pieces easier to follow and understand.

4. Write a goal (behavioral objective) for yourself as a peer responder. Specifically, the next time you participate in a peer response group, what do you intend to do differently?

• As I looked at the repsonses that I gave to my classmates I found that many of them referred to mechanics rather than content . Although it’s very important to include things pertaining to grammar or punctuation, it’s often more useful to the author to receive comments on the content of their work. I’ll be sure to remember this in the future and comment on both, because I know how useful the comments about content were in revising my work.

Accuracy:

• Does the author cite sources used to develop the site? Yes (many).
• Is it possible to verify the legitimacy of these sources? Some are only available to students at Marshall University, but the others can be viewed and verified.
• Does the background of the author point to knowledge of the subject covered? The author stated the she is a communication disorders student at Marshall University, leading me to believe the she is knowledgeable in this area.
• If the site is research-based, does the author clearly identify the method of research and the data gathered? Yes. She states that she researched sites online and sites articles at the university library and links are provided to the ones that can be viewed.

Authority:

• Do you recognice the author’s name. I do recognize the author’s name , but most others would not.
• If you don’t recognize the author’s name, what type of information is given about the author? Position? Oranizational affiliation? E-mail address? Biographical information? There is a section about the author. In that section, I found that she is a 23 year old student at Marshall University (Huntington, WV) studying communication disorders and that the website is the product of a communication disorders class. Her e-mail is not given.
• Was the site referenced in a document that you trust? It is referenced in the CD 315 (class) website.

Objectivity:

• Determine what is the aim of the author or organization publishing this site. I think the aim is to complete a research assignment by providing information about dementia and how communication is affected.
• What is the purpose of the website: Is it an advertisement for a product or service? Is it for political purposes? Is it trying to sway public opinion on a social issue? It is an informational site, for those who are interested, on dementia that fulfills an assignment in the communication disorders class.
• Do you trust the author or organization providing the information? I trust the author because the author is ME, but I doubt someone else would. Others can however visit the sites of the sources that I used and find that the information is accurate.

Currency:

• Is a date clearly displayed? Yes, dates are displayed on every page, many of which were created at different times.
• Can you determine what the date refers to? When the page was first written? When the page was first posted on the internet? When the page was last revised or updated? The copyright date? There is a calendar at the top left of the page so it easy to assume that the dates on each page are the dates that those pages were published. There isn’t a date referring to when the page was first ritten or last updated. There is no copyright date.
• Are the resources used by the author current? Yes.
• Does the page content demand routine or continual updating or revision? No.
• Do the links on the page point to the correct Internt site addresses? Yes.

Coverage:

• Are the topics covered on the site explored in depth? Yes. The power piont especially shows the amount of time and research put into this site, and gives a lot of information about the topic.
• Are the links on the site comprehensive or used as examples? They are comprehensive.
• On the site, are the links relevant and appropriate? Yes. Most of them are links to other pages within the site which helped me navigate through the project. Some are related to the research topic or interests of the author.
• How valuable is the information provided? The information could be valuable to someone interested in how a person’s communictaion changes over the course of dementia.

• One goal that I set for this week, specifically when we came back to school, was to work on my pamphlet (genre 5). I started a couple of weeks ago, copying and pasting the information from my tables into a pamphlet format on microsoft publisher at school. I don’t have that program at home, so that is something I have to make myself to at the library.
• The other goal for these past two weeks was to work on the assignments throughout the break. By doing one thing at a time I didn’t get nearly as frustrated and I was overwhelmed with the amount of work like I usually am.

Declarative Knowledge

This week, I learned that revising contains four basic steps (substituting, cutting, adding, rearranging) and that by trying to address all of them I can make my work much better. I also made a unifying genre. It includes links to the other genres and they are each addressed somehow. I made the table of contents page as well. I learned what to include in the page, which is basically the separate sections of my project. One other assignment that I completed was the references page and it was very difficult to set the page up ising correct APA format. I leanred that trial and error works well!

Procedural Knowledge

The revision method that I used this week is known as SCAR revising. The S stands for substituting, C cutting, A for adding, and R for rearranging. By addressing each one, a piece of work can become more powerful or more clear. I think that I basically do this without thinking about it, but when I had to reflect on it and write about how I changed my genre I realized that I should keep these in mind everytime I revise to make sure that I’m doing everything I can to improve my work. To make my unifying genre I had to include remarks about the other genres and choose a work to link its page to. It was a difficult task because I had to try to find a way to mention all of the genres in a casual way that is still representative of an e-mail exchange. I also completed the table of contents page. I listed each part of my project (references,. acknowledgements, etc.) and also listed the genres, linking each word to its page. The references page was fairly easy to complete because I had been keeping up with my references throughout the semester, but it was very difficult to put in APA format (indents, spacing, etc.). I have no idea what I did because I tried so many different things but I kept trying different options and one finally worked. It took FOREVER!!!

Conditional Knowledge

I will use the SCAR revising method for anything I write. Whether it be a personal writing, formal, research paper, etc. I can improve it by addressing those four areas. I’ll also use APA format for any formal or research papers that I write which is atleast for another 2 1/2 years!! I feel like I am a little more comfortable with it but it is still frustrating!

• I substituted words throughout the piece to make the e-mails more personal in some places and more to the point in others. I had also used some words that I simply didn’t like or happened to think of another word that sounded better. I’ll probably be changing words until the project is due.
• I didn’t cut anything out. I needed everything in the e-mail that I already had, and then some, to create the unifying genre.
• I added many things. I had to add sentences that contained some kind of reference to the poem, pod cast, webliography, and journal entry genres. I had to work them into the message in a meanigful way so that it didn’t take away from what I was trying to say with the piece. I struggled with the piece being too “wordy”. As I added things I felt like the e-mails were becoming too long so I tried to keep most things short and too the point. I also added links to the corresponding pages so that will be easy for viewers to look at those pages. I chose the words such as writing for poem and journaling for the jounral entries and made them the links to the poem and journal entries genres.
• I rearranged a few things. As I added the new sentences about the other genres the piece didn’t flow well. So, I did some rearranging but nothing major. I found myself throwing things in in randon places and it sounded like I had just thrown it together which is not what I want. I took the time to arrange the piece and add things to make it make sense and sound like something that these two people may have actually written to each other.

    My original idea for this piece was not changed and the revisions that I made were not so drastic that it looks and sounds like something completely different. What I had the most trouble with was including everything while making sure that it was realistic. It’s hard to have so much information in the piece and still make it sound like a true e-mail exchange. The same goes for all of the genres. I have really tried to put myself in my family’s  and SLP’s shoes so that these genres say everything that I need them to, but also reflect something real. As for this piece, I am pleased with the changes and I think that it turned out to be a nice unifying genre.

• This is a very busy week for me, and my classmates, so I planned to get my work completed and turned in earlier than usual especially since I have never podcasted.
• Another goal, which I didn’t get accomplished this week, was to  revise my pamphlet. I am disappointed with the way it looks and I began revising it last week using Microsoft Publisher.

Declarative Knowledge

This week I researched digital literacy, podcasted, and created 3 new pages on my blog (acknowledgements, preface, about the author). I learned that digital literacy basically encompasses the other literacies that I’ve learned about by using them in combination to complete tasks. I learned how to podcast and what podcasting was a few weeks ago, but wasn’t successful. It is simply a recording of my voice made available to everyone online. It went very smoothly this week. By creating my 3 new pages I realized that this is something that would be very beneficial to every piece of work that is published on the internet. As I was writing about myself and my project I was thinking that I often wonder why and how people came up with the information they have published but not many people provide that information.

Procedural Knowledge 

To make a podcast I wrote out the dialogue in a page on my blog, called the podcasting phone number and read it over the phone, and within minutes it was on my g-cast home page. I did everything in exactly the same way last time but for some reason I did not get the same results. I then created a link on my blog to the g-cast site so that others can listen to it. It was simple and quick! To make my other pages I had to refer to my multigenre research project guidelines. I didn’t know what I needed to include in each one. The preface provides information about how I chose my research question and about the genres, the acknowledgements page gives thanks to those who helped me, and the about the author page gives a little background information about myself and why I have completed this project. I made a separate page for each one of these and published them on my blog in a way that makes them very easy to find. The last assignment I completed this week was the research on digital literacy. I used googled the term and found a realiable source. I then answered the questions that were given and posted them on my blog.

Conditional Knowledge

Podcasting is something that I’ll probably never do again, but I feel more up to date just knowing how. I can’t think of anything that I’ll ever need to use it for again, but I could be wrong! When researching a topic it’s important to know how to find reliable sources and that will be beneficial to me for the rest of my life. Another thing that I learned this week was what to include in a piece of work so that others will be understand why I wrote it and why it’s important to me. I think I’ll always remember that, and I feel that everyone should incorporate those things into their work.