They Say/ I say Reflection

This excerpt summarizes exactly what I have trouble doing. I find it very troublesome to somehow incoorporate the opposing side into my argument. When I have a strong opinon about a such topic, I stick with it not allowing any room for discussion. One section of this piece "Put yourself in their Shoes" explains how a writer should suspend his/her own beliefs otherwise the summary becomes totally bias, resulting in distortion towards your entire piece. In my opinion, I think this is a great lesson to help young writers learn. If students learned how to write along with the argument, still adding their position, it would be beneficial for the future. I also think that everyone has the ability to be persuaded. In the section "Know Where You Are Going" says stating the opposing side is fair and allows you to exert an influence, this can help your opinion stand out even more. I definitely need to learn more about this topic.

They Say I Say Reflection

I totally agree with the fact that some people write summeries to play it safe, so that they arnt judged by what they think, or what their opinion is. But in order to make your summery interesting, you need to be able to crasp the readers attention. The best way to do this is by adding a hint of your own opinion. it gives the writing alittle zest. But I also believe that in order for people to read what you are writing, they need to be able to relate to it. That is why you need to show where other views might be coming. The most boring summery a writer can ever create is on that becomes a list, just rattling off what happned. The best way to write a good summery is to represent whatever is being summerized with dignity, but also putting your onwn creativity in it.

"They Say / I Say" response

I find it really surprising; Graff and Birkenstein believe that your voice should be recognizable in a summary is extremely important. I have trouble maintaining my voice in papers already, so I wholeheartedly agree within the first paragraph when they say that your voice can be lost in summarizations. I think this will be really hard to fix since what you're summarizing isn't what you wrote but somebody else's work, and they deserve all the credit in a summary. However, voicing is a step in becoming a better writer. They also urge us to keep a balance between you and the author while staying focused, which is difficult but very true. Brittany's idea of a "happy medium" is exactly what they're suggesting in their essay. Although it is super hard to summarize an article that expresses differing opinions from what you believe, they are still right. You have to wait until a seperate part of the paper where you express your beliefs. Or you could just write one of those satirical essays they are talking about.... either works.

What I find most interesting though is their comment on "list summaries". Those 'they say' and 'i say' introductions in summaries are complete no-no's. While reading that, I started to wonder if this was a problem in my writing. I never even thought about that being a problem until now, and I know that a clear and interesting voice in my papers is missing sometimes. So, after reading this, I'm going to proof-read my short assignment that's due on Friday to see if I ever wrote one of these poor introductions in my summary. If I did, I will be really embarrassed. However, it will only make me a better writer. I suggest, not 'say', that you should do the same for your papers. Use the language and verbs suggested at the end of the essay.

By the way... did anyone catch the "they say" I wrote in my first paragraph? Wow...

They Say/I Say

I found this article to be very interesting and very true. In high school we had to do numerous persuasive papers. The thing that I had the most trouble on was putting myself in the other person's position. Although I had very strong facts and points that made my paper hard to argue against, I lacked empathy for the other side. This in fact made my paper very weak. This didn't necessarily make me a poor writer, it made me human. I think English classes should focus more on looking at the other side when assigning persuasive papers. I think a lot of people have difficulty putting themselves in the other side's shoes, especially when the topic is something they're passionate about.
Another thing I found interesting was the happy medium the author discussed. I wasn't always the boldest writer and I often found myself in the trap of all summary and no input. This was the safe route that always gave me a decent grade. Reading the article, I started to realize that my previous papers didn't depict my voice. After our first portfolio, I've come to realize that your voice is what makes your paper unique and simply summarizing doesn't bring out your true opinions. Not summarizing enough can also have a negative impact on your writing. Like most other things, you need to find a happy medium to complete a successful paper.

Float On

Of the collaborative essay Floating Foundations, many of my highlighted sentences with asterisks in the margins came from Joe's third of the piece. For me, Joe captures the distinction between the two individual floating foundations, physical space and rhetoric, and then shows how they are intertwine. Additionally, he draws a great parallel to his cocooning and denial. He uses his own rhetoric to expand the thesis of vitality of rhetoric within a post-Katrina community in order to grow.

He continues saying that oftentimes it is easy to distance ourselves from something of the same category. Wordy, I know, but, for example, going to school in Madison, I rarely walk outside the six block vicinity of my classes. That is, I am never really off-campus. I understand this is a far larger city than what I know, but I confine myself inside invisible boundaries. In the past, it was scientific method that hypothesized that humans were divided into subcategories, supporting racism and slavery. The idea that people with different physical features could still be civilized and human, too, was denied. Underlining the goal to rebuild the Tulane english department, a stronger significance the authors portray is this idea of redirecting thought from temporary, specific to floatable and general. To me, this meant the ability to see past the current, the blend the boundaries of one place to another, because one may become the other, because they are continuous. And this is the most important thought because the connection between critical thinking as a floating foundation and the idea that separation is actually indistinct is clear.

It is hard to articulate my thoughts of the essay, but I do not feel comfortable restating their, very true, very eye-opening arguments. I can only agree.

The article “Floating Foundations” emphasizes the point that school can be used to reunite people in any circumstance. In the case of New Orleans, the teachers used education and school to bring community together as well as reflect and make suggestions for post-Katrina. Judith Kemerait Livingston thought, “Katrina so radically de-familiarized the United States that it exposed issues like economic inequality, failing public schools, and crumbling infrastructure in a way that simultaneously educated us and demanded action from us.” This is what struck me as most important within the article. Education can be seen as a fix for anything because education demands new solutions and thinking. By directly linking education and course material to the world around us, the students were more actively engaged, like in the article we read “Living Savage Inequalities.” It is important to note the class material is always changing though due to changing times.

Floating Foundations - Livingston

While reading it wasn't hard to draw parallels between the examples of course material in the article and those of our class. We write responses to recently published articles and comment on others posts in a blog, which is similar to the professor's wiki assignment for Tulane students. We're assigned topics for writing that fall under a main category and are expected to develop critical conclusions in those essays, also much like the students at Tulane. Though the structure of our course was not as a restructuring in response to a natural disaster, I feel it's possible that our class, too, has been designed as a 'floating foundation' of sorts. Many teachers now see as the sole possibility for keeping students actively engaged in the coursework, and rightfully so.

Upon reading about the students who were not exposed to the surroundings of New Orleans during the devastation, I found myself agreeing with their nonchalance. Post-Katrina, I also felt that there was too much coverage of the event, and discussion of it got old. I was not directly exposed to it and felt no connection to the event. It would have been torture to write about it for a whole semester. The way that the professor went about redirecting the course in order to better incorporate those who felt this way was a much more suitable option. While Katrina was obviously a large shaping factor of everything in our nation that year and following, Livingston's comment really sums up how quickly our generation moves on. "Looking back, I recognize that I underestimated the pace at which students adapt to a changing present: how much, as adolescents, they are already at home on foundations that float."