Of all the key concepts and skills that we have learned this semester, one that I would like to teach to freshmen classes would be the skills involved in discussion. In many classes, discussions are an indispensable part of learning that engages students and compels them to think. The nature of a discussion requires participants to make arguments against one another and this can be difficult to achieve in a classroom setting as people can disregard what others are saying and just talk about what they want to talk about or outright denounce their points.

One particular skill that I have learned about entering group discussion is acknowledging and recapitulating the former person’s argument and using that as a starting point for your own argument. By implementing the template “XXX I hear you think that ooo. I go further to say that YYY” or “XXX I hear you think that OOO. However, I think YYY” within discussions, the discussion is elevated to another level. Not only are you applying the “They say I say” structure and thus making your own argument stronger but you are also showing how you are paying attention to other’s argument and have considered their points. This makes speakers feel comfortable as they know their arguments are being heard and the speakers themselves will attentively tune into other’s contributions to discussion so that may rebut against those who disagree with their point. Furthermore, this prevents the discussion from going off tangent. Because you are making your point in relation to what the previous person had said, it is very difficult to go off topic and whatever is said will always be relevant to the topic.

In terms of teaching this to the class, I think the only way is to actually practice using it in discussion. So whenever a class discussion comes up, I would require the students to recapitulate what the previous speaker had said and then make their point based on what he/she said.

While I do not have a concrete idea of how I want to present my final portfolio, I feel its definitely important to display a visible progress and improvement. Thus, I most likely will be including my first blog post, “Eye in the sky” and whatever my last blog post may be. For the “Eye in the sky” blog post I only suggested my opinions on the subject matter without really taking into consideration what others may think of the topic. This is a technique we thoroughly learned in class and one that I believe I have effectively utilized in my later works. With these two blog posts as a starter, I will try and find blog posts that truly reflect the progress I have made during this course.

As for the one of the three outcomes that I want to focus on, I would like to put emphasis on outcome 2. Much of this class has been devoted into learning how to strengthen my own argument by acknowledging and at times rebutting what others may say about my argument. This has included finding works of other scholars to further support my thesis or present a counter argument and denounce it to further validate my points. So I will try and include blog posts where I effectively incorporate the use of the “I say They say” model that has been emphasized so often in class. I feel that the assignment that best reflects this is the researched argument on Frankenstein. Here, finding, analyzing and evaluating the works of other scholars to better support my own argument is a critical element and I strongly feel that this paper will be the best embodiment of my ability to incorporate the ideas of others into my own writing.

It is essential to present the subject matter of the writing in the introduction. In my introductions I try to logically display the points of argument that I will be discussing further on in the writing. I try to do this in a succinct manner so as not to make the introduction to lengthy. Upon introducing the subject matter, it is also important to have an apparent and direct thesis statement. The thesis statement should be a summary of what the subject is and what my stance on the topic is.

The conclusion is very similar to the introduction in that the whole idea of a conclusion is to summarize the entire essay in one paragraph. Here, I try to recapitulate the arguments made thus far. It is also important to try not to bring up new points of arguments in the conclusion. The conclusion should be strictly for summarizing the essay so people can get the general comprehension of the essay.

This is the introduction of a psychology paper I had to read for my psychology seminar class

Imagine it is Friday, and you have plans to meet up with a small group of friends for what would normally be an enjoyable evening. However, tonight it feels like the gathering will be more draining than pleasurable, and you would much prefer to stay in by yourself. In fact, over the last few weeks, you have been less interested in most social activities as well as most of your hobbies. It is not that you have had less time or fewer opportunities, but you were unmotivated to pursue them; and even when you did, you ended up feeling bored and checking your watch the whole time. Distressed by this, you might wonder whether there was a name for what you were feeling, at which point you would likely discover that you were experiencing what clinical psychologists and psychiatrists call anhedonia, which is a common symptom in patients with major depression or schizophrenia

Here the introduction lacks the formal tone one would expect from an academic paper. However starting off the paper with an anecdote that many people can relate to immediately seizes the attention of many readers. In that sense this is a rather successful introduction as it captivates the mind of the audience.

As for the conclusion…

In sum, we have articulated the potential value of translational neuroscience in providing diagnostic clarity to the study of reward-related symptoms in psychopathology. Given recent advances in basic science and translational validation, we are now poised to leverage these approaches to better understand and even potentially reclassify these symptoms in terms of biologically derived constructs and measures.

The conclusion here summarizes the points mentioned in the paper in a very succinct manner. Despite lacking the minute details, the conclusion is still effective in recapitulating the focal arguments of the paper so that even those who haven’t read the paper with care can still understand the general arguments made.

Working Title: The True Monster in Frankenstein

In my introduction I will try and explore what Shelly’s definition of “a monster” is and how perhaps her experience with the dynamic shift in her era’s social structure has shaped her definition of a “monster”. Here I will briefly mention the monster characteristics reminiscent in both Frankenstein and his creation.

In my main body, I will go in length to describe and compare the characteristics of Frankenstein and his creation. On my first paragraph I will describe the physique of Frankenstein and on the following paragraph juxtapose this by describing the physique of the monster. If we look from the physical appearance, the Victor’s creation, with its grotesque presence is the monster. However, when the juxtaposition is done with the characteristics of both characters, it is Victor, who is content in isolation and outright rejects his own creation without a chance, that is truly the monster. I will also include any possible social changes and especially highlight on the industrial revolution to obtain in-depth knowledge on how the social movement shaped her perspectives of technology and thereby Victor’s creation.

In conclusion, I will summarize my arguments in a concise fashion. While it was Victor who appears human he in actuality lacks the qualities to be classified as one while the monster, despite his abnormal appearance has the kindness that is essential to all mankind

Primary

Man’s all compelling need for survival is evident in the development of the main characters, the boy and the man, in The Road. Some critics argue that McCarthy suggests the possibility for redemption of mankind. This is indeed how Ashley Kunsa views the portrayal of these characters as she believes, “we discover the seeds of the works unexpectedly optimistic worldview.” However, this is a contention with which I vehemently disagree. The Father and the boy, who are described metaphorically as those who are “carrying the fire” and “the good guys” appear to be moral characters who do not succumb to barbaric acts such as cannibalism. Yet, the impressive moral standard of the father and the boy simply provide a false illusion to the reader that there are those who can triumph in McCarthy’s truest test for optimism.

– Here i quoted Kunsa as a foundation for the development of my own argument. I implemented the “They say, I say” structure that was so strongly emphasized in class and in doing so made my argument stronger and more valid. By quoting someone with a different idea, and then immediately rejecting it, I have effectively proven that I have considered opposing view points but still remain steadfast to my original beliefs.

Secondary

This is effective because the poster is an altered version of the iconic propaganda used in George Orwell’s celebrated novel ‘1984’. Its is at once recognisable to the audience. The use of the image of google, which we are all familiar with and is central to many of our lives, makes concept of a totalitarian society wherein everyone is watched becomes very immediate and imminent.

– the secondary source i used in this paragraph is George Orwell’s 1984. Not only is this directly related to the poster that I was analyzing, but the novel itself is also an icon of totalitarianism and therefore makes the posters relatable to the general audience.

Maps of the World in Its Becoming: Post-Apocalyptic Naming in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road (https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_modern_literature/v033/33.1.kunsa.pdf)

In this paper, Ashley Kunsa takes an optimistic approach to a seemingly abysmal and infinitely bleak novel by Cormac McCarthy “The Road”. Here Kunsa suggests a possibility for redemption of mankind as she believes “we discover the seeds of the works unexpectedly optimistic worldview”. She seem to argue that the Father and the Boy’s act of abstaining barbarism and cannibalism is a major salvation for mankind and an uncontroversial evidence that even in a lawless world, man’s conscious still lives.

Kunsa quotes many other scholars who studied this novel and both extends beyond their point or refute their claims. “Chabon is wrong in claiming that “the quest here feels random, empty at its core” (117). The “maps and mazes” at The Road’s end point toward something essential at the center of the journey, and tellingly, the novel closes not with the intersection of arbitrary and nonsensical lines, but with the patterns on the backs of the trout, “maps of the world in its becoming,” forms that suggest an inherent order and underlying purpose yet undiscovered”

(Example paragraph of using her article to help angle my argument)

Man’s all compelling need for survival is evident in the development of the main characters, the boy and the man, in The Road. Some critics argue that McCarthy suggests the possibility for redemption of mankind. This is indeed how Ashley Kunsa views the portrayal of these characters as she believes, “we discover the seeds of the works unexpectedly optimistic worldview.” However, this is a contention with which I vehemently disagree. The Father and the boy, who are described metaphorically as those who are “carrying the fire” and “the good guys” appear to be moral characters who do not succumb to barbaric acts such as cannibalism. Yet, the impressive moral standard of the father and the boy simply provide a false illusion to the reader that there are those who can triumph in McCarthy’s truest test for optimism.

In her paper, Jessica Hale makes a notable argument that women in Shelly’s novel Frankenstein have been objectified to become man’s possession to embody domestic perfection. This is critically reflective of the social structure of the Victorian Era in which ‘both natural and divine law endowed the father with patriarchal authority as ‘head’ of a household’. She goes further to mention that the acquisition of women as means of building the ideal family has made homosocial relationships even more outstanding in the novel as people crave for relationships more profound than that of ‘gendered inequality’

She finds effective evidence of her claims in the novel. By noticing the tragic death of all female characters in the novel, Hale makes the claim that the untimely death of the female characters in actuality represents importance of ensuring the “tranquility of domestic affections” to be as riddled with internal tensions and conflicts as the nineteenth century family itself.

Hale also makes use of secondary sources to further strengthen her argument. By quoting another scholar not only does she convince the audience of the reliability of her claim but also gives depth to her paper by developing upon other’s claims. When she mentioned “As Schoene-Harwood notes, “Alphonse’s fatherly protection effects his wife’s domestic imprisonment within the framework of enduring female indebtedness and gratitude”” and goes further to say “It does this and more.” she is effectively using other’s perspective as the foundation of her thesis.

Racialized sexual fear was one of the terms that baffled me. Frankly I still don’t know the exact definitions but my guess is that it means ostracizing someone as a sexual criminal because of their race.

Pg 8-9

It only makes sense that a notable characteristic of a dystopian society is introduced at the beginning of the novel when the setting is being introduced. Upon his return to America, Lenny is confronted by an otter that questions him regarding his activities abroad. What is particularly reflective of a dystopian society here is that everything has to and will be reported to the overarching government. When the otter was asking Lenny intimate questions such as accounts of sexual intercourse, it became clear to me that the world of SSTLS is an exemplary anti-Utopian society in which the government surveils the lives of the citizens to the point where the word privacy essentially becomes a null term. Furthermore, the way in which the otter tries to promote patriotism is characteristic of a totalitarian society in which the public is brainwashed to serve the nation for the “collective good”.

The picture I chose is very self-explanatory. It shows, perhaps in an exaggerated way, how in the world of SSTLS, the lives on people are often spied upon by the government. I found it interesting the way Lenny was passive-aggressively questioned about his daily life and the way patriotism is promoted but not enforced. This to me is an indication of the world heading towards the path of a totalitarian society and it sheds grim premonitions about the future events that are to unfold in this novel due to a seemingly dystopian setting the audience is introduced to.

In the Pecha Kucha presentation, the author tries to promote the art of making “something into nothing”, the art of taking something seemingly insignificant and turning it into an appreciable artwork. Here, the author argues that some of the most repulsive or banal objects can be the founding ingredients to magnificent artwork. This statement, I feel, is neither disputable nor agreeable. The value of art itself is such an arbitrary concept. What defines a good piece of art? By which standards are we meant to asses a piece of artwork? To some, a non-existent, invisible piece of painting can worth milions of dollars while to some, it has no monetary value. She also mentioned clothing can be made from disposed fabrics. However, the problem I see with this proposal is that, fashion is a form of art where comfort is an equally important factor as the visual presentation. Can a high quality garment be made from low quality materials?

While the concept of making new materials from garbage sounds interesting, it artistic values can be controversial. But then again, my standards of artistic beauty can differ from those of other people. To some, Poubellisme may be of significant value while to me they appear as garbage compiled in an organised manner.