Journal 1:

So many people have differing opinions on the points and purposes of writing. Is writing meant
to teach? Is it for expression? Is writing without purpose or reason justified? Or, better yet, even
possible? While reading selections from ​Bad Ideas About Writing​ from Tyler Branson and
Elizabeth Wardle, these questions are discussed and reflected upon. Personally, I agree with
Branson’s points in regards to his defense of first-year writing courses. According to Branson,
first-year writing courses should be “productive spaces for respectful arguments” where students
can push the boundaries of language. When considering first-year writing courses in this way,
they become important rather than just another class which consists of repetition and grammar
and essay writing and formulas. Wardle, however, has a slightly different approach towards
writing as a practice and views writing as situational and dependent on context. Wardle’s
thoughts on this matter support Branson’s statements about first-year writing courses. First-year
writing courses do not exist as unimportant refresher classes, but are filled with substance and
are more than a generic preparation class for a higher level course. I agree with Branson and
Wardle’s points regarding why we write, and who we write for in this way.

Both authors, Branson and Wardle, can agree that writing exists in present spaces where
context is needed more often than not. Additionally, both concur that different contexts will
create various uses of language which can allow writers to become more ethical and logical
thinkers. From reading these entries, I have become more aware of the reasons for writing,
especially when considering Wardle’s argument about the impossibility of writing in general.
Thinking about my past writings, most of them had a solid purpose- either given to me as a
prompt, or imagined- but not many of them could be generalized to be appreciated by a large
and diverse audience. In the future, I am going to become more aware of what exactly I am
writing for, in order to ensure the audience’s full understanding and comprehension of my
thoughts.

Journal 2: ​Victor Villanueva’s memoir; How familiar is his definition to you? How would you
define the concept?

To me, rhetoric includes the active choices made by authors in writing. Rhetoric is how we use
language to communicate our thoughts with other individuals. Throughout one of my classes in
high school, the goal was to analyze rhetoric in different works of literature. While I understood
the assignments and felt comfortable determining the context of certain works and the author’s
purpose, it is unsettling that I still felt somewhat ensure of my own definition of rhetoric. I
remember my teacher describing rhetoric, and using a rather long definition from scholars to get
the point across- but I also remember being told ‘rhetoric is just the words you use.’ That
definition, though vague and unpolished, made sense but I knew after diving into different works
of literature that rhetoric was more than just the ‘words’ used by authors.

Rhetoric consists of the active choices which are translated into pieces of literature. Every word
printed on paper was originally written or typed with intent, and nothing in works of writing is
meaningless or should be glossed over. When fully understanding rhetoric and its definitions,
this becomes more evident. Naturally, a choice made by an author is made with at least a notion
of reasoning or opinion, which allows audiences to understand not only more about the subject,
but more about the work itself and its author.

Victor Villanueva defines rhetoric as the “conscious way we use language,” and claims that
studying rhetoric is equivalent to studying human beings. His definition is the most accurate I
have read after comparing it with others, because it includes the concept that the use of rhetoric
is a choice by an author. In claiming that rhetoric is a conscious effort, Villanueva rules out the
misconception believed by many that many works of literature contain unimportant details or
devices. Everything an author includes in a work is intentional, and if the audience is not sure of
the intentions, then perhaps the author was internally motivated to include fragments- and yet,
that is still a conscious choice.

Through reflecting on Villanueva’s memoir, I have reconsidered my own ideas about rhetorics. I
am already very aware of the things I speak into existence, and how my language use can
affect other people, but I will work harder to be just as aware through my writing. Often, I write
without keeping an audience in mind, because I do most of my writings for class or for only a
few people to read. I am not going to try to broaden certain subjects to the point of them
becoming unreasonable, but as far as writing outside of class I will try harder to relate to either a
wider audience or a select group of individuals.

Journal 3: ​Response to Catherine Savini’s “Looking for Trouble: Finding Your Way into a
Writing Assignment,” in ​Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, ​vol. 2

Throughout this excerpt, Savini outlines student concerns about writing- specifically, figuring out
how to start writing. Interestingly enough, Savini mentioned that even successful, established
authors have difficulties beginning work. This stems from the lack of a problem to solve. I agree
with Savini in saying that finding a challenge allows thoughts to flow and might make the
daunting task of beginning work easier. Starting an assignment and getting ready to write is
generally the hardest part of writing, because the beginnings of stories are key to intriguing an
audience or setting up the dispersal of information. Finding a problem or challenge to overcome
can relieve some of the pressures in regards to setting up a piece of writing, for whatever genre.

Asking the right questions was a helpful point Savini made which really impacted me. So many
times I have written essays or papers only focusing on basic questions and basic answers.
Savini claims that in order to ask good questions, you have to dig deeper. For example,
considering what the stakes are instead of just worrying about who, what, or when in a specific
situation. Along with solving problems, asking deeper questions that provide more content helps
writers seek out a path or plot for their writing. In addition to this, Savini makes a point that one
question may lead into others or may create a deeper understanding of the context, meaning
asking a certain question could completely change the meaning of a work.
After thinking about points made by Savini in the excerpt, I am going to work harder to broaden
my questions in regards to writing, and I am planning on developing more problems or
challenges to solve in my own work. I am still learning to make my writing more interesting and
appeal to a wider audience, and the points made by Savini will hopefully ease the gradual
transition into writing for specific circumstances or to meet certain needs.

Journal 4:
John Dawkins, "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool," College Composition and
Communication, vol. 46, no.. 4, Dec. 1995, pp. 533-548

Dawkins’ explanations of punctuation and how to grasp it as a concept are intriguing, along with
his teaching methodology. Instead of saying teachers should tell students what is wrong with
their punctuation, he encourages them to talk about what is right instead. In order for students
and young writers to grow, they should be positively encouraged and helped through
reinforcement and practice, and there is no feasible way for someone to be an amazing writer
after just one correction. Through saying this, Dawkins is also acknowledging that punctuation
tendencies are often unclear and are not strictly defined- making it harder for beginning writers
to understand different uses of different kinds of punctuation.

Dawkins introduces the idea of a hierarchy of separation, which shows different elements of
punctuation which create varied levels of connection or separation. This table is interesting,
because it raises that there are no right or wrong cases in punctuation use. For example,
punctuating sentences can mean anything simply depending on how separated or connected
the author wills the sentence to be. Granted, there are grammatical uses such as in the case of
dealing with independent and dependent clauses in writing- but overall, the structure presented
in the hierarchy makes should stand for all works of writing.

In the beginning of reading Dawkins’ work, I was unsure about punctuation- considering I had
been applying it for so long, what was there to really learn about it? But, in actuality, reading this
has opened my mind and allowed me to grasp the bigger picture about separation, connection,
choices, and rules. Punctuation is much more complex than I originally anticipated it to be,
because just thinking about it as a concept it seems simple and easy to understand. After
having read this, I am going to be more aware about how I use punctuation, and about the
effects of punctuation on readers.

Journal 5:
Randall McClure, “Googlepedia: Turning Information Behaviors into Research Skills.”

It is beyond easy for scholars to denounce the reliability of resources such as Wikipedia or
Google searches, but according to McClure, using these tools can allow students to craft a
smarter method of doing research. In following the research methods of one student using
Wikipedia and one student using Google, McClure suggests that students know how to
effectively research- but might not take into account the flaws within their methods. For
example, a student may use the first source they see without checking if it is from a credible and
accurate author or study. Students also might simply accept the opinions of other authors as
their own, mostly because there is more information about that viewpoint and it would be an
easier option.

Instead of condemning students for using Wikipedia and Google, McClure’s writing suggests
that students can and should be using these resources. McClure provides a “remix” of methods
which enable students to research in a better way which include using both Wikipedia and
Google. These two sources let students get a sense of the topic they are researching while
providing basic information and points to go off of. By using these sources, students can narrow
down more specific aspects of a topic and trace writings back to their original sources, allowing
for the most accurate account of the work.

I can agree with McClure’s findings about research methods, and can see myself using the eight
rules explained throughout the essay. For me, and many other students, Wikipedia and Google
are good places to begin researching a topic and gaining a basic understanding of the most
important parts of the subject. Personally, I spend a lot of time looking things up online.
However, in doing that so often, I am more aware about the credibility of sources and
information as a whole. I understand the problems with reliability through using these sites, but
as the same time, I know any unreliability would drive me towards doing more research- so in a
way, this could also be beneficial for students. Despite the credibility, students should gather as
many resources as possible and compare them for the most accurate information about a topic.
After reading this essay, I am going to work on applying the suggested eight rules not only to my
research, but to how I regard finding information online as a whole.

Journal 6:
Arthur Stern, “When Is a Paragraph?” ​College Composition and Communication, ​vol. 27, no. 3,
Oct. 1976, pp. 253-257

Thinking about paragraph breaks and the division of topic throughout a work of literature
appeared to be easy, yet after reading this it is really quite the opposite. It is hard to put into
words how a paragraph should be broken up, because often as suggested throughout the
journal, breaks between paragraphs simply “feel” right. Stern also makes a point that
paragraphing practices can change and adapt over time, particularly noting the shortening of
attention spans in modern day readers. However, if shortening paragraphs can allow readers to
grasp concepts in an easier manner, why would it be a bad thing? For authors wishing to reach
a wide audience, why would they write in a manner that would only hinder their audience’s
ability to understand the information? Breaking up texts into more paragraphs might be more
beneficial than it seems, considering all individuals would be receiving the information in the
same form which is easier to digest. That being said, there are definitely incidents in which
writing should not be broken down into many tiny paragraphs. For example, if a research article
or historic account were broken down into many sections, it might take away from the message
as a whole or perhaps confuse readers.

Stern also mentions that paragraphing might be taught by rule or formula in the future, but this
idea is highly unlikely. Rules of writing have changed over time and are learned in various
methods, so it is unrealistic for there to be one solidified standard of the ideal paragraph taught
across the world. If anything, teaching the best ways to use language in certain situations would
be close to teaching a formulaic paragraph- but even then, language is not perfect.

From reading Stern’s work, my ideas about breaks throughout texts for paragraphs have slightly
changed. Instead of seeing each paragraph or sentence as a complete thought, I can now see
how each is a part of a bigger idea and contributes to an entire work of literature. I have
generally not considered how I break up paragraphs in my own work, because so much of my
writing follows a similar format. In high school, paragraphs were taught to have a distinct form
depending on the writing occasion, and there were typically around the same amount for major
papers or assignments- with very little room for change. In the future, I am going to try using a
more natural approach to dividing up paragraphs, and maybe that will be easier to facilitate and
to help avoid too much repetition.

Journal 7:
Rebecca Moore Howard, Tricia Serviss, and Tanya K. Rodrigue. “Writing from Sources, Writing
from Sentences.” ​Writing and Pedagogy. ​ 2010. vol. 2. p. 177-192.

When just thinking about it in general, writing from sources should be easy. However, after
breaking down the variety of problems which can exist throughout the improper uses of sources
and material from other individuals, lines somewhat blur between what is acceptable and what
is technically “cheating,” or even plagiarising. Students might not even realize they are
plagiarising or copying from sources, but in reality this does occur frequently- and as presented
throughout the reading, it even occurs with advanced writers. The majority of students likely do
not intentionally plagiarise words and ideas, yet it does happen especially considering how
students choose to use sources in writing.

As examined through the inquiry presented in the reading, throughout eighteen research from
undergraduate students there was no instance of summarization. Out of the four common ways
sources can be used- summarizing, paraphrasing, patchwriting, and copying- not a single
student used summarization of a source. Summarizing generally consists of restating the main
points of a work, condensing it, and possibly simplifying it. From the perspective of a student, it
might be daunting to attempt summarization considering it may not seem as credible and it
might be more of a challenge. The question of whether a reader fully understands a source can
also be brought up in this instance. If a student does not completely grasp a source, they might
try to pick elements or sentences from it and bend it to fit into their own work. While bringing up
the conversation of plagiarism and its effects on students, educators should implement better
ways to guide students through summarization and comprehension in order to benefit both the
students and themselves. If a student is taught more about how to accomplish certain tasks,
they will familiarize themselves with the knowledge and be better off- compared to simply being
expected to know how to do things without ever being taught.

After reading through this work, problems regarding the uses of sources which were evident in
previous papers and essays have revealed themselves to me. I have not felt comfortable with
summarizing, and now thinking about it I am not sure I have used sources to the full ability
throughout my writings in the past. I am going to challenge myself to summarize more and
directly quote less, and to broaden my interpretations of sources while truly understanding
them- as opposed to merely taking sentences from a work of writing without understanding the
entire work.

Journal 8:
Walker, Janice R . “Everything Changes, or Why MLA Isn’t (Always) Right.” ​Writing Spaces:
Readings on Writing.​ 2011.​ v​ ol. 2, pp. 257-269.

When thinking about citing sources, there doesn’t seem to be room for complication or
confusion- yet it still arises. Especially in an age with digital media, where medium like
television, radio, and DVDs are used in addition to the Internet, it can get tricky figuring out how
to cite sources. Walker explains that though MLA changes rules a lot, there are a lot of
specifications which requires designating the medium for all sources. Despite changing rules,
Walker also outlines a few standards that should generally be accounted for within any form of
citation: author information, access information, title information, edition/version information, and
publication information. By incorporating this information, audiences will be able to find the
sources easily without any problems. After all, if something cited cannot be located by
audiences, the author along with their information might not be considered the most reliable.

Citation, as Walker presents, is a rhetorical act. When authors prior to the invention of the
printing press included quotes, it was assumed that audiences would recognize the sources on
their own. However, after the printing press was invented with more and more people gaining
access to information, that was no longer a fair assumption to make. It became more important
to educate individuals about the content, rather than assuming those who did not understand it
were unworthy of possessing the knowledge, or even trying to.

After reading through this work, I have a greater appreciation for being able to find sources in
the past so easily. I don’t think I have had many problems finding where information came from,
but now looking at all the possible variables involved, it is easy to see how complicated things
might be to locate. I also can appreciate the lengths to which individuals writing academic
journals must go to in order to meet the standards for their genre of writing. Academic writers
are held to higher standards of reliability, which in turn helps with credibility- but the
expectations set for them are not the same as expectations for authors writing other material. In
the future, it would be interesting to start looking at more of the sources in works that I’ve read
or plan on reading, because I generally just acknowledge the information presented in the work.