The following is a post of a bunch of responses to my classmates. I was not sure if I was suppose to post my webct responses to their essays, or my responses to their blogs. So, I just put both.
The first two are responses to the poetry analysis draft.
Message no. 99
Author: Anthony Martinez
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:28am
Erna,
I thought your poem sounded very interesting, as well as your essay. The quotes that
you have are great quotes that definitely indicate the seriousness and inhumane mental
capacity one has to develop in order for war. One thing that I was unclear about
however is the thesis of the poem. I assume this is the thesis: In Richard Lovelace’s “To
Lucasta, Going to Wars” the author makes clear the serious tone of his poem by his tone,
the way his sonnet is arranged and simply through the seriousness of war.” If this is the
thesis, I think it is accurate, indeed, but the only thing I would try to add is why does the
author make clear the serious tone of the poem? Basically, I mean what is the point of
making clear ‘the serious tone of his poem’? What’s the author really trying to tell us?
Also, I would suggest altering two other things that are basically just technical aspects. I
would place the author and title of the poem in the first or second sentence of the essay,
just because I know that is traditionally where professors like it (or at least what I’ve
been told). And, also, you have very good quotes, especially from the poem, but I think
you have to introduce them rather than have them begin your paragraph. This could just
be the way it looks after it copy and pasted on the website, but it looked like a couple of
paragraphs began with quotes from the poem without informing the reader why it is
there. That can be unclear and confusing to the reader about your point. Other than
those few things I thought it was an interesting poem and a pretty good essay.
Message no. 97
Author: Anthony Martinez
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:01am
Rachel,
I thought this was a very fine essay. I thought you were very specific on the details
about how language and tone were used. I also thought your ideas about how and why
he used the language and tone he did was very intriguing and intelligent. There were a
few things that I was a little confused about, however. The first thing that confused me,
and this might be just because of the way it laid out when it was pasted on the website, I
could not tell where the thesis was. I assumed the thesis was, “In John Milton’s 1656
sonnet On His Deceased Wife, the author makes use of tone, imagery and language to
convey the speaker’s fantasy of his wife returning from death.” The following sentences
in the paragraph each brake down what the individual element does for the poem so I
assume none of those sentences are the thesis. I suppose all of those following
sentences could be a thesis, but if that is the case then I would suggest figuring out a
central link between the respective messages that tone, language, and imagery send and
restructure a thesis that incorporates the link between the three elements, all of which do
something different in the poem. Another thing I was confused about was in the third
paragraph. I was confused because I assumed your thesis was “the author makes use
of tone, imagery, and language to convey the speaker’s fantasy of his wife returning
from death,” but throughout the paragraph that begins with “in the lines five through
eight Milton uses references…” you mention the change in tone, yet do not mention how
that attributes to his fantasy. You also mention the roles of literary allusions and
imagery in the same paragraph (but that could also just be the way it looked after being
copy and pasted) but you do not connect how they attribute to Milton’s fantasy. Now, I
suppose if that is not the thesis then there is no need to connect them to Milton’s
fantasy. But, other than those two things I was a little confused about I thought it was a
pretty good essay.
The one below is a World Fiction Analysis draft response.
Message no. 282
Author: Anthony Martinez
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:32am
Dear Erna,
I enjoyed having a chance to review your essay. It was a thorough take on the
significance of Satrapi’s use of color. I thought this book was interesting as well and the
way it was written along with the illustrations really gave it a personable feeling. I have
a couple of suggestions for your essay I would like to share with you. The first is that
you should introduce your quotes more smoothly to the reader. Your first citation, for
example, mentions what you want to talk about but then the quote begins without an
introduction. Also, you might want to stay away from saying “I” in your essay. Some
professors do not like seeing it and it could harm your grade. What you want to do is
figure out a way to argue a subjective viewpoint (yours) objectively. So basically, use
facts to explain your point without mentioning it’s your point. (I hope that makes
sense.) Another thing I thought was great was the way you allude to the central irony of
the story. You have a book made of black and white along with a split society that is
either for Iran’s regime or against it. But that is just on the surface. Beneath the
surface, there have been various invasions that leave the population diverse and
divided. There have been several foreign leadership forces that have influenced the
leadership of Iran creating various attitudes in different people. Also, a sudden transfer
of power that leaves people divided. Oh yeah, and let's not forget Iraq is also bombing
them while they fight each other. So when you really look at the situation, it is anything
but black and white. Yet, that is how it is presented to us. How do you think that affects
the reader’s impression of the events? Also, what do you suppose is the significance of
this black and white portrayal, knowing these events are being recalled through the mind
of a young girl?
The ones below are responses to peers on their blogs.
Response to Kiese’s blog entitled “Hi!”
AnthonyLM said...
Dear Kiese,I think your post makes great sense. I can't help but say that I pretty much feel the same way. I think you hit it out of the ballpark when you said media technology is often impersonal, addicting, and prevents kids from actually using their brains to learn (I'm paraphrasing). Its obvious that because we live in the 21st century kids should often do presentations that incorporate the use of various computer programs, just so they have a leg up later on in life, but we definitely have to be careful with how much we rely on media technology to instruct them. I really believe that if a teacher has a genuine interest in what they are teaching and actually cares if their students learn it then there doesn't need to be much of a role for media technology in the classroom, unless that's just the preferred method of the instructor, or the lesson just happens to be about an aspect of media technology. However, for someone like me, who probably would not prefer to use various media technologies while teaching, would doing so really make the message I'm teaching any more effective?
August 31, 2009 2:29 AM
Response to Tara’s blog entitled “Ciao.”
AnthonyLM said...
I really enjoy Tara's perspective on this particular matter. I think she does a great job understanding the natural balance that has to exist with how we rely on technology before we are consumed by it. I also learned a little more about how media technology can be used in the classroom, which, I'll be the first to admit, I'm rather ignorant of. But I don't know if I am as enthused as Tara seems to be with the possibilities of how media technology is used to teach our children. Call me old fashioned, but I do not like learning from a powerpoint presentation. I think that it is good in some instances but too much of it is a distraction from the actual message. Bright colors and flashy videos are very cool indeed, but is that really going to help me retain the value of Nathaniel Hawthorne's symbolism as I live life or is it just going to keep me quiet during class? In high school I had a teacher that used videos so much that eventually I just tuned out because I figured we were going to watch the video anyway so why bother with the reading? Also, she became lazy in her lecturing because she let all the videos do the work and that completely took the greater meaning out of the lesson. And that really was a shame because apparently Cannery Row is a good book
August 31, 2009 1:51 AM
Response to Ashley’s blog entitled “Playing Ovid: Creating My Own Myth”
AnthonyLM said...
Ashley,You’re post was quite funny, very refreshing, and just plain cool. I wondered how close you ever came to a hallucinogenic vision. I appreciated your comment that “knowing different mythological stories helps one create another mythological explanation” because I completely agree with that. And so many stories are alike throughout the world; it seems evident that at some point some certain myths must have inspired others. I have a question though about mythic origins. Do you think myths were created because we as human beings want to explain everything or do you think someone somewhere really did think they got a message from a greater presence? I don’t mean let’s get into does God exist or devils or angels, I just mean that when these myths were created do you think it was because someone was out to swindle others or do you think it was because whoever created it really did think they had a celestial vision? Maybe it was a dream or they were hallucinating off some intense lotus or heck, maybe an angel or devil did speak to them, I don’t know. But I always wondered about the origin of these myths. Were they created to purposely shut up other’s curiosity, to purposely control others, or did someone really have an encounter that made them genuinely believe this was the truth?
November 4, 2009 12:58 AM
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Blog # 3 Creatin' Myths Ya'll
Dear Readers,
For this post I am to explain how studying myths affected how I created a myth (something like that). So here goes nothing. I felt that this was a very fun assignment. Actually, I should qualify that statement. Creating a myth was a very fun assignment. Creating the webpage and placing the myth on the webpage was terrible. And really, it wasn’t terrible because it was a dumb assignment or a laborious assignment or an unbeneficial assignment. It was mostly because I am very slow when it comes to computers and websites and things like that. I kept having a hard time trying to place the text in how I wanted it and trying to put in nice pictures how I wanted them. The whole thing was so frustrating that I just eventually said “screw it” and now my website looks dumb. But, I was very happy with my story.
Studying myths definitely helped me create my own myth because it put me in the correct state of mind. I wanted to make my myth metaphorical and epic. I wanted it to be powerful and contain substance. I wanted it to be something that was a good read and an intriguing answer to a fundamental question. How well I did that I guess is up to the reader, but I thought I did a much better job having studied other myths than I would have if I would’ve just been given a pen and told to write. Studying myths gave me a format of how myths are done and what they encompass. That was very helpful for me.
I think what I liked most about this assignment, and what I would like to take with me into the classroom, is the way this assignment allowed us to really expand our creativity. We got to be creative with not just the myth but the website as well. Now, obviously I am poor at creating the website, but I saw some other websites that looked very pleasing. I’m sure there are high school kids that are much better with computers than I am, and if they could creatively design a website that matches their myth that would be a very beneficial assignment in expanding their comprehension of literacy.
For this post I am to explain how studying myths affected how I created a myth (something like that). So here goes nothing. I felt that this was a very fun assignment. Actually, I should qualify that statement. Creating a myth was a very fun assignment. Creating the webpage and placing the myth on the webpage was terrible. And really, it wasn’t terrible because it was a dumb assignment or a laborious assignment or an unbeneficial assignment. It was mostly because I am very slow when it comes to computers and websites and things like that. I kept having a hard time trying to place the text in how I wanted it and trying to put in nice pictures how I wanted them. The whole thing was so frustrating that I just eventually said “screw it” and now my website looks dumb. But, I was very happy with my story.
Studying myths definitely helped me create my own myth because it put me in the correct state of mind. I wanted to make my myth metaphorical and epic. I wanted it to be powerful and contain substance. I wanted it to be something that was a good read and an intriguing answer to a fundamental question. How well I did that I guess is up to the reader, but I thought I did a much better job having studied other myths than I would have if I would’ve just been given a pen and told to write. Studying myths gave me a format of how myths are done and what they encompass. That was very helpful for me.
I think what I liked most about this assignment, and what I would like to take with me into the classroom, is the way this assignment allowed us to really expand our creativity. We got to be creative with not just the myth but the website as well. Now, obviously I am poor at creating the website, but I saw some other websites that looked very pleasing. I’m sure there are high school kids that are much better with computers than I am, and if they could creatively design a website that matches their myth that would be a very beneficial assignment in expanding their comprehension of literacy.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Blog #2 Poetry Reflection
Dear Readers,
So, in this post I am asked to compare writing poetry and writing about poetry. Both are pretty hard, but I think writing about poetry is much easier. I use to say there are two kinds of smarts: the ability to get shakespear and the ability to write shakespear. Then, I later read basically that same idea in a book and it ticked me off that someone else thought of that. But anyway, the point is, to me it is much easier to analyze and interpret and understand other interpretations than it is to create something worth analyzing in the first place.
Here is a similiarity that I encountered: Whether I am creating poetry or writing about someone's elses poetry it all starts with a central idea. For creating poetry, it is some kind of key message or powerful idea that I want others to understand as strongly as I feel I do. And so when I write the poem I write it in a way that I feel further conveys this message. Then usually I end up thinking of separate branches or elements of that idea as I'm creating the poem and those end up getting incorporated in my poetry as well. I think this is how poems have various themes and interpretations in them. This is also similar with writing about poetry. I start off with a main idea in my head, maybe an initial impression or thought on the work. Then that gets expanded when I brainstorm on how I will write about it. Before you know it, I have a main idea transformed into a thesis and various paragraphs either describing the different elements of that idea or expanding on its meaning.
As for the differences, I think good poetry probably isn't specifically written to incorporate various levels of analyzation. I mean you don't write poetry to have it contain various elements. You write it for a different more personal purpose, however, you write it so well that it naturally contains those things. In order to write poetry you have to write it with your natural voice without thinking about trying to make it complex. This is different from writing about poetry. When writing about poetry you want to have your writing become complex. But not for the sake of complexity, more so to show the connections you've made with the poetry and your own ideas. I think it's a little less natural than writing poetry. I mean, if I was to write about a poem as natural as possible, it probably wouldn't be as thorough, nor as insightful. It would probably just be a bunch of random feelings that were in my head, sort of like how an elementary student writes about a story.
Going back to my original idea that was stolen by someone else, it's a bit ironic that I would consider creating poetry smarter than writing about it, yet, at the same time, would say that writing about poetry has to contain a train of thought that is more thorough and insightful. I guess your natural voice has to be smarter than your thorough insightful voice. And if it is, you've really got something worth studying.
So, in this post I am asked to compare writing poetry and writing about poetry. Both are pretty hard, but I think writing about poetry is much easier. I use to say there are two kinds of smarts: the ability to get shakespear and the ability to write shakespear. Then, I later read basically that same idea in a book and it ticked me off that someone else thought of that. But anyway, the point is, to me it is much easier to analyze and interpret and understand other interpretations than it is to create something worth analyzing in the first place.
Here is a similiarity that I encountered: Whether I am creating poetry or writing about someone's elses poetry it all starts with a central idea. For creating poetry, it is some kind of key message or powerful idea that I want others to understand as strongly as I feel I do. And so when I write the poem I write it in a way that I feel further conveys this message. Then usually I end up thinking of separate branches or elements of that idea as I'm creating the poem and those end up getting incorporated in my poetry as well. I think this is how poems have various themes and interpretations in them. This is also similar with writing about poetry. I start off with a main idea in my head, maybe an initial impression or thought on the work. Then that gets expanded when I brainstorm on how I will write about it. Before you know it, I have a main idea transformed into a thesis and various paragraphs either describing the different elements of that idea or expanding on its meaning.
As for the differences, I think good poetry probably isn't specifically written to incorporate various levels of analyzation. I mean you don't write poetry to have it contain various elements. You write it for a different more personal purpose, however, you write it so well that it naturally contains those things. In order to write poetry you have to write it with your natural voice without thinking about trying to make it complex. This is different from writing about poetry. When writing about poetry you want to have your writing become complex. But not for the sake of complexity, more so to show the connections you've made with the poetry and your own ideas. I think it's a little less natural than writing poetry. I mean, if I was to write about a poem as natural as possible, it probably wouldn't be as thorough, nor as insightful. It would probably just be a bunch of random feelings that were in my head, sort of like how an elementary student writes about a story.
Going back to my original idea that was stolen by someone else, it's a bit ironic that I would consider creating poetry smarter than writing about it, yet, at the same time, would say that writing about poetry has to contain a train of thought that is more thorough and insightful. I guess your natural voice has to be smarter than your thorough insightful voice. And if it is, you've really got something worth studying.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Blog # 1 ... media technology
Dear Readers,
I am Anthony Martinez. I guess a nobody from nowheresville. Actually, we call it Merced, California; look it up. Anyway, I do not know much about media technology, as it pertains to education. I have never had a blog before, I don't have a myspace or facebook or anything like that, so this whole assignment is a little foreign to me. And since I don't know much about media technology, I kind of have a negative opinion about its effectivenss in the classroom.
Actually, I don't mean that entirely. I think if adults are learning about mathematics or physics or some type of science or engineering or computer programming, then media technology is a great thing for the classroom. However, if it's kids trying to learn English, then I think we need to be very careful about what type of media technologies we introduce them to. The reason I say this is because I really believe that things like online social networking or personalized blogs and websites get in the way of actual reality. Who I am perceived as on my blog is not the same person I really am. It's like a false reality I create for myself and whoever wishes to be caught up in it with me.
I mean just look at this website. While it is a forum for me to share my ideas, it's also an opportunity to create a false persona. My "profile" can be altered in a hundred and one different ways to create something totally inaccurate of who I really am, but rather, who I'd really like you to think I am. And I think this is dangerous for young students because rather than exposing them to ideas and perspective and boundless knowledge (which I suppose is the ideal) what we're actually doing is showing them how to indulge in a false reality of their own.
Now, I know this isn't the intent, but I really believe that it ends up being the actual lesson they learn. If a kid sees my glorified profile all jazzed up, I really don't think he/she is going to take away from it my feelings on moby dick, but rather, how to turn yourself into your very own idol. The end result is kids end up growing up thinking recreating yourself online is just as natural as a full moon. How can one ever find out who they are when recreating yourself is just a click away?
But I'm not foolish enough to think it's all bad. I know that those things I listed before are just a very small aspect of everything media technology encompasses, and that there certainly is something special about having so much knowledge set before you on a screen. If I really knew how to harness the power of everything this thing can tell me I could rule the world (or at least pass Eng495). To be honest, if it weren't for sparknotes I probably wouldn't be here today. So I suppose that is the key in developing the role of media technology in education. Teach the power of media technology as a resource rather than a forum of indulgence. But then, I guess the hardest question to answer is how? How do we introduce the power of the internet to children without letting their minds be overwhelmed in the glamour of its permissiveness? Well, that one I'm still stuck on...
I am Anthony Martinez. I guess a nobody from nowheresville. Actually, we call it Merced, California; look it up. Anyway, I do not know much about media technology, as it pertains to education. I have never had a blog before, I don't have a myspace or facebook or anything like that, so this whole assignment is a little foreign to me. And since I don't know much about media technology, I kind of have a negative opinion about its effectivenss in the classroom.
Actually, I don't mean that entirely. I think if adults are learning about mathematics or physics or some type of science or engineering or computer programming, then media technology is a great thing for the classroom. However, if it's kids trying to learn English, then I think we need to be very careful about what type of media technologies we introduce them to. The reason I say this is because I really believe that things like online social networking or personalized blogs and websites get in the way of actual reality. Who I am perceived as on my blog is not the same person I really am. It's like a false reality I create for myself and whoever wishes to be caught up in it with me.
I mean just look at this website. While it is a forum for me to share my ideas, it's also an opportunity to create a false persona. My "profile" can be altered in a hundred and one different ways to create something totally inaccurate of who I really am, but rather, who I'd really like you to think I am. And I think this is dangerous for young students because rather than exposing them to ideas and perspective and boundless knowledge (which I suppose is the ideal) what we're actually doing is showing them how to indulge in a false reality of their own.
Now, I know this isn't the intent, but I really believe that it ends up being the actual lesson they learn. If a kid sees my glorified profile all jazzed up, I really don't think he/she is going to take away from it my feelings on moby dick, but rather, how to turn yourself into your very own idol. The end result is kids end up growing up thinking recreating yourself online is just as natural as a full moon. How can one ever find out who they are when recreating yourself is just a click away?
But I'm not foolish enough to think it's all bad. I know that those things I listed before are just a very small aspect of everything media technology encompasses, and that there certainly is something special about having so much knowledge set before you on a screen. If I really knew how to harness the power of everything this thing can tell me I could rule the world (or at least pass Eng495). To be honest, if it weren't for sparknotes I probably wouldn't be here today. So I suppose that is the key in developing the role of media technology in education. Teach the power of media technology as a resource rather than a forum of indulgence. But then, I guess the hardest question to answer is how? How do we introduce the power of the internet to children without letting their minds be overwhelmed in the glamour of its permissiveness? Well, that one I'm still stuck on...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
