When I first heard Professor Mangini say that we would not have test or quizzes and really only 2 formal assignments I was shocked. How were we going to be graded? How were we going to learn? I was also very shocked to hear that we did not need text books either. Again I asked myself “how are we going to learn?” All of my basic learning has been from either a text book, being taught personally by a teacher, or by doing what we were being taught, but you can not really do any physical learning in English right? I was so wrong. When Professor Mangini explained that we were going to make websites and have blogs and that the websites were going to be where we kept our drafts of all our assignments, I was a little standoffish towards the idea. What if the websites crashed? What if the internet goes down? Although these were concerns of mine I decided I would give this new way of learning a try and if I did not like it I would drop the class or switch professors. The first few weeks of class I did not know how to feel about this new learning process. I did not love it but I didn’t hate it. Two more weeks passed and that’s when I decided that this way of learning was actually pretty cool. It was different than the way I was being taught during the day in high school and it kind of nice to only have to worry about meeting paper and blog post deadlines instead of worrying about studying for a test or quiz. I also really liked the idea that when we handed in a draft of our paper and Professor Mangini read over it, all he did was give revision advice he did not necessarily grade the draft. I thought it was really cool that we could revise our blogs and formal assignments as times as we wanted throughout the semester to work towards the grade we wanted. This type of learning was very new to me, but I liked the way Professor Mangini explained the way he taught instead of just teaching the way he taught and let us figure out how to deal with this new way of learning. I also liked that Professor Mangini got us out of our seats. We did not sit in our seats for three hours while he lectured us. He did not really lecture us at all he explained some processes of learning and then let us work on our projects. I liked that we talked about the readings we were assigned after they were assigned we were not left to analyze them ourselves and hope we analyzed them correctly.
0 Comments
Reflective writing is a process where a writer describes a real or imaginary scene and adds a personal reflection to it. This process is further described in the Reflective Writing video. My research paper is a form of reflective writing because I put my personal opinion in the paper to answer the question “Should America provide universal healthcare to their citizens?”
Who did you work with to compose your research paper? Was this a good approach? I worked with myself as well as the authors of my sources to compose my research paper. This was a good approach because it gave me the evidence I needed to support my claims. What rhetorical mode and genre are you using? The rhetorical mode I am using is argumentation. The rhetorical genre I am using is argumentation. When did you write this project? Good approach? I wrote this project over a little periods of time I had during my day. I set up a word goal for each day so I could meet the due date. This was a good approach because I did not try to cram it all into one night and I feel that by doing increments it allowed my paper to be better quality. Where did you write this project? Good approach? I wrote some parts of this project while I was at high school and the other parts were written in my room. This was a good approach because I got to work in relatively quiet environments and this allowed me to have a better thinking process. Why did you choose to write about your chosen topic? Good choice? I chose to write about this topic because I know my family is not the only family that struggles with the prices of healthcare or to even find a decent priced healthcare provider. This was a good choice because I felt my claims were stronger because I could relate on a personal level. How did it feel to write this argument ("during, after, and since")? Do you have any "if only" moments that can help you revise the draft? It felt good to write this argument. I felt that i really got my point across and I feel that I really convinced people that America should have universal healthcare. I think I really knocked out the rebuttal as well. As of right now I do not have any “if only” moments. How will you revise your argument? I am not sure how I will revise my argument just yet. Maybe add some more rebuttals or first hand accounts of people experiencing trouble with America’s current healthcare system. Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore, 2015, Where to Invade Next.
As mentioned in my 9th blog post, Where to Invade Next by Michael Moore is a film made to persuade Americans to adopt a new way of thinking towards the government. In the film Michael Moore compares how governments handle different types of situations involving it’s citizens. A few thing he compares are tuition fees, school hours and standards, and how cops/prisons treat their prisoners.
In the documentary Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore travels to different countries to analyze their ways of government compared to America’s. America was having an issue with military and financial issues and they had asked Michael Moore what to do. Michael Moore traveled to countries like Slovenia and France to “steal” ideas from their government and bring them to America to incorporate them into America’s government. Examples of ideas Michael “stole” would be free tuition for college students and lunches that were gourmet and better for students in elementary, middle, and high school.
|
Gabrielle Heck
This blog is to express my thoughts and options on specific topics. Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|