Final Presentation

Candela Lattanzio

Debra Reece

English 1010

8 December 2014

Final Destination (Get It? Like, Presentation?)

            This course was been a roller coaster ride. I began with a positive outlook. I was excited and had high hopes like at the beginning of every new stage in life. Then, after a couple of weeks my spirits died. College was not as fun and as exciting as everyone said it would be. After about three weeks of school I got into my I-hate-school-and-everything-associated-with-it attitude. I also wasn’t very good at hiding it. I spent most of the semester this way. I brooded and complained and dragged my feet. I now realize that probably wasn’t the best approach. Then, as if by magic, these last two weeks I’ve miraculously lifted in spirits. Am I bipolar In reference to school…perhaps I am. I think it’s noticeable too. I’ve been more talkative and friendlier to my peers. I use to be a grumpy hag who would not say two words to anyone. I’ve recently opened up and I think I’m much for appealing now.

            Moving on, as my attitude fluctuated, so did the quality of my work. The first essay, an opinion editorial, was assigned right as my attitude was becoming increasingly worse. Bad attitude equals little effort. With that being said, I put almost no effort into my first draft. At the time I was arguing with my parents about the topic of curfew. We had two VERY different views. This argument inspired me and I decided to write my opinion editorial on why curfews should not be enforced. Even though I had a concrete reason for writing, I was still lazy and didn’t feel like putting forth effort. That resulted in a terrible first draft. However, afterwards I decided I should actually try. I then wrote four different drafts; each progressively better in my eyes. Despite my best efforts, I got a C on my essay. I was quite disappointed especially since I was so excited by my progress. Though it was probably the grade I deserved, it still soured my mood and again I plunged into laziness.

            Next up was the rhetorical analysis essay. This, I had experience with. In high school I had practiced this type of writing and had drafted a lot. When the unit rolled around I dug out my old essay and got inspiration from it. I then wrote an essay about a letter Einstein wrote to an eleven year old girl in response to her question of whether scientists pray or not. Einstein’s answer was quite genius. Anyway, the first half of the writing process was easy. Einstein gave me plenty to work with. After about two pages, though, I couldn’t figure out what else to say. Aubrey, my fellow classmate, gave me a wonderful idea! She suggested analyzing what the rhetor didn’t do and how that affected the context of the writing. That made writing much easier! I learned that relying on your peers is sometimes the best thing you can do because every once in a while they will have a genius idea. I ended up with a B grade on this one. It was an improvement from the last essay. Again, the writing process was a roller coaster ride. However, this ride was a bit smoother.

            The final unit we worked on was a research paper. This time around the ride could not have been bumpier. I think the last research paper I wrote was back in elementary school. My brain was dry. During the research and writing process, however, I learned several things. I had never in my life written an annotated bibliography. That sure was an interesting experience. I not only had to do research on my topic of using technology to teach kids with learning disabilities, but I now also had to research how to write a proper annotated bibliography. Thinking back, that was amusing. Let me tell you another thing, how are you supposed to drone on for eight to ten pages about one single topic? That was a real struggle. I have no idea how I ever reached eight pages of writing. The other difficult part was finding good research supported by evidence. There is a lot of information out there on any one given topic and narrowing all that information down is no easy process. You have to weave through the bad stuff and then weave through the good stuff and decide which information is the best to use and when the right time to use it is. Though a very tedious process, it was a very useful one and served as great practice for the future.

            Through the entire course it’s just been up and down. Despite that, I do believe I learned some valuable things, especially in the research unit. I had never thought to paraphrase or even to summarize much but now I know how to do such things and when it is appropriate to do so. I also learned the value of peer review. I’ve always disliked group work because it’s always seemed to me that the other members don’t pull their weight. However, this time around my peers were very insightful and I received a lot of great feedback and constructive criticism. I also learned patience. The writing process comes slowly to me and I’m very impatient. Patience is a virtue, a virtue I must learn and improve on.

            As to the matter of what grade I believe I deserve, I think my work speaks for itself. Though I would like an A, I believe that the B I now have is a fair grade. I’ve done B level work and so a B I should receive. I’m pretty happy overall with the grades I have received. I have much to improve on and I hope to receive higher marks in the future, but for now I am satisfied.

IP Peer Review Response

     Seeing as I have forgetful peers, I received no feedback from them. This was quite disappointing as I like to hear from my peers and see what suggestions they have for me. This week I will be going through my own work and making revisions. I have much more to write and more research to do. In the future I would like to see more effort from my peers. The work they do affects me as well as them. I wish I had more to say, but seeing as I have NO feedback I really don't know what to say.

IP Rough Draft Reflection

     Let me just say that research essays are A LOT of work. They are most certainly not a walk in the park. Actually conducting the research and finding helpful and reliable sources is quite difficult, even if the UVU library search engine is super helpful.
     It's also difficult not being one sided and not only looking for information that supports your argument. I keep having to remind myself that I have to address the opposing vie and refute it to better build my argument. That involves researching the other side of the argument which is tidious because I want to find research that helps me strengthen my argument not something that goes against it. However, in the long run having refuted the opposing side will make me more credible.
     Though research is hard and long it is really cool to learn so much about just one specific thing. Dedicating your time to a narrowed down topic makes for a very interesting learning experience. I enjoy learning so this is good. This is very good. Hard work does pay off.

Annotated Bibliography Reflection

     Annotated Bibliographies are haaaaard! They take will power and brain power and ALOT of time and effort.I learned that there are MANY places you can search for information. Some of those places are good sources and some of them are not. You have to learn the weave out the good ones from the bad ones.
      The other hard part was writing my thoughts on each. I had to go deeper than a simple "This was a good source" or "this was a bad source". I had to think of why they were good or bad and what made them that way and then give my thoughts on what the author wrote. This was a difficult assignment. Annotated Bibliographies are not fun but they sure so teach you patience.

IP Proposal Reflection

     Exploratory writing is interesting. It makes you think. It challenges you to not accept the first solution you come up with, but to explore other options. It also makes you look at the other side of the argument. My topic is about how children with special needs interact with technology in the classroom. My initial thought was that technology would help these kids, but then I explored the other side: why technology wouldn't be helpful. I looking into the pros and cons of the argument instead of only focusing on my point of view. I found some very interesting things which I will include in my paper. Exploratory writing forced me to not be stubborn and get out of my own person  way of thinking. It's interesting what you find when you don't only focus on one side of an issue. It takes a smart mind to be able to see the other side of the argument and dispute it coherently. It was Aristotle that said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." He could not have been more right.

Here is my proposal:

Candela Lattanzio

Debra Reece

English 1010

29 October 2014

IP Proposal

            Growing up in another country and going to school was a different experience for me. I had never noticed any peers around me with special needs or special disabilities and I felt like everyone was equal. Even though I went to a private school, my classroom did not have computers and we had to go to a computer lab that had about ten old computers. Because the quantity was so small compared to the class size, there were about three students per computer. As I grew up and moved to the United States I realized that schools here were more advanced and that students that required extra assistant went to a special class.

            I began to think about this while studying psychology. We studied how a regular individual develops through life and then we discussed what happens when something goes wrong in development and a child is born with autism or some sort of special need. I became intrigued by this because clearly, these children function differently than others. I then began to think about how they interact with their environment, especially technology.

In this research paper, I will attempt to answer the question of how technology can benefit students, especially those with special needs. I will begin defining some terms and explaining what constitutes a student with learning disabilities as well as a student with cognitive disabilities. I will also share some of the most common technologies used today in the classroom. Next, I will address some of the disadvantages of technology as well as the benefits of it. Finally, I will discuss my conclusion on the use of technology.

RA Final Draft and Reflection

Candela Lattanzio

Debra Reece

English 1010

22 October 2014

Do Scientists Pray?

            One of the most well-known scientists of all time, Albert Einstein, in his letter to a young girl named Phyllis Wright, addresses her question of whether or not scientists pray and if so, what they pray for. Einstein’s purpose is to not only answer the girl’s question, but also to express his views on the difference between scientific faith and religious faith. Although he does answer her question, he diverges from the pressing subject and expands his views on the idea of prayer, religion, faith, and God. Einstein is rhetorically efficacious in intellectually getting his views across, but he is not efficient in properly answering the question because the tone he adopts is much too complicated for the simple understanding of such a young child.

            Einstein begins his letter by answer the girl’s question and implying that it would be nonsensical for scientists to pray. He begins to explain why and defines science by establishing that “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature.” (Einstein) He reasons that because everything is determined by laws “A research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influence by a prayer…a wish addressed to a supernatural being.” (Einstein) He greatly appeals to logos, implying that praying would be frivolous because it is only a desire spoken to someone who does not listen and will not answer, and therefore does not influence any existing thing.

Later in the letter Einstein seems to contradict himself by expressing his views that scientific study requires faith. He supports this statement of needing faith by remarking that “Knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary…the existence of basic, all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith.” (Einstein) He indicates that in order to credit and believe in these lacking laws of nature it requires a certain amount of faith from scientists. He appeals, once again, to logos by reasoning that because these laws are incomplete and not absolute, it feels necessary for the scientists to have determined, unbreakable faith to believe their works are accurate.

            Einstein concludes his letter by deriving that even though it would be moronic for scientists to pray, all true scientists will come to believe in a supernatural being. He leads into the idea of a supernatural being by humbly acknowledging that “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe.” (Einstein) He argues that in order to be genuinely immersed in science, you must believe in a sort of god. He establishes that, “The pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.” (Einstein) He pronounces that the study of science comes to feel religious, but argues that this religious feeling is “Indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve.” (Einstein) He greatly appeals to ethos by implying that the faith of scientists is different from that of religious people, and that only scientists can understand how this feeling manifests itself. Since he is one of the most widely respected scientists ever and such an influential person, not only in science, but in politics as well as in many other things, he would know best what it means and what it feels like to have scientific faith and therefore one will not be inclined to argue with such credibility.

Despite making great appeals to logos and ethos, Einstein fails to use any pathos. When speaking to such a young child one usually adopts a soft, sympathetic, simple tone so as not to confuse the child and to portray kindness. Einstein does the opposite. It seems that he adopts the most complicated tone possible in hopes to confuse the young girl. Also, he adopts a harsh, blunt, unsympathetic tone, especially when he calls the girl naïve. You could even say that his tone is condescending. He speaks down to her. Given, she is a young girl with indeed an inferior intellect to Einstein, for no one is as smart as him, but that does not excuse his demeaning tone.

In appealing to pathos, he could have thanked her for her letter or complimented the complexity of what she was asking. He did neither thing. He also could have appealed to her emotions by addressing her religious views and either agreeing or disagreeing as to why those views would or would not be adopted by scientists. He did not do this either. All in all Einstein fails miserably in using any appeals to pathos. He might have been more effective in his letter if he would have. The girl might have been able to see his sympathy, but instead I’m sure she was confused and did not understand his response. Einstein was not only inefficient in the way he answered Phyllis’s question but he also very much so failed in using any pathos to appeal to the young girl’s feelings.

            Einstein portrays his views on pray in a very simplistic manner. He states that for scientists to pray is quite silly. However his views on faith are very complex. Even though he argues that praying is silly he also argues that it requires a bit of faith to truly believe in science and to believe that what is being done is fact not just theory. He is effective in answer the question and in getting his point across. At least he would be if his audience was someone older, with more experience, or of higher intellect. However, overall Einstein is very ineffective in the way he portrays his views on faith and prayer because his tone and word choice are improper for his simple-minded audience. Einstein’s rhetoric was not effective or convincing for someone of Phyllis Wright’s caliber.

Candela Lattanzio

Debra Reece

English 1010

22 October 2014

RA Final Draft Reflection

            The writing process for this essay was both easy and hard. It was easy because I was familiar with rhetoric. It was not a new concept for me so I didn’t have to start from scratch. However, it was difficult to decipher some of the strategies used in my article and to decide whether those strategies were or were not effective. I also had to take into account the target audience and if the language and appeals would actually appeal to them. This deciphering process was not the easiest.

            The peer review exercises we did in class were very helpful in the revision process. I had never thought about addressing things that the author DIDN’T do in their paper to appeal to the audience. That was a very helpful suggestion which I did end up adding into my paper.

            The difficulties I find with when writing is length. I never feel like I have enough to say to cover the length requirement and therefore I feel like I ramble too much. This is concerning considering that we must write a ten page research paper in the near future. I don’t know how I am going to do it. That is one of my goals. To write a long enough paper that covers all the facts without rambling.

            The learning process is a never ending one and so I hope that I will learn how to achieve those things I lack in.

 

RA Peer Review Response

      In class we peer reviewed each others' rough drafts. Aubrey offered some very helpful advice to me. She said she already loved my paper. She also said that the topic is super interesting and captures my attention. The only issue is that my paper is not long enough. She offered a very helpful suggestion. She said to write about what the rhetor didn’t do. I didn’t find much pathos in my article and she said to address that. She advised that I write about what the rhetor could’ve done to implement pathos. That’ll lengthen my paper and also make it more interesting.

            In the next week I will implement that advice into my paper. I will review the article and see what the author could’ve done better and how he could’ve used pathos.

            The advice I received was awesome! It was very helpful and very insightful. Because of it I can lengthen my paper and make it better. I don’t have bad things to say about the feedback I received. Everyone was very kind and respectful and very, very helpful. I would like for that to continue in future reviews.

            I very much enjoy the peer reviews we do in class. We not only get to hear what our peers think and receive their help, but he also get to know them a little better. It's pretty fun to do and my peers are super insightful and helpful. I like the exercise quite a bit.