I definitely expected our course readings to be of advanced literature genres, meaning they would be difficult to decipher. However, the readings were rather moderate in language use and did not pose to be an learning issue for me. The Swales text was a bit higher in complexity to follow but as with any reading, I simply took extra time and effort to fully understand the purpose of the text. Swales did an incredible job of redefining his focal points, including the attributes of discourse communities that are similar or contrasting. The inclusion of other authors within the Swales text also helped to solidify his findings and support his accusations. Shitty First Drafts was the more enticing text to read, and I think my peers would agree with me. The text held more ethos; it was easier to relate with an author who admitted she did not write excellent papers on her first effort. This text helped me realize that good work, whether it be writing a paper or any other project I take part of, literally requires good work. It was refreshing to take that learning lesson from a legitimate author versus my parents, for example. As for “An Outbreak of the Irrational”, while I was unable to participate in the class discussion of this text, I nevertheless took from it the strength in its persuasive tactics. Sarah Dzubay, the author of this text, used strong sources and elaborate informational detail when analyzing the use of vaccinations uniformly and universally, versus only vaccinating one majority of a population. In summation, our course’s supplemental readings were in fact significantly helpful in learning RWS subjects with a perspective, rather than directly comprehending only terminology, definitions, or using memorization. I would definitely utilize or recommend the inclusion of supplemental readings for future courses, not excluding STEM-related courses.
0 Comments
|
ArchivesCategories |