In writing my task 4 I incorporated skills and knowledge that I learned from every previous task. I used my knowledge of synthesis and incorporating sources from task 2 to include detailed information about the sources I used and connect the information to my own research. I also used the analysis from my task three as the foundation for my research section in task 4. When including information from both of these task I had to add certain parts to the final product in order to make the final outcome greater than the initial product. For example, when I transplanted my analysis from task 3 into my final, i had to add credible secondary source information to validate my claims and appeal to my audience, which is something I did not originally include in my task 3.
When i first began researching I had no idea as to what aspect of my community I was really researching. In fact, I left my options "open" so much so that I ended up failing task 1. Yet, after finding relatable sources and analyzing secondary sources relating to writing studies, I was able to better understand lexis and how I should analyze and come up with research questions regarding its role in my community. However, when it came to my thesis, I can honestly say it changed slightly throughout each and every single task. At first my thesis was centered around just the importance of lexis in the community, it wasn't until after task 2 and midway through task 3 did I incorporate the multiple levels of lexis idea and how they relate to membership level.
Furthermore, by studying the my community all semester long I was able to better understand and acknowledge the working systems of a writing studies discourse community. Through my analyzation of the community I was able to understand lexis and its role and communication patterns, which led me to be able to better inquire about their role in my community. By understanding the concepts of a discourse community, I was able to research more effectively how certain characteristics, such as lexis, played in role in the communication of members. I used information provided from my analysis and paired it with valuable secondary sources in order to develop valuable research questions. Overall, this process tremendously helped my inquiry and researching abilities.
In my opinion I believe literacy is defined as the ability to comprehend, retain, and produce information in a way that adheres to the standards set fourth by the community or environment that you are in. Meaning that literacy measures how well you can interpret and produce texts relevant to the situations that you participate in in your everyday life. I determined this very much so through the analysis of my own community. For example, in the online bass fishing community, the most literate members (members with highest membership level), are proficient in their literacy abilities because they understand the information presented and community dialogue and they can produce useful information that the community can use and understand.
This assignment in particular was fairly hard to me for multiple reasons. For one, the tasks we did in preparation for this final did not necessarily fit the bill for what is deemed appropriate for this assignment. Each and every skill that I learned throughout the semester had to be tweaked to some degree. I often times found myself just eliminating what I knew and releasing or reteaching myself through in depth examples or new outside information that was later presented in class. During the entire time I wrote this paper I struggled, each category had its own specific challenges as well as fine details that were just not was clear as they seemed to be from in class explanations. Nevertheless, I was able to successfully overcome the many hurdles and I still feel confident that my paper will hold up to the requirements of the task.
For my project in particular, the most important reading terms to know and understand came from the concept of discourse communities by John Swales. Understanding the six characteristics of discourse community that he outlines was vital to understanding my entire project. Being that my threshold concept was lexis, I used the examples and definitions provided by Swales in order to guide my research. I also used the explanations of the other 5 characteristics to help with my understanding of my own discourse community. Determine and understand what each term meant, such as lexis and genre, really allowed for me to be able to better understand what was happening with the online bass fishing community. Which in turn allowed for me to write a better task 4 that really embodied my threshold concept.
I believe overall that the feedback I was given was well received. By this I mean that I used and took full advantage of all advice that I received in every version of my final task. From professor Pierson I received feedback regarding the analysis section of my paper and how I should tie my claims into my actual thesis more, as well as incorporate and apply secondary sources to my claims. After receiving this feedback I then in turn included both of these elements in my own final version of Task 4. As far as peer reviews go, I received feedback primarily on the structure of my introduction paragraph. Which I then later fixed to more closely align with the expanded CARS model.
No comments:
Post a Comment