Reflection

I find it somewhat difficult to critique my blog writing. The form, if done right, is so different from any other medium of writing. Blog writing, the way it has been defined to me in various courses, should be sincere. It should be close to a stream of conscious. In other words, a blog should be a forum somewhat resembling your inner thoughts being published. If I use this as the measure of how well I wrote, then I am satisfied. I feel like my blog was an accurate representation of me and my own thoughts. Therefore, I feel like it was accurate.

Although it may seem backwords, I think my first post, after revisions was my best. The essay on place was something that just lent itself to my style of writing. In my opinion it's the type of prompt that lends itself to the medium of blogging. When I was sitting down to write about place, it was a very organic process. Since the post wasn't something that I really had to structure or research, it was almost like a free write where I could just let everything I feel about my favorite spot just kind of dribble out into the blog. So a rough draft is almost how I feel a true blog post should look. It shows transparency. It lets readers in on the process. The small blunders, (I'm sure there will be a few in here) kind of make the blog real and relatable. But if I take a step back from my concrete view of what a blog should be all about, then the revised version takes the cake. I think the cleaner version with a little more clarity in some spots was the quality of work expected of a decent blog.

I was also pretty pumped about my report on OU recycling. I went out on a limb a little bit and used Ed Newman as a vehicle to drive the report. This is something I employ a lot in my magazine journalism courses. I often rely on a central figure to act as a narrative arc. In this case, as soon as I met with Ed, I couldn't resist using Ed as my vehicle. His energy was hard to ignore, and he had so many compelling quotes that I didn't have the heart to not include in my report. I think this affinity for quotes is also a result of my news writing and feature writing pedigree. In the end the decision came when I had the realization that no one could tell the story of campus recycling better than Ed Newman. He is ground zero for the operation. He is passionate about what he does, and everything comes through him. He could also explain the big picture better than I could. As a result, I decided that he could tell the story better than anyone so I would just let him. So I tried to jam a lot of quotes in to allow this.

On the opposite end of the spectrum was my dam post. Without characters like Newman, and not being able to rely on my own thoughts or experiences, I was left to do some serious research. This is where I started off on the wrong foot. My initial research was weaker (for lack of practice) than I wanted it to be and I was left with so many holes. I think the post in general just didn't lend itself to my strengths so my effort came out uninspired.

It seems then that my strong posts were ones that I got to use my writing strengths to execute them. My weak posts then, were the ones that I didn't prepare for or didn't give myself a chance on. I lack of resources for good material would be at the root of most of them. As a body of work though, I am definitely satisfied with my blog. I think I finished with a decent blog trying to communicate the spirit of Bucky Fuller and as far as an expoloration into the world of environmentalists and their practices, the project was a success. I learned quite a bit about the subject matter through the format and I also learned about the power of a blog as a medium to present a very diverse set of postings, factual and reflective alike. And of course we saved some paper!

blog discourse reflection essay assignment

ENG 308J Rouzie Blog Discourse Reflective Essay

Read over all of your blog writings and comments you wrote on others’ posts, plus the comments written by others for your posts.

Reflect on this writing by considering the following prompts and then write a 600-900 word essay (using “I”). The essay should be proofread and spell-checked etc. Spilt Czech airs doughnut etc.

Your essay should cover the prompts without using them to structure the essay. In other words, this is an essay, not a set of answers to a list of questions. Feel free to include pertinent thoughts not elicited by the prompts.

Be reflective, be candid, be thoughtful. Write well.

Due: Weds. March 18 by 5:00 pm. Either post it to your blog or email it to me as an attached document. If you post it to the blog, please use returns to create white space between paragraphs.

Prompts:
Compare posts from early in the term with those later on. What differences between early and later do you notice? Describe differences. Try to explain the cause of any differences.

Blog discourse is public, out there on the web for anyone to read. How did this affect the way you wrote for it? What audience(s) did you imagine when writing? (The professor? Your class peers? Both? Outside readers? All of the above?) How did how you imagined your audience affect how you wrote for the blog?

Reflect on your comments on others’ posts. How do you see them contributing to others’ learning?

Reflect on others’ comments on your posts. How do you see them contributing to your learning?

Consider the qualities of your blog writing. Are you satisfied with it generally? What posts do you consider to be your best and strongest? Which your worst? Which in between? Explain what makes you classify the posts as best, worst, in between.

Reflect on how writing about course readings for the blog helped or did not help your understanding of the readings, on your understanding of rhetoric. Comment on our use of rhetorical concepts (ethos, logos, pathos, e.g.) and your application of those to readings.

Peer Critique for Group Projects

You will critique as many group project drafts as there is time to do. As the time goes on, critique project drafts that have not already received a lot of comments.

Use the prompts below to guide you. You will post your PCs as comments to their post in their group blogs. The group blogs are accessible through enviroblog.


This project calls for the fulfillment of three purposes: 1) informing, 2) persuading, and 3) entertaining (taken broadly). Comment on each of these in the project. Pay attention to written and researched exposition and argument and on the media used to draw reader/viewers in, to “entertain” them.

How should they improve the informing aspects? The persuasive aspects? the use of media for engaging the reader/viewer?

Is the media they selected appropriate? Do they connect it to the issues they are writing about? Is it integrated with the written work? Is there too much of it? Too little? Just right?

Comment on the quality of the written content. Is the writing coherent? adequately proofread?

Composing this project has some unique challenges. One is how to accommodate readers in terms of ordering the site. Comment on how the project introduced readers to it, how they oriented readers, and the logic of the order they chose to lay out. Does how the piece is “chunked” make sense? Note specific moments that could use improvement. Feel free to make suggestions.

Comment on any navigation problems or issues. For example, group X places a link to such and such a website, but using the link makes it hard for you to get back to their site. What should they do about that? Or group Y links to a You Tube video that they could have embedded . . . etc.

End with an overall view or impression of the draft, its design, approach to the audience, and variety of expression. Give any advice that seems useful.