I hope this weekend’s been kind, everyone. If you have questions about last Thursday’s class, then visit the entries on audio PSAs and example e-portfolios. Those should cover your bases in the usual detail.

And before I continue with what’s in store for the rest of the quarter, as well as some extra participation credit opportunities, I want to remind you that I’ve uploaded some example Major Papers 2 from last quarter. Check them out. Read them. Use them. I also suggest “Democratic Media Activism through the Lens of Social Movement Theory” by William K. Carroll and Robert A. Hackett (from Media, Culture & Society). While we won’t be chatting about this article in class, it’s a pretty solid intertext for your sequence two projects (as are the example MP2s).

Ok, then. This week:

Tuesday the 26th:

• Podcasts 2 and 3 are due by the end of the day (and, to address Juhi’s smart question: “Your ‘incident’ needn’t be negative”).
• Sequence Two Group Meetings to Plan for 2.2
• Conference 2 Sign-Up (for Wednesday the 5th, Thursday the 6th, and Friday the 7th)
• Panel on “Academic Inquiry & Public Work”

Thursday the 28th:

• Final look at the Keyword Collaboratory
• Final review of the e-portfolio (with a check-list!)
• Prepping for Your Group Presentation and Major Paper 2
• Final questions about Sequence Two

Next Week:

Tuesday the 4th:

• No class!
• 2.1 is due — although I suggest finishing it by February the 28th

Thursday the 6th:

Group Presentations (of Response Paper 2.2) in Allen Auditorium

And the Next Week:

Tuesday the 11th:

• Major Paper 2 due
• Class potluck!
• Course Evals
• Class conversations about 121

Thursday the 13th

• No class!
• Final Conferences (on Friday, too)

And, on Thursday the 20th, your final e-portfolios are due. Cool?  Start giving them a gander now.  Review the instructions and the examples I provided and let me know what questions you have.

If you haven’t, then get on the service-learning, people. It’s 15% of your grade and the core of your sequence two work. Onward!

Finally, a number of you have asked me about opportunities for extra participation credit. While I suggest focusing on your e-portfolio first and foremost (after all, it’s 70% of your grade), I’m happy to give you extra credit for bonus blog entries. That said, here’s a brief prompt:

Attend any of the following events or spaces and write a brief blog entry that connects it with the course material. (Shouldn’t be too difficult, given most of the events or spaces below attend to sonic culture and media.) Please categorize your blog entry under “Extra Credit” and post it by March 12th. Fair enough?

• The EMP/SFM (and focus on a particular exhibit or activity, if you don’t mind)
• “Simultaneity: Entanglement” installation at 911 Media Arts
• Rossum’s Universal Robots at Theater Schmeater
• Richard Powers’s March 5th Talk/Reading at Benaroya (ask me about a discount — $10 tix)
• The film, Be Kind, Rewind

Be in touch with questions. And to those of you who rolled with me to the EMP on Thursday, I’ve marked you down for credit. No need to blog.

Take care, everyone. It’s been a pleasure thus far, and I look forward to the balance.

Yrs,

Jentery

1. Gareth Snow addresses every outcome as it pertains to the specific work he is presenting, this is after initially listing out the formal outcomes for the class. In every section, Snow states what outcomes he is arguing for, then specifically addresses each one and an example of how his work meets that goal. The outcomes definitely weren’t integrated creatively, but Snow is extremely effective in showing his use of the outcomes rather than just telling the reader.

2. The portfolio provides several forms of evidence such as: a power point presentation, his other works not published on the portfolio, and links within the portfolio for prompts. These assist us in discovering the background to the portfolio since we were not present in the class.

3. Gareth’s use of logical appeal is abundant throughout his portfolio. Key rhetorical strategies are aimed more towards informing rather than persuading. He does not beg the question; links are available at every turn to back up his claims. He stays on target throughout his portfolio, without going off on tangents or getting carried away with rhetorical strategies. We believe his use of information is his most effective tactic in the portfolio, as it’s hard to dispute his claims when his evidence link is hovering ominously in the margin. Gareth addresses his audience in a very objective way, without skewing things or appealing to bias. He puts his claim on the table along with his evidence in a ‘take it or leave it’ mentality, which we find to be particularly effective. In instances like this, the audience is more inclined to accept his claim when he’s not attempting to force it upon them. Site design is basic but well organized; it gets the job done and is very user friendly.

4. Garreth’s writing style, especially in his conclusion, was really verbose and confusing. While this might appeal to an academic audience, it was difficult to read and understand. He could fix this by simply toning down his writing, using fewer big words, and generally simplifying things. Also, while his arguments for the claims were persuasive, by the time I had gotten to read them, I’d forgotten what they were, and thus they were not as effective. All he needs to do there is put his translation of the outcomes at the top of each paragraph or something like that. The last thing that really could use fixing was just the general organization of his site– sometimes he put the prompt on the page twice, sometimes he didn’t put up Jentery’s response to it, etc. He should have just put one of each thing in once, in the same place, and made sure each part was there every time.

5. From this portfolio, we learned that adding in your own personal tone can help to make the portfolio more personable. The way that Gareth writes is very direct and he tries to have a theme, but throughout his portfolio he fails to make the page interesting. So, in the service of our portfolios, we can add our own charcter and tone so that the reader wants to actually read it.