Thlog Four

On our fourth week, we handed in our final WP1 and started discussing WP2. Learning about the reverse outline was very important for me, as I tend to ramble on in parts of my essays. For editing my future writing, I will use this method to make sure my ideas/paragraphs stay on topic and follow a flowy-good structure. I thought exchanging our papers to reverse outline each other’s paper was very beneficial, as it made me understand the differences in other people’s writing style, which made me further understand general weaknesses and strong points of a paper. Another method I will use in the future is highlighting the main idea, thesis statement, textual evidence, and analysis. This really ‘highlighted’ whether my paper stayed on topic, and the amount as well as effectiveness of textual evidence use. I especially never knew that questions our class thought of for the bonfire with a melted bottle scenario could be categorized into majors. It was extremely fascinating. I very much struggled dividing all given majors into the chosen three groups of humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences. I still find it confusing distinguishing majors between humanities and social sciences. The text-as-pig (lab dissection) also made me realize the importance of high- to low-order concerns in papers. I will definitely be using this table to checklist whether I have included the high-order concerns in all my papers. However, I was very surprised seeing that topic sentences were categorized in low-order concerns.

The final activity ‘Mark Smith’s murder’ conducted in class was really interesting. My group (Ace) had to design a coroner’s report, and although none of us have ever really seen a proper coroner’s report, we were able to gather some of the rhetorical features. The textual statements posted were easily distinguishable to what type of role the group had.