read this 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-POm0ZpHWkBsyGEuyItOY-qChta4WQSBTaTwKBv-By0/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LqVI3hwt52Dw4rM45XWJaygKnKJcOtu7sjSp-0iuoaQ/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJ41JubkfjGTsAmxkBTHIGQ7GY1qOfQ36T6AQJ8JnSk/edit?usp=sharing

Example

s

Thompsonclaims that writing improves memory. This is known as the “generation effect.” He states that this is a trick that has been used for years. “College students have harnessed this effect for decades as a study technique: if you force yourself to jot down what you know, you’re better able to retain the material.” Thompson cites a study from 1978 conducted by two psychologists where they compared how well the subjects remembered words that they either wrote down or that they didn’t. Those who wrote down the words retained more information. In talking about the study, he used an authoritative quote that explains how writing “requires more cognitive effort than reading” which in turns helps the memory. Thompson works to build ethos with his audience by talking about the psychological study and also by relating it to something they might remember—studying for tests. He also appeals to logos by helping to lead the reader to the conclusion that writing does improve memory by explaining how our brain processes information, proving it with a formally conducted study. This helps further his overall argument that writing does change our cognitive behavior, as he does prove that writing improves memory, which is a clear change in the brain’s function.

Problems: Not properly using the quotation sandwich. Boring, choppy sentences. Not talking about how old the study is a possible problem. Not mentioning that the study is quite vague (where was it conducted, how many subjects were involved, was it followed up later). How much does the study really build ethos? Could use more analysis. What else??

Example 2:

Beyond his claims of individual growth in writing through public thinking, Thompson examines the ways in which having access to larger audiences is actually progressing efficient discovery and even saving lives. In his exploration of the theory of multiples, Thompson claims that “Failed networks kill ideas, but successful ones trigger them” (61). He supports this bold claim by presenting a number of scenarios in which a lack of efficient communication between people caused delay to discovery, or even, in the worst case, cost millions of people their lives. Perhaps his most effective evidence comes in the form of a historical anecdote in which he tells the history of the discovery of penicillin. While the earliest record of a penicillin-like medicine was discovered in 1890, the founder, one Ernest Duchesne, was unknown and without the connections to propel his discovery into the public eye. Because of this, his finding went unknown and the world waited another 32 years for Alexander Fleming to discover the life-saving medicine we still use today (Thompson 61). Thompson asserts that the millions of people who died in the 34 years that passed before penicillin was rediscovered, died because the public at the time was unable to connect. Had Duchesne been able to share his findings with the appropriate people, perhaps the course of modern medicine would have turned three decades earlier. The implication here is that with our modern ability to connect and access peers and leaders around the globe, we have a better opportunity to propel our own discoveries forward. By presenting the worst-case scenario, in which our lack of ability to connect causes death, Thompson is able to present a critical case for his argument. We do not have the time to wait between connections, because our literal lives may depend on it. Through a simple history lesson, Thompson is able to appeal to his readers’ fears and mold them into a fear of not being able to connect. He makes the ability to think publicly a necessity. A subtle and mild manipulation of fear, this technique is effective in creating urgency and need for connection. Thompson requires his readers to consider a world in which we the people, rather than developing the same ideas in different places, grow ideas further, together. Comment by Blaine: Topic Sentence Comment by Blaine: Direct quote to show the claim Comment by Blaine: Identifying and incorporating evidence Comment by Blaine: Begins STAR

COnclusion

Your conclusion, which evaluates some aspect of the text, and tells us “So What?”

· What is the significance of the argument – why does it matter (at this moment/to you/in general)?

· Has the author impacted your thinking/views on this topic? If so, in what way?

· Consider the effectiveness of the argument – focus on a key strength or weaknesses

Example

In conclusion, Thompson delivers his argument by using anecdotes, facts and statistics.  His claims are well supported with evidence; however, the evidence is insufficient and suspect to interpretation, weakening his overall argument.  The anecdotes are used to encourage a connection between the reader and the topic; however, counterarguments are not considered.  His use of the rhetorical strategy pathos overwhelms his use of logos, canceling each other out.  Whether or not the internet improves memorization, creativity, and cognition has not been sufficiently researched and studied.  More research is needed.  There are many factors that Thompson does not consider such as age.  How does internet use harm or help the brain of a child?  Even though Thompson fails to consider all possible interpretations of the evidences he presents, he does introduce valid points.  His novel is for the common reader, giving people a glimpse into the expansive ways in which technology and the internet has taken hold of our lives.  “Public Thinking” is significant because it allows the everyday reader into a conversation about the implications of technology, which may lead to a worldwide embrace of the advances yet to come; however, with Thompson’s one-sided view, one can only hope that those opposed to technology will join the conversation and the research and debate can take on a more significant, logical appeal.

And in conclusion, everyday we encounter messages being sent on social media–email, Facebook status, tweets, blog posts, etc. These sites help people publicly express their emotions and thoughts, which has a positive effect on everyday life. Readers of Thompson’s text can see how writing online leads to thinking in public, which helps us recognize our feelings and thoughts that we cannot tackle alone as well as clarify our thoughts. But people also realize through Thompson that social online writing has public thinking and is beneficial to many people, which is what he argues. 

After examining “Public Thinking” and evaluating the rhetorical moves made by Thompson, I think his argument is one that has support and strength. I believe that technology has always been around and will continue to make changes on our daily lives. We will keep thinking of new ways to take advantage of these changes and colonize these new digital tools in the way that Thompson shows us. To some there have been arguments on whether this internet has been beneficial or detrimental for us. Sometimes Thompson is convincing that social media is changing us. Sometimes Thompson is not so convincing. But in the end, I think believe that Thompson is convincing because he uses evidence and rhetorical strategies.

Imagine you’re in English class and your teacher starts the timer for the dreaded 15 minutes of silent reading. While reading, you find your mind wandering, disengaged from the book. You look around to find other students scrolling on their phone, sleeping, or staring blankly at the page in front of them. The teacher tells you to close your books as the timer goes off; you realize you only read about a page in 15 minutes. Similarly, it was students like these that caused Michael Godsey, a high school English teacher, to explore a better way to engage his students. He turned to podcasts and transcripts to solve this problem, in which he wrote about his experience using this in the piece, “The Value of Using Podcasts in Class,” which was published by The Atlantic. He hopes to appeal to other English teachers so that they can engage their students as well. In his class, he found that listening to podcasts, while simultaneously following along with a transcript, could encourage students to read more. Types of evidence Godsey uses in his argument are: personal experiences, comparison and contrast, narration, and other teachers’ experiences. I will evaluate two claims made in Godsey’s argument—an effective and an ineffective claim—and look at their impact on his overall argument.

Do you ever wonder what students are doing in class when the teacher is talking? Most students procrastinate and do their work last minute like listening to a podcast the class before it’s due. One could assume what another person is listening to on their headphones, focused or not. Michael Godsey’s “The Value Of Using Podcast In Class” is trying to argue that students should use podcasts as a learning tool while they are listening to their teacher. He gives readers a clear understanding of how podcasts are a great tool by using scientific evidence and effective claims. His audiences teachers and educators who are unaware of this ideology. His goal is to create an environment where students can listen to their arguments. He truly believes his podcasts are a great tool for students. Nevertheless, I will be guiding you through the text to show you how and why he uses his claims effectively to prove why podcasts should be used in class.

Evidence

The Importance of Evidence:

Claims and reasons are the framework of an argument, but evidence is what makes the case.
Evidence—various items of information that support a claim as well as the reasons supporting a
claim—is what you look for in any pattern of argument. It answers the question “What have you
got to go on?” Only evidence, carefully selected and clearly presented, permits a writer to
present an argument fully and convincingly. If the evidence in an argument is too sparse, it will
not convince an audience. If it is too flimsy—based on mere opinion, hearsay, or colorful
comparisons or analogies—it will not support an otherwise valid claim.

Types of Evidence:

Evidence can consist of:

Types of Evidence: Example: Things to Consider:
Historical or Well
Known facts

It’s well known that the US was the last country to agree
to the UN climate reduction summit to lower use of fossil
fuels and reduce carbon footprint, and then President
Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement in 2017,
suggesting that the United States does not care about
environmentalism.

–Does the intended
audience “know” this fact?
Would they find the
historical or factual
information important?

Scientific
Studies/Research

“Swiss scientists say that even with existing cities and
farmland, there’s enough space for new trees to cover 3.5
million square miles (9 million square kilometers). They
reported in Thursday’s journal Science that this is our best
bet in fighting climate change.”

Who did the study?
Are they reputable and
trustworthy?
Did they use respectable
scientific methods?
Is their work peer
reviews/agreed upon by
other scientists?

Quotes from Experts
or Experienced
Individuals

“This is the time for implementation and action – action
that science informs us must be swift, decisive and
sustained” stated Patricia Espinosa, the new head of the
UN Climate Change Commission.

What is this expert’s
credentials and expertise?
Are they an expert in this
field?
Did the WRITER of the
article give enough
background on the person
to establish their
credibility?

Societal
Observations or
Generalizations

Most Americans believe climate change is real and that
something should be done about it, but they seem to want
someone else to do it—usually, the government. In the
wake of the 2016 election, what was always true should
be abundantly clear: government won’t solve the problem
of climate change.

Is this observation
accurate?
Will the audience feel the
observation or
generalization is fair?

Specific Cases or
Events

The biggest residential demand on our dirty energy
system is climate control—home heating and cooling. We
travel from our air conditioned homes to our air
conditioned workplaces in air conditioned cars. Of course,
we need climate control to protect us from freezing
temperatures in winter and soaring temperatures in
summer, but do we need the atmosphere to be exactly 70
degrees everywhere we go, all year long?

Is this specific case
applicable to the target
audience?
Does the specific case help
illustrate a clear
argument/opinion/claim?

Personal Experience Since I stopped using a clothes dryer, not only do I feel
good about the fossil fuel I’m not burning, but my clothes
last much longer.

Does the author have the
authority to use their
personal experience?
Does their experience
apply to the target
audience?

Numbers, Statistics,
Averages, or other
numerical
information

The atmospheric carbon dioxide level for March was
411.97 parts per million and continue to rise. It has now
reached levels in the atmosphere not seen in 3 million
years.
That’s an increase of 46% from just before the Industrial
Revolution in the 1800s, when CO2 levels were around
280 parts per million. Levels began to rise when humans
began to burn large amounts of fossil fuels to run factories
and heat homes, releasing CO2 and other greenhouse
gasses into the atmosphere.

Are the numbers from a
reputable source?
Do they show the big
picture, rather than an
isolated study/focus?

In all instances, the most distinctive feature of evidence is that it supports a relevant claim.

Evaluating Evidence:

The chain of argument is never complete without authoritative and compelling evidence.
When you read an essay, ask the following questions about the nature of the evidence
presented:

1. Are the examples relevant and convincing? Are they sufficient to make the
case?

2. Is the evidence presented clearly?
3. Is the evidence used to support a claim, and is it sufficient?
4. If statistics appear, are they relevant, accurate, current, complete, and from a

reliable source?
5. If the writer offers quotations or expert testimony, is it from a knowledgeable,

trustworthy, and authoritative source?

Answer the following questions in a total of 200 words. Be complete, thorough, and reflective as you write out your response.

Because you are to have a completed rough draft for class next Tuesday, reflect on both the challenges and successes you find as you’re drafting:

1. Describe a part of the writing process (reading the article, annotating, brainstorming, outlining, writing, etc.) that has been easy for you.

a. Why?

2. Conversely, describe a part of the writing process (reading the article, annotating, brainstorming, outlining, writing, etc.) that has challenged you.

a. Why?

3. Lastly, what is one area in your essay that you are planning on spending the most time revising or improving before a final submission is due?

Surname 2

Hang Liu

RWS-280

2020/02/11

Digital Natives

Adoption of technology in learning is something inevitable. Digital Natives, Yet Strangers to the Web is a web article written by alia Wong 21 April, 2015. The author writes the article as an explanation of the debates surrounding the use of technology in learning. Academic institutions are busy implementing the use of technology in there learning and on the other hand singing the negative impact of technology on learning. This ends up creating a confusion in the education word and hence children, or rather students who are heavy users of technology but lacks in-depth understanding of how technology and the internet really works. The author writes this article targeting the public with high reading levels and interest. Stakeholders in the education industry could also be a potential target or even other writers. In this paper, I will evaluate the legitimacy of some of the significant arguments of the author in relation to the impact of technology.

The author is tries to disprove the idea of raising awareness on the effects of technology while implementing the same. He states that “Educational institutions across the board are certainly embracing the digital revolution, adopting cutting-edge classroom technology and raising awareness about the perils and possibilities of the Internet” (Wong, pg. 3). I think certainly this is the way to go because as much as technology is such a good thin, there are perils on the other side. Therefore, raising awareness on the perils of technology is just but a way of preparing children and students to be aware of possible challenges posed by the use of technology hence prepare in advance. The fact that technology is useful does not mean that we should overlook its potential negative impacts.

Wong argues that old folks are the main reason for lack of effective implementation of technology in academic institutions. To some extent it might be true but at the same time the real reason is lack of proper training of these teachers. A teacher, regardless of the age, if given the right training before implementation of a technological program in schools. I don’t think blaming old teachers is a credible reason as to why most institutions are lagging behind in technology. Moreover, I don’t think that an institution can have such a high number of technology illiterate teachers to affect leanings through technology.

One thing that I seem to agree with the author is that increased use of technology has created a generation of “teens who immersed in social media but does not have the required skills to make the most out of online experiences” (Wong, pg. 2). This fights the notion that digital natives have more knowledge on how technology affects or rather shapes humans’ experiences and character. Only a few of them understands the things such as algorithms are used to in advertising through bringing up of suggestions. True to the suggestion of the author, programs and campaigns need to be established to help the young generation develop an intrinsic view on how the functionality of the internet and technology in general.

The argument that guardians and parents exaggerate the negative impact of technology is somehow contemptable. I think every parent will always want the best for his/her kid. Parents must have experienced the negative effects of technology personally or observed it in their kids before concluding on the effects that technology has on children. Perhaps their intention is to not to discredit technology but raise awareness and make sure that their children are protected against any potential harm. Cyberbullying against children is not something new. In response to this, parents have had to formulate precautionary measures themselves to make sure their children are secured from cyber-criminals and other unnecessary online content. So, I totally dispute the claims that, “Adults respond to such incidents with fear mongering and information campaigns” (Wong, pg. 5).

Thought-out the article, the author seems to criticize the academic institutions of implementing technology without guiding the students on the possible effects and potential harm posed by this technology. I don’t really think that such an initiative ought to be considered as a main agenda of an academic institution. Technology is just an asset for improving the education experience. Perhaps such initiatives ought to be carried out as separate campaigns or in co-curriculum activities but not in the main education curriculum. Apart from parental control, regular seminars, among other initiatives can be arranged to educate young adults on the influence of too much consumption of technology and perhaps how they can utilize it and profit from it.

I agree with the author that technology has a way bigger impact other than helping people become “savvy coders and prolific e-book readers”. Through technology, the internet to be precise, children are exposed to a lot of things which they are likely to emulate. Moreover, they can be exposed to sexualized content which at the end of the day has an impact on there morals. I would agree with the writer that such incidences bring about “a distorted view of the digital world,” (Wong, pg. 4).

In conclusion, there are propositions made by the author that I find valid and others that I don’t agree with. Things that I agree with is that increased use of technology has created a young generation that only knows to use social media but does not understand the wider scope of technology associated with it. they have unknowingly become addicts of technology with no knowledge of the underlying facts about it. Perhaps this is because of lack of guidance. On the other hand, I disagree with the author on claims that the old teachers are the reason as to why technology cannot be effectively implemented in institutions. Regardless of the age, if given proper training, they will adopt and get used to it. perhaps, we are moving toward a generation that is characterized by intense use of technology and we cannot stop it but rather take the necessary precautions.

Work Cited

Wong, Alia. “Digital natives, yet strangers to the web.” The Atlantic.