Sunday, May 10, 2015

PB3A
The scholarly article I chose to work with is Acute Clinical Recovery from Sport-Related Concussion. The genre of this publication is a medical journal publication, written by professionals. Concussions are a common injury, especially for young kids who play sports. In converting this article to two different genres, I will tailor it to two different audiences. The first being the parents of these children who often get concussions while playing contact sports - and second the actual children who receive these injuries themselves.
For the parents of these children I will create an informational pamphlet, like the ones you see at the front desk of a dentist office. It will contain more pictures than the original genre, because typically these pamphlets are eye catching. The title will also have to be more interesting. The pamphlet will still include sources, probably on the last side of it, so that the parents feel that the information is credible. The tone will also remain neutral and academic. The jargon, however, will be changed to colloquial words in order for a wider audience to be able to understand the pamphlet. The audience will have a variety of levels of education, so this is important. Another thing that comes to mind is that I often see these pamphlets in both Spanish and English. Now of course I won’t go in to detail with the Spanish pamphlet, but it is important to note that this is a convention of this genre. The pamphlet will be about 4 panels. Some of these panels will include charts, such as the symptoms and perhaps warning signs of a concussion. Another convention of this genre is to have titles for each side of the pamphlet. These are usually short and to the point. Much of the original content will have to be condensed, since these pamphlets are simply overviews and by no means a comprehensive discussion of concussions.

In order to create a genre that appeals to children, I considered a picture book, however I thought that was too young, my target audience was 13 to 17, or somewhere around there. I am considering a chapter in a textbook which focuses on concussions. The chapter will have a number which corresponds to the number of the chapter in a book. Then the sections will be sub-numbered such as 3.9. The different sections will also have a short title which will describe what is being discussed. The language will be slightly less complex than it would be in the original journal. However, some terms will be kept, and , as it often goes in textbook, they will be bolded in order to signify that their definitions are in the glossary. Any charts or figures will be labeled “figure “followed by a number. The tone will be educational and formal. The end of the chapter might have a summary or “review” and it might highlight “key terms.”  There might also be a difference in how the information is organized to make the chapter flow nicely.  

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Painting Trees

Walt P Described the tree as a skyscraper, and he made sure to describe the tools he used such as a pallete knife. Over all his perspective on the tree was to treat it from an architectural standpoint.
Mark D used more lines, and charcoal. His painting was overall more dark. He used gray colors but also added whit to pop out certain branches, which he chose meticulously.
Ivan focused on the trunk, which he said was the all he needed to describe the tree. He wanted to make a detailed study and establish an outside shape for it to work. Josh M  took a unique perspective by describing the trees as living things with spirtis. He pointed out that he wanted to work fast the capture the life, and he used a big brush and lighter fluid for this. He let his colors mingle in order to suggest movement , and stated that the background was just as vital as the tree.

WP2 Questions

Q1: I was less happy with it than my WP1. I felt like I didn’t focus too much on the smaller moves, and I felt like I was limited on space (the amount of pages) to do so. I also felt like maybe I didn’t separate the two disciplines as much as I would’ve liked, but maybe grouped them more as scholarly vs media sources.  I also felt like maybe I didn’t use the readings as much as I did for WP1 although I certainly used ideas from them.
Q2: I liked the one that pointed it out I didn’t have too much analyses in the second paragraph because it was specific and allowed me to work on something tangible. I also liked the comment that pointed out that logos may not necessarily be the strongest for an argument. It allowed me to revisit that part of my paper and further consider my argument and how I structured it.

Q3: I really liked it. I thought it was way easier than commenting on paper. It allowed me to write specific comments on a part of the page without having to reference it later on at the bottom.  It was easier than physically having to write on everyone’s paper. 

Monday, May 4, 2015

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1axjgD-VJGO4mnOnurqCFYTlHxJpDR2C6DazI1PmvX50/edit?usp=sharing