Joseph+LeBeau+6-B.R.

Roosevelt Student: 6-B.R.

//__Ex/change Through Writing__// __Introduction Letter__ Hey there, my name is Joe LeBeau and I’m your Drake student partner for this semester. I’m a sophomore at Drake and my major is Secondary Education with endorsements in English, all Social Sciences and Special Education. In my course, Teaching Writing, we’re going to be examining ways to respond to writing, different approaches to designing writing assignments, and different theories of how to teach writing. I’m really excited for this project because in a few years I may very well be teaching my own English class, and also because I’m sure that I’m going to get a lot of valuable experience out of it. I’m also looking forward to working with you because I took the same class you’re in now when I was in high school and I took an AP test similar to one that you’ll take in a few months, and I’m genuinely interested to see how you develop as a writer. My role in this project is to respond to your writing through asking questions, making comments or providing suggestions. My goals are to encourage you to delve deeper into a subject that you’ve written about, to provide new possibilities for exploration, and to ultimately help your writing become more complex and developed. I don’t want to evaluate your writing in terms of “good” or “bad” writing, but to encourage you to reformulate your thinking about writing. I’m excited to meet you, read your work and develop as writers and readers together.
 * Letters of Introduction ( **due 01.21.11 **) **

= =

**//2/9: B, your final draft is now 5 days behind schedule, and//** //**your reflection was due yesterday. I'm only bringing this up because the rough draft for your next assignment is due next Wednesday, a week from now, and if your assignme****nts begin overlapping then this will cause some complications for you. I'm sure you're busy with all of your classes, and as I said, I'm not here to be a stickler for deadlines or anything, I just want you to get the most out of this writing exchange as possible.**//

//**Joe**//

Update: REVISION, due 2/2/11 FINAL, due 2/4/11
 * Revision - Definition ( ****RHS** due 01.31.11; **171** due 02.01.11 **) **


 * FINAL - Definition ( ****RHS** due 02.02.11; **171** due 02.04.11 **) **


 * REFLECTION #1 ****( ****RHS** due 02.08.11; **171** due 02.11.11 **) **


 * Rough Draft - Classification/Division ( ****RHS** due 02.16.11; **171** due 02.18.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Classification/Division-Rough Draft, **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.23.11; **171** due 02.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * B- Consider how you arrange your ideas. It seems that you say that orchestral works are ultimately categorized based on what their composers title them. Your first two paragraphs, on symphonies and concerti, provide typical characteristics of these two types of music**, **but no concrete characteristics that hold true for __every__ example, and it is very difficult to classify something with authority if you don't provide at least one characteristic that is consistently true for every example. After the paragraphs on symphonies and concerti is when you provide what seems to be that consistent, unifying characteristic- the title. Consider the effect that paragraph arrangement has on the writing. Also, are only symphonies and concerti ultimately classified by title, or does this apply to suites and overtures as well?**


 * Something revealing I saw in your writing was when you refer to "Ma Vlast" as suite-like. You may have not intended to do so, but "suite-like" opens up the possibility for a new sub-genre and greater depth. You may have included "suite-like" without thinking of this sub-genre, but I encourage you to give some thought to this possibility and not simply changing the wording to eliminate this small difference between suite and suite-like.**


 * Also, regarding my comments in general, I just wanted to let you know that when I ask many questions, I'm not necessarily looking for concrete answers to each and every question, I'm just writing down my thought process and things that come to my mind as I read so that you can see the effect your writing has on one reader. Don't feel obligated to answer a question I pose if you don't think it will significantly contribute to your writing. On the other hand, if you do choose to elaborate on a question or comment I make, I encourage you to view that question as a doorway to many new possibilities for your writing, not just as questions that require one sentence answers.**


 * For example, in my first response I noted that you mention classification according to genre, composer, time period and instrumentation, yet you didn't address all those. In your second draft, you simply changed that sentence in your intro to accommodate the rest of the writing. This certainly made your intro match up to the body of the writing, yet limited some of the complexity that might have been gained by writing about those unaddressed issues (time period, country, instrumentation).**


 * As for a conclusion, a very brief recap of your classifications might be helpful. Directly comparing the different forms might also be an idea to consider, you make a couple comparisons in the body and I find it strengthens the writing and makes it more accessible to a reader, so I think providing a direct and full contrast between genres could be helpful. Also, conclusions generally address the thesis of the writing, the overarching idea. The thesis in this case would not be a summary of your point, such as (orchestral music can be classified by genre, composer or structure), but would tie these ideas together. I find that looking at the writing and all the individual points and arguments and asking "so what?" or "what's the significance of this?" can be useful in picking out an overarching idea. Once you get this idea, consider how you can incorporate it throughout the paper, not just in the conclusion.**


 * Sorry for the lengthy response, I just had a lot to say because you've given me a lot of good writing and interesting ideas to respond to. I can tell you've been putting in a lot of work, and it seems to me that this was a great choice of topic because, to me, it's apparent that you're both knowledgeable and passionate about it. I understand you're writing in preparation for the AP test, which can be fairly standardized and cut and dry writing, but I encourage you to use this knowledge and passion as much as possible. Great work B, keep it up!**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.01.11; **171** due 03.04.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * B- Comparing this final draft to your rough draft, it is evident that you have put in thought and effort into this final product. The majority of the revision, however, seems to have happened between the rough draft and the revision, and it seems that less has been revised in the steps between the revision and the final draft. I think you limited yourself in a sense by cutting out part of the rough draft- the part where you mention time period, instrumentation, and country of origin- and making the intro fit the writing, instead of adding substantially to the writing so that it fit the intro. Your approach- cutting out those three parts of the intro- succeeded in making the intro and body match-up, but I think you chose the option that limited the possibilities of your writing.**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">**You got the "brief summary" part of the conclusion down, but why have you chosen to not move beyond this? Direct contrasts between your classifications or the development of an overarching idea, one that answers the "so what?" of your writing could have made for a more compelling conclusion.**

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Recommended listening __

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">The following list is recommended because it encompasses some of the best examples of its respective genre. All of these pieces are by famous composers and are performed frequently in today’s world. Some of the music (most likely Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Rossini) will be recognizable to most. The Mozart concerto is a pinnacle of the genre because the piano soloist and orchestra dialogue wonderfully. Bernstein’s “Candide Overture” would be a good starting point; it is about 4 minutes. //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">**Symphony** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67 (1808)

**Concerto** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">MOZART Piano Concerto No. 21 in C Major, K. 467 (1785)

**Suite** …had to pick 2… <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">TCHAIKOVSKY The Nutcracker Suite, Op. 71a (1892) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">HOLST The Planets Suite (1918)

**Overture** …had to pick 2… <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">BERNSTEIN Overture to “Candide” (1957) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">ROSSINI Overture to “The Barber of Seville” (or //Il Barbiere di Siviglia//) (1816)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">…Or any of the pieces mentioned in the essay.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #2 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.22.11; **171** due 03.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Rough Draft - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.30.11; **171** due 04.01.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">LIGHT BULBS **


 * B-**


 * Consider the organization of your information and arguments.**
 * Paragraph 1 begins with a comparing sentence, and then the positives and negatives of fluorescent bulbs.**
 * Paragraph 2 begins with your main argument- that the negative aspects of fluorescents are worse than the negative aspects of incandescents, and that incandescent bulbs are preferable. The rest of paragraph 2 is about how fluorescents flicker and buzz, give off a "cold light", and are dangerous to people with epilepsy, followed by a statement that neither type of bulb should be required.**
 * Paragraph 3 compares the consequences of each type of bulb breaking, and how incandescents are preferable in this aspect.**
 * Paragraph 4, the conclusion, is another comparison of the bulbs and the reasons why some people either like or dislike fluorescents. You then say the government should not regulate either type, and both should be available for consumers.**


 * Looking at the above information, it is difficult to identify your argument. Most of the writing seems to argue that incandescent bulbs are superior, yet your conclusion seems to just argue that both types have positives and negatives and that both should be available for people to buy. Think about what you are ultimately arguing, and then consider where you place it in the writing. Where would be the most effective placement for the main idea?**


 * Looking at the organization of each paragraph as I outlined above, consider if the sequence your information is currently in is most effective in supporting your argument.**


 * Also, think about your inclusion of this idea of "government regulations and requirements". You only mention it twice, but by placing it at the end of your conclusion, it seems that your main argument might be an opposition to government light bulb restrictions.**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision (1) - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.05.11; **171** due 04.08.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

. Web. 16 April 2011.


 * B- You do a good job of outlining the pros and cons of each type of bulb, and I get the sense now that your argument is against the government regulations against incandescent bulbs. You also state why you argue that the pros of incandescents outweigh the cons. Congress, however, would seem to disagree with your stance. You state this, but I'm left interested in why they would regulate against one type of bulb when, according to your argument, the pros of these bulbs outweigh the cons. An effective strategy in argument can be to identify the opposition's view and their reasoning behind that view, but then to undermine their reasoning with facts.**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision (2) - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.13.11; **171** due 04.15.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.19.11; **171** due 04.22.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #3 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **