What do you make of your experience?
This project made me do a lot of things I really didn't want to do. It made me go out and take notes about about observations and people, it made me write about a lot of stuff that I don't normally worry about, and it gave me a lot of stress. I guess it was all pretty important though, and I learned how to look at culture and people from different angles. But I would be lying if I ever said I would do it again.
What's it like to be part of this community?
It feels like I have one more tool to use for socializing. Video games can build relationships. Recently, the only contact I've made with my cousin who lives in Wisconsin is through playing games together on Xbox Live. It feels like I'm connected to many people, even if I'd rather not even know them.
Describe how you represent their lives?
Their lives don't fit any kind of stereotypes, but then again, are nothing out of the ordinary. Everybody has their quirks and attributes, so I could never represent how someone lives by saying "Oh, they're part of this group." It's impossible. I just try to explain some of the highlights of their behaviors that are relevant to my topic. No reason to go overboard and write a biography.
Do you have this authority? Why or why not?
Do I have the authority to talk about other people's lives? Doesn't everyone? I simply state the facts and give a possible explanation (note: not accurate explanation) as to why this happens. I don't really need any authority to be able to do this. It's my keyboard, my hands that are typing this out. Authority is what is needed to make someone else do something by telling them to do it. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm just giving my opinions.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Peer review of whoever did MT Cup
1. Not really, it’s more like a declarative sentence with a question mark on the end.
2. She has a lot of information, but I feel that some of it is being misinterpreted. I think the reason that they don’t have custom cups is because they can’t afford it, not because they’re all about individuality.
3. Looks fine.
4. No.
5. The writer thinks the coffee cup represents individuality. I disagree, but it’s not my paper.
6. She found a stereotypical hipster/regular and found that MT cup is more of a place to relax.
7. She talked to a person who felt like she was always being judged; apparently the opposite of the first one.
8. No.
9. No.
10. She talks about how the MT Cup is a break away from the corporate and strict ways of running a business. (Now it’s getting foreclosed)
11. The central idea is that MT Cup promotes individuality. She’s not finished so I can’t really comment.
12. Pretty much.
13. Opening paragraph was a bit long. Could easily be broken down in some places.
14. Needs work.
15. Misspellings.
16. Not finished.
17. The interviews have enough information.
18. Pretty straight forward mix of formal and casual.
Uh… I was a little distracted by big grammatical errors.
Apparently this experience has changed the way she perceives coffee. Now she loves it…for some reason. I’m not exactly sure.
At first she though the place was gross, and then she saw it as a representation of indie rock. Some other people see it as the same way, I guess.
I learned that people who think of themselves as “individuals” don’t like it when other people try to prove they have friends.
She likes to think of herself as an individual. The paper is formal…so formal introduction.
Still don’t know what this is asking.
To be done with this.
2. She has a lot of information, but I feel that some of it is being misinterpreted. I think the reason that they don’t have custom cups is because they can’t afford it, not because they’re all about individuality.
3. Looks fine.
4. No.
5. The writer thinks the coffee cup represents individuality. I disagree, but it’s not my paper.
6. She found a stereotypical hipster/regular and found that MT cup is more of a place to relax.
7. She talked to a person who felt like she was always being judged; apparently the opposite of the first one.
8. No.
9. No.
10. She talks about how the MT Cup is a break away from the corporate and strict ways of running a business. (Now it’s getting foreclosed)
11. The central idea is that MT Cup promotes individuality. She’s not finished so I can’t really comment.
12. Pretty much.
13. Opening paragraph was a bit long. Could easily be broken down in some places.
14. Needs work.
15. Misspellings.
16. Not finished.
17. The interviews have enough information.
18. Pretty straight forward mix of formal and casual.
Uh… I was a little distracted by big grammatical errors.
Apparently this experience has changed the way she perceives coffee. Now she loves it…for some reason. I’m not exactly sure.
At first she though the place was gross, and then she saw it as a representation of indie rock. Some other people see it as the same way, I guess.
I learned that people who think of themselves as “individuals” don’t like it when other people try to prove they have friends.
She likes to think of herself as an individual. The paper is formal…so formal introduction.
Still don’t know what this is asking.
To be done with this.
Peer Review Brittany Abiera
1. She poses the question “If Ball State received this title [university committed to diversity], there shouldn’t be any issues with [someone] finding a place to fit in and not have to deal with a social hierarchy right?” The paper identifies tension between diversity and fitting in. Yes.
2. Her ideas are all well written out and explain how she thought of Out of Bound before and after her research. Her perceptions were accurate and informative. I could easily understand the atmosphere of the area. The point of view was very negative of the fieldsite in the beginning, but by the end, even though the area was still a little put-offish, she found something valuable in Out of Bounds. My words: All different sorts of stereotypes eat and socialize at Out of Bounds, but this place can put everyone on a level playing field, allowing everyone to be themselves. Observations and thoughts are even. It is important because different social stereotypes are level in the social hierarchy when they are at Out of Bounds.
3. The ideas are pretty broad in some areas, especially the beginning when she speaks about diversity. She talks about how diversity is related to “different cultures, ethnicities, races, social statuses and social groups” when she really just talks about social groups. Other than that, no problems.
4. She talks about how Out of Bounds brings people of different stereotypes to the same playing field which is a good broad explanation of what is going on in the area.
5. I didn’t really notice any specific artifact, unless it was something to do with the billiard table.
6. The emphasis on Interview 1 was that, even though people may not like being in a place like Out of Bounds, it allows them to be themselves. Molly was a member of a sorority but didn’t feel any tensions of fitting into a stereotype when in Out of Bounds.
7. Out of Bounds can also be a quiet place to think or study when the need arises. For Kasi, the billiard table brings back memories of her grandfather and the lessons he taught her.
8. No. One is used in the beginning to introduce the idea of diversity, but really doesn’t have much to do with the conclusion. The second is about ethnic diversity which has almost nothing to do with the main idea of her paper. The third talks about the “power of pool” and how it can build relationships which is relatable to her main idea.
9. Yes.
10. She talks about how her experiences are relatable to her research and how people keep searching for social acceptance. Overall I guess it sums it up pretty well.
11. Yes. Out of Bounds lets people be themselves while allowing different social groups to be on the same level of the social hierarchy. No.
12. Yep.
13. They seem about right.
14. For the most part.
15. I recall seeing the word “learnt” which I’m not so sure is a real word, but Microsoft is telling me otherwise right now. I would probably change it to “learned” for proper grammar purposes.
16. Not enough repetition to make the paper dull.
17. It’s fine. No problems.
18. It’s very informal, just like Out of Bounds, so it’s good.
I began to think a little more about the social situations that Out of Bounds puts people into.
She discovered that Out of Bounds pretty much puts everyone in a comfortable area of being themselves.
She used to believe that Out of Bounds was only used for convenience but learned that it has social implications.
I understand that college is broken into many different social groups.
I would call it casual, with a tinge of formality because of the restrictions of school papers.
Giving in to what? I don’t understand.
I wish I didn’t have to do this forever long peer review where I’m asked questions that I don’t have answers for.
2. Her ideas are all well written out and explain how she thought of Out of Bound before and after her research. Her perceptions were accurate and informative. I could easily understand the atmosphere of the area. The point of view was very negative of the fieldsite in the beginning, but by the end, even though the area was still a little put-offish, she found something valuable in Out of Bounds. My words: All different sorts of stereotypes eat and socialize at Out of Bounds, but this place can put everyone on a level playing field, allowing everyone to be themselves. Observations and thoughts are even. It is important because different social stereotypes are level in the social hierarchy when they are at Out of Bounds.
3. The ideas are pretty broad in some areas, especially the beginning when she speaks about diversity. She talks about how diversity is related to “different cultures, ethnicities, races, social statuses and social groups” when she really just talks about social groups. Other than that, no problems.
4. She talks about how Out of Bounds brings people of different stereotypes to the same playing field which is a good broad explanation of what is going on in the area.
5. I didn’t really notice any specific artifact, unless it was something to do with the billiard table.
6. The emphasis on Interview 1 was that, even though people may not like being in a place like Out of Bounds, it allows them to be themselves. Molly was a member of a sorority but didn’t feel any tensions of fitting into a stereotype when in Out of Bounds.
7. Out of Bounds can also be a quiet place to think or study when the need arises. For Kasi, the billiard table brings back memories of her grandfather and the lessons he taught her.
8. No. One is used in the beginning to introduce the idea of diversity, but really doesn’t have much to do with the conclusion. The second is about ethnic diversity which has almost nothing to do with the main idea of her paper. The third talks about the “power of pool” and how it can build relationships which is relatable to her main idea.
9. Yes.
10. She talks about how her experiences are relatable to her research and how people keep searching for social acceptance. Overall I guess it sums it up pretty well.
11. Yes. Out of Bounds lets people be themselves while allowing different social groups to be on the same level of the social hierarchy. No.
12. Yep.
13. They seem about right.
14. For the most part.
15. I recall seeing the word “learnt” which I’m not so sure is a real word, but Microsoft is telling me otherwise right now. I would probably change it to “learned” for proper grammar purposes.
16. Not enough repetition to make the paper dull.
17. It’s fine. No problems.
18. It’s very informal, just like Out of Bounds, so it’s good.
I began to think a little more about the social situations that Out of Bounds puts people into.
She discovered that Out of Bounds pretty much puts everyone in a comfortable area of being themselves.
She used to believe that Out of Bounds was only used for convenience but learned that it has social implications.
I understand that college is broken into many different social groups.
I would call it casual, with a tinge of formality because of the restrictions of school papers.
Giving in to what? I don’t understand.
I wish I didn’t have to do this forever long peer review where I’m asked questions that I don’t have answers for.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Language Paper Peer Reviews
Peer review of Rachel Dana
1.She gives her thoughts about how her subjects look and how they respond to being recorded in an interview. “He is about six feet tall, and wearing his usual attire: basketball shorts, t-shirt, and tennis shoes.” “He was giving me dull answers and was speaking in monotone.” “In the beginning, the interview was boring and awkward, but we warmed up to the process.”
2.I can’t really find any focus on trait differences other than giving out the genders of the informants.
3.The physical description was good for Michael but less detailed on the other three informants. I think there should be a little more background given on the informants.
4.They have a few opinions about stereotypes in the subculture. “With a sport like NASCAR, people are rednecks.” “hockey became popular once the U.S.A. team started winning, like when America beat Russia in 1980.”
5.The first interview is with a sports fan named Michael. I’m not quite sure where it takes place though. It was difficult at first for her to get answers from Michael, but they started over after taking a break and things went a lot better. The second interview takes place with three different people, which included Michael’s roommate. I still don’t know where it took place. It went much better than the first one.
6.FIRST THESIS: “With Michael’s interview, I had gained knowledge of how sports fanatics interact with each other along with how their subculture is a giant group of fieldworkers.” It is not true thesis. She’s on the right track with “sports fanatics…[are] fieldworkers.” SECOND THESIS: “There are also many stereotypes about sports fanatics, but there seems to be a common trend that the stereotypes involve how people who are a fan of a certain team behave.” This is the closest I could find to a thesis for the second interview. It is very vague and does not make an arguable point.
7.Balanced.
8.From Michael, she wanted to know about general facts and behaviors of sports fanatics. She wanted to hear more about stereotypes from the second interview.
9.She asked about what and when sports fans should shout to support their team. “Going, Going, Gone!” was an example she used, but she did not linger on the subject or delve into meanings.
10.I learned about the differences between Cubs games and Sox games. I’d like to know more about sayings/verbal art in the subculture.
11..
12.I feel that at some points in the paper, it jumps around too much. There was not really a smooth transition between Michaels quote about college basketball to his competitive nature as a fan.
13.No. I feel like the language is a little choppy and too much like a high school essay. It’s not very story-like.
14.Make a definitive thesis statement.
Julie Burgener Peer Review
1.She mentions that John looks like an important person to her. That’s about it.
2.None
3.She says that he is an important person but does not offer any more description.
4.No world views, just thoughts about his job. “This is the closest thing to the real world.”
5.There is only one stated informant.
6.“They understand the pressure and deadlines, and all learned to help each other out.” I wouldn’t call it a thesis, but it’s the best I could find. It really doesn’t offer any arguable positions.
7.There is much more summary than quotation used.
8.She just wanted to know basic facts about Newsweek.
9.She mentions “beat day” where journalists go out and interview informants.
10.I learned a little more about how the news world works. I’d like to get more than one person’s opinion on it though.
11..
12.Opens with a vague description of the group. Then she just goes into what goes on at Newsweek.
13.The writing style is very plain. It is informative, but would probably not hold the reader’s attention too well.
14.Talk more about the actual interviews and less about the entire subculture as a whole.
1.She gives her thoughts about how her subjects look and how they respond to being recorded in an interview. “He is about six feet tall, and wearing his usual attire: basketball shorts, t-shirt, and tennis shoes.” “He was giving me dull answers and was speaking in monotone.” “In the beginning, the interview was boring and awkward, but we warmed up to the process.”
2.I can’t really find any focus on trait differences other than giving out the genders of the informants.
3.The physical description was good for Michael but less detailed on the other three informants. I think there should be a little more background given on the informants.
4.They have a few opinions about stereotypes in the subculture. “With a sport like NASCAR, people are rednecks.” “hockey became popular once the U.S.A. team started winning, like when America beat Russia in 1980.”
5.The first interview is with a sports fan named Michael. I’m not quite sure where it takes place though. It was difficult at first for her to get answers from Michael, but they started over after taking a break and things went a lot better. The second interview takes place with three different people, which included Michael’s roommate. I still don’t know where it took place. It went much better than the first one.
6.FIRST THESIS: “With Michael’s interview, I had gained knowledge of how sports fanatics interact with each other along with how their subculture is a giant group of fieldworkers.” It is not true thesis. She’s on the right track with “sports fanatics…[are] fieldworkers.” SECOND THESIS: “There are also many stereotypes about sports fanatics, but there seems to be a common trend that the stereotypes involve how people who are a fan of a certain team behave.” This is the closest I could find to a thesis for the second interview. It is very vague and does not make an arguable point.
7.Balanced.
8.From Michael, she wanted to know about general facts and behaviors of sports fanatics. She wanted to hear more about stereotypes from the second interview.
9.She asked about what and when sports fans should shout to support their team. “Going, Going, Gone!” was an example she used, but she did not linger on the subject or delve into meanings.
10.I learned about the differences between Cubs games and Sox games. I’d like to know more about sayings/verbal art in the subculture.
11..
12.I feel that at some points in the paper, it jumps around too much. There was not really a smooth transition between Michaels quote about college basketball to his competitive nature as a fan.
13.No. I feel like the language is a little choppy and too much like a high school essay. It’s not very story-like.
14.Make a definitive thesis statement.
Julie Burgener Peer Review
1.She mentions that John looks like an important person to her. That’s about it.
2.None
3.She says that he is an important person but does not offer any more description.
4.No world views, just thoughts about his job. “This is the closest thing to the real world.”
5.There is only one stated informant.
6.“They understand the pressure and deadlines, and all learned to help each other out.” I wouldn’t call it a thesis, but it’s the best I could find. It really doesn’t offer any arguable positions.
7.There is much more summary than quotation used.
8.She just wanted to know basic facts about Newsweek.
9.She mentions “beat day” where journalists go out and interview informants.
10.I learned a little more about how the news world works. I’d like to get more than one person’s opinion on it though.
11..
12.Opens with a vague description of the group. Then she just goes into what goes on at Newsweek.
13.The writing style is very plain. It is informative, but would probably not hold the reader’s attention too well.
14.Talk more about the actual interviews and less about the entire subculture as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)