This was another one of those days where we were missing some of our group members, so things went by pretty quickly. Stephanie and I basically went through the procedure step by step; we decided to formulate our questions and then read the selection that was about voice. It was surprising how both our questions were indeed about writing in a way that seemed like an authentic representation of our voices. A question I asked about my piece was whether I had successfully created an illusion of dialogue in my writing. Stephanie responded that I did this, and that the structure of the dialogue actually helped give my thoughts more structure. A question that Stephanie asked about her piece was actually about the use of two voices- the voice of her as a child experiencing something, and the voice of reflection about that experience. She told me that the piece wasn't finished, but wanted to know which "voice " could be utilized more effectively. I thought that she actually did a good job of starting the piece with the younger voice to draw the reader in and going on to explain what she thinks with the older voice.

Group Meeting Number Four!

Sorry this is so late.
Last group meeting, Stephanie and Don reviewed their meeting and told Ting and Shiori what "Summary and Sayback" was. Then we went on to the Protocol.

Each of us though for a while and came up with our questions for our group.

Ting's challenge was to create a realistic dialog. Her question for the group was whether a "realistic" dialog could be interesting, and if her piece seemed to be progressing to slowly.
The rest of the group responded that a dialog that is "realistic" can be interesting, as long as something is happening. We agreed that Ting's piece would be slow, if it continued at its current pace, but we suggested varying the pace...

Stephanie's challenge was to write an analytical response to the piece we read several meetings ago, "Black English." She was wondering whether she was allowed to be as opinionated as she was. The group's response was that for that adding more support and evidence would "let" her be opinionated.

Shiori's challenge was to write lyrics to songs through a stream-of-conscience method. He was wondering whether anyone picked up on any cohesive ideas or themes in either of the songs. The group agreed positively, but said they wanted to hear the songs.

Don's challenge was to write about extremely complex, abstract concepts and connect them to more concrete, literal examples. He was wondering if he was successful in doing so. The group agreed that it was an extremely difficult challenge and that the piece has the content to be successful. We suggested organizing and building on the ideas he already has. We also noticed that his piece is one HUGE paragraph. It could help to break it up.

Don and Stephanie's 3rd "Group" Meeting!!

Hey guys, here’s an update of what Don and I discussed during our 3rd meeting (Shiori and Ting were absent).
--We read about “Summary and Sayback” and while looking at the samples of summary and sayback feedback, we noticed that many of the comments we made while reading “Black English” during our last meeting were similar to the sample feedback. Don and I realized that we often do utilize these two types of responses to discuss writing.
--We then looked at every group member’s piece and applied the feedback protocol we read about to their writing.
--Then Don and I talked about our focuses for this semester and realized that we each were interested in topics that the other had explored last semester. While I was able to give Don input on his piece about freedom and the implications of adhering to the norms of society, Don was able to discuss with me the interplay among cultural diversity, minority groups, and capitalism in America.