Brendan Donohue
ENG. 122 B
Prof. Cripps
27 November 2017
Framing Statement Gee and Cuddy
- Writing as a Recursive Process
Writing as a recursive process includes many techniques and practices that aim to improve the overall direction and readability of a paper from the rough draft to the final paper. These techniques begin with the structuring and organization of a paper and identifying the overall task being set out to accomplish. As seen in “Recursive Process- Evidence 1”, I began outlining the main beliefs and thoughts of the authors Gee and Cuddy prior to beginning my rough draft. This aided me in having a well developed understanding of their arguments so that ultimately, I could join in as efficiently as possible. Using my notes and sketches early in the writing process allowed me to identify Gee as having a negative viewpoint on the ease with which one can enter a discourse, and Cuddy as having a more positive and optimistic view about being able to join a discourse. This drafting process enabled me not only to understand the authors, but allowed me to begin to understand my own voice on the topic as well.
Secondly, one of the most significant changes I made while actively carrying out the recursive writing process was creating changes to my introduction. In my rough draft, my introduction focused heavily on setting up the context of my own backstory so I could later relate it to Gee and Cuddy’s opinion on discourses. I failed to clearly introduce Gee and Cuddy and their own works as well as establish the theme of the paper. This rough draft introduction can be reviewed via this Hyperlink:
https://bdonohue.uneportfolio.org/2017/12/10/gee-and-cuddy-rough-draft/
My goal for the final draft introduction was to focus less on me and my background, and more of a three equal parts introduction between Gee, Cuddy and myself. This appeared in my final draft where I more properly introduced Gee and Cuddy and their respective works. An excerpt from my final introduction can be read below:
“James Paul Gee, a psycholinguistic and Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist have both published works on what it means to blend into your environment and how one can successful enter a discourse. As James Paul Gee (Gee) says, “Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (Gee 6). Amy Cuddy (Cuddy) in her recent Ted Talk discusses the significance of nonverbal communication and what body language can communicate, and how we can take advantage of it to succeed.”
Furthermore, my final draft introduction closes with a clear and decisive thesis statement to set up the general theme of the paper. This can be seen here:
“I agree with the respective individual beliefs of both Gee and Cuddy, but in my personal experience and own opinion I think a combination of both their techniques is the best way of proceeding.”
Another significant change that I made to the paper was the reorganizing of paragraphs to more efficiently and effectively convey my message to the reader. My second paragraph (first body paragraph) of my rough draft was an account of my personal experience of entering a new discourse. Similar to my rough draft introduction, I felt this was too much evidence about myself before providing the evidence of Gee and Cuddy. In my final paper I moved this personal paragraph to fourth body paragraph. I believe this provided more context about Gee and Cuddy before making my argument.
Recursive Process- Evidence 1.)
- Integrate Ideas With Those Of Others
In order to open a dialogue between myself, Gee, and Cuddy, I first had to give both of these authors a voice. I went about doing this by using relevant, clear and concise quotations from each other their respective works. In order to discuss “Discourses” I first had to introduce and explain exactly what they were. I did this by introducing Gee, explaining his theory of entering discourses, and finally using a highly relevant quote of himself explaining what a discourse is.
“James Paul Gee, a psycholinguistic and Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist have both published works on what it means to blend into your environment and how one can successful enter a discourse. As James Paul Gee (Gee) says, “Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (Gee 6).”
Furthermore, to provide an in depth view and show specific examples of the Gee theory that I am engaging, I quote Gee’s example of asking for a cigarette at a bar. I believe this is one of the most insightful quotes that Gee has to offer. It offers insight into a real world scenario in which discourse fluency is vital. This quote can be seen below. I go on to discuss this quote as it pertains to Gee’s strong belief in using proper grammar. I reference the mans improper speech patterns when asking for a match, and how it turns out poorly because he says the wrong thing.
Later on in the paper I begin to lay out the opinions of Cuddy by quoting her theory of a non-handshake by the president of the United States. To highlight the key ideas of Cuddy I contrast her theory with that of Gee’s strict belief on entering a discourse . This evidence references Cuddy’s belief that quick and conscious shifts in body posture can have a far reaching impact on ones neural state and their potential for action. Following her quote I begin to contrast the ideas of Cuddy and Gee and I offer my own opinion for a true three-way dialogue:
“I can attest to Cuddy’s theory based on my own personal experiences of making judgments based on the outward appearance of others. However, I think to become fluent in a practice or discourse, Cuddy’s practice may not be enough.”
In the later stages of my paper, I attempt to provide more background on my personal experiences and I relate them to the theories of Gee and Cuddy. I begin my final body paragraph by reflecting on my own experiences to fully round out my opinion on Gee and Cuddy theories. I take the information and theories from previous paragraphs and quotations and I connect them between paragraphs to my own experience. Here is what this looks like:
“To clearly demonstrate my opinion on the theories of Gee and Cuddy I draw on an experience of mine and how I employed both of their techniques long before I knew they existed.”
I go one to explain my experience of being the youngest player on my high school hockey team and how I was able to succeed by deploying the beliefs of both Gee and Cuddy. It is through this exercise that I discover the best practice for entering a discourse is a hybrid between both Gee and Cuddy’s theories.
- Active Reading, Critical Reading, and Informal Reading Response
Active and critical reading is the very foundation from which an understanding and relationship with a text begins. It is the process of taking in the new ideas and beliefs from an author and comparing them against your own or even a second text. Taking notes, finding third party definitions and engaging with peers are all key to actively and critically engage in reading.
While actively and critically reading and engaging with the works of Gee and Cuddy I began by asking questions and looking for definitions of words and concepts that make up their arguments. For example, without an understanding of what the difference is between “discourse” or “Discourse”, I stood no chance of actively engaging with the text of Gee. Similarly, it was crucial for me to understand what Cuddy meant when she referred to “non-verbals”, before I dared to engage in a conversation with her. Several examples of my active engagement with the works of both Gee and Cuddy can be seen below.
In “Active and Critical Reading- Example 1” you can observe the foundational notes that I took to understand Cuddy and her theories and how they related to that of Gee. My annotations highlight Cuddy’s key points of the significance that body language play for our own minds and the minds of others. Her theories of power poses and dominant non-verbals give me the evidence that I am looking for to contrast her beliefs to that of Gee.
Active and Critical Reading- Example 1
Meanwhile, I began to make a vocabulary list as soon as I started reading Gee. His discussion of “discourses” and the several different type of discourses were all too much just to keep in my head or the margins of the paper. I wrote, defined and referenced with a page number, nine different type of discourses discussed by Gee. This aided me in having a thorough understanding about what his theories were, so I could begin to compare them to Cuddy’s and my own. These definitions and page references can be seen in “Active and Critical Reading- Example 2” below. In my note taking it also became very apparent that Gee had a differing opinion from Cuddy on the ease with which one could enter a discourse. He seemed reluctant to the idea someone could enter a discourse without years of practice and even having an apprenticeship. My notes on Gee’s opinion and concepts can be seen below. Highlighting Gee’s opinions and stance gave me a clear direction on how to compare them to Cuddy’s beliefs. Lastly I just needed to add my own thoughts and voice to engage equally with Gee and Cuddy.
Active and Critical Reading- Example 2
- Critique Own and Other’s Work
Once ideas are formed and the writing process begins, it is invaluable to engage in peer review and editing with others. Engaging in this process with someone who is working on the same project, such as a professor or fellow student, can be especially beneficial as they are familia with the material and the goal of the assignment.
During the Gee and Cuddy Project I worked with fellow students Theodore Miller and Andrew Progin. I engaged in peer review with both of these students one on one as well as a three person group. I offered both Global and Local feedback to revisions and changes, that I as a reader would recommend. These comments of constructive criticism ranged from idea develop and structure of claims, to more detailed grammatical and punctuational comments. Evidence of this work with Teddy and Andrew can be seen below.
In this screen shot below, there is evidence of two type of comments that I made to Teddy. The first being a correction made to clarify exaclty what type of discourse Teddy was referring to. Initially he has structured it as a discussion around little “d” discourse, referring to the greater more general discourse. However upon review with Teddy this really should have been a discussion involving big “D” discourse. Teddy was introducing Gee in this part of his introduction and was trying to convey the different type of Discourses to the reader. An error on the type of “big” or “small” discourse in this part of his paper would have been detrimental to the understandability of the topic. By peer reviewing this error with Teddy, him and I were able to make it clear to the reader and strengthen his paper.
Also seen in this screen shot, is a type of more local, grammatical revision. I recommended the change of “i’m” to “I’m”. This type of error is small and typically caught by word processing programs. However, by chance that it is not seen, a reader can be put off by a small error like this and question the legitimacy of the greater ideas and claims.
Below is another screen shot, of two similar errors, one Global and one Local. This time I worked with Teddy in making text-to-self connection. He had properly introduced the Gee and Cuddy at this point and he now making a claim at the end of his conclusion introducing himself into the conversation. I gave Teddy a bit more feedback as well in our conversation that I felt he could offer a bit more detail in exactly how “I can’t help but think how it relates to my life, and my methods of advancing in the realms I hope to improve in.” I think if he can offer a bit of insight to how he relates to these ideas of Gee and Cuddy he might draw the reader in a little more.
Also seen in this screen shot is another type of Local revision. I recommended a changing of “there” to “their”, to show the possessive nature of the ideas to Gee and Cuddy. This is a small correction, but left uncorrected it could lead a reader to question the legitimacy of his greater ideas and claims.
- Document Work Using Appropriate Conventions
When formatting a paper, standardization in format, style, and usage is important for consistency and readability. When writing this paper I used the Modern Language Association (MLA) format and style. This is a unified way of styling written works, citing and referencing sources, and much more. Prior to writing this paper my knowledge and usage of the MLA format was relatively limited. However, this paper challenged me to propose quotations in new ways such as the block quote. Having to learn new way to cite authors was a tedious task, but organizing citations and making the source easily understandable is crucial to conveying the information to the reader.
In this project I worked to use block quotes, signal phrases with and without the authors name, and a works cited page. For the most part I was very close with my citations. I did however, make a few mistakes with where I placed the period relative to the end of the sentence and the authors name in parenthetical’s. Examples of my usage can be seen below. Using a block quote was the optimal usage of MLA because the quotes were longer than four lines. Block Quotations Used to Cite Gee and Cuddy:
Amy Cuddy Block Quote
James Paul Gee Block Quote
In using these block quotes I did experience a little bit of trouble when it came to punctuation. I placed the period as the very last symbol in the sentence. When in actuality, it should been placed before the cited authors name.
Examples
Wrong: “… but what you are and do when you say it (Gee 5). “
Right: “… but what you are and do when you say it. (Gee 5) “
Another key element to MLA styling when referencing works in a written paper is creating a works cited page. Professor Cripps described my works cited page as “pretty close”, but recommended having a growth mindset and working to improve it in the spring semester. One error that I made with my works cited page was not using quotation around the title of Gee’s work “Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: An introduction”. Also I failed to put Journal of Education in italics, for it is the greater work in which Gee published his writing. Lastly, the cited works on my works cited page were not in alphabetical order. Given that there are only two sources used in my paper this is not an issue. However, in the future it can be difficult to locate a cited work if there are several and they are not alphabetized.
- Control Individualized Error Patterns
One of the main objectives moving from the rough draft to the final draft was reducing error frequency and refining the readability of the paper by correcting punctuation and grammatical errors.
One type of Error Pattern that I have recognized in myself is the misuse of comma in compound and complex sentences. These errors make the sentences difficult to read and inhibit the flow of the reader. An example of this error can be seen below, as well as the corrected version in my final draft.
Rough Draft Error
Final Draft Correction
In the later stages of my paper I begin to draw out my own thoughts and opinions as a third voice amongst Gee and Cuddy. In one of the most pivotal points in my paper, I begin a paragraph with a complex sentence that is missing a comma. Therefore, it feels like a run-on sentence and takes away from significance of my view and argument.
Rough Draft Error
Final Draft Correction
