Kantz_Discussion1030

Kantz Reading Discussion

Kantz is arguing that work must be done on the theoretical pedagogy of research papers and that previous work into how student do synthesis tasks has not helped teachers understand.

Kantz is speaking to an audience of teachers and calls on them to teach the complicated issue of understanding sources and how they relate.

Kantz uses the idea of Encoder, Decoder and Reality to explain the rhetorical situation.

Discussion Questions:


 * 1.** **Krantz writes that Shirley “believes that facts are what you learn from textbooks, opinions are what you have about cloths, and arguments are what you have with your mother when you want to stay out late at night.” What does Krantz contend that facts, opinions, and arguments actually are?**

//krantz uses a fictitious character in her writing named alice to help her friend with a paper with an unsatisfactory grade. This fictitious character represents a “voice of reason” and gives insight to good writing strategies to her friend. Alice said that all those statements (facts, opinions, and arguments) are all claims She then goes on to say that the audience perception of the statement defines it as one of the three.//

//Kantz is saying that facts, opinions, and arguments are all apart of research. Shirley has an elementary view on these research concepts. Do not just look for facts when doing research. research is finding argument and opinions on a subject, then you can formulate your own opinions and arguments .//

2.**Make a list of the things Kantz says students don’t know, misunderstand, or don’t comprehend about how text work. Judging from your own experience, do you think she’s correct? how many of the things she list do you feel you understand now?**

//krantz feels that students do not know how to read looking past the story, that they disregard factual differences and falsely conclude there is only one right answer, and students do not understand the purpose and the writers motives. I do feel she is correct because in my personal observations I find myself reading text as a story and look for the main idea, topic, and maybe a thesis. I sometimes look into why things were written in such a way, but that normally only happens when a statistic is stated. When I do come across a difference in fact reporting that does trigger my thinking and I do look into who is writing and there motives. Finally, to often I do not take the author into consideration when reading the text and only look at the information assuming the author would not have any bias. This, of course, is a flaw on my part which adds to the stereotype Krantz has given to students.//

4**.** **Do you think Krantz contradicts herself when she says that we should think of sources neither as stories nor as repositories of truth? Explain why or why not.**

No, I do not think that she contradicts herself by saying this. I feel going into any reading the reader should have an open mind about the text. The source may have a “big picture” that the author intended the reader to take from the reading and reading as if it was a story would help with getting what the author wanted. But however some text need to be read with a higher train of thought and a reader needs to be conscious of this.

I do not think that Krantz contradicts herself by saying this because she is just trying to give another point of what us as readers should do in order to prepare for what we are about to read. She is just making sure we are open minded about all kinds of texts no matter what we have heard before, we should make our own opinion about everything. Just like the sang "don't just a book by its cover."

//I believe that it is not a contradiction when Kantz explains how sources are neither stories or repositories, because what Kantz whats to get across is that sources are not just informative, but that a person need to look into a source with more depth, by analyzing no just the source but the encoder, decoder, and reality of the situation being looked into. //

6**.****Yes, personally I have not been reading text with a purpose before. I was Krantz stereotypical student in that I only read for the main idea of the text. Now I want to try and see the meaning of the text and the rhetors mission in as why they wrote what they did. In order to understand more writings I realize I need to read in such a manner that Krantz suggest**

Yes, personally I have not been reading text with a purpose before. I was Krantz stereotypical student in that I only read for the main idea of the text. Now I want to try and see the meaning of the text and the rhetors mission in as why they wrote what they did. In order to understand more writings I realize I need to read in such a manner that Krantz suggest

- Yes Kantz's ideas have changed my approach. I realized that I must adapt the way I read texts according to the content. Changing the way I read should enable me to be more effective in my research and writing habits.

-I feel like my approach before reading Kantz's wasn't perfect but it was at least somewhat effective. I enjoy politics which means I've come to realize that everyone has an alterior motive. Before this article I would usually be skeptical of the purpose behind the article just because i'm accustomed to skum bag politicians who always have a hidden agenda.

-Kantz's article definitely described the average student's writing style, with just outlining the facts in front of us into our own words and calling it a paper which lacks a "unique argument". This article brought that to my attention and in my future writing I feel like I will be better prepared to form my own opinion with the facts that are given to me and advocate it throughout the paper. 