Considering Types

In this blog post, I will consider different types of public arguments I can use for project 3.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/28/15

I am mostly considering a position and proposal argument for project 3. I feel like a position argument is versatile and fits all the needs of my argument. The only downside is the lack of a specific idea that I am bringing forth. This is where the proposal argument shines. In a proposal argument, I would be able to give my own idea on computer science education and defend it using all the toosl we've already learned. In the end, I am likely to choose the proposal argument. So many people give position arguments that are repetitive and highly unnecessary. With a proposal, I have a chance at making a legitimate impact on computer science education.

EDIT:

After reading Chelsea's Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types posts, it is apparent that Chelsea is on the right track using a refutational argument for project 3. Chelsea is choosing to focus on the negatives in aerosol injection. Therefore, an argument refuting the pros of aerosol injection and its overall benefit is perfect.

After reading Casey's Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types posts, I understand her choice to use a position argument. It makes the project simple and familiar. However, I feel like a proposal argument might be more effective. Personally, when any argumentative piece gives an alternative to what is currently available, I automatically give the piece more credit. I think we should always be suggesting new ideas so we may approach a more effective and efficient society.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this blog post, I will completely answer the three following questions regarding, audience, genre, and response/actions. For the genre questions, I will specifically discuss the elements of two different genres I may write in for project 3.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/28/15

1. Audience - I am going to try to persuade young adults invested in public education.

• Knowledge - The audience is not likely to know a great deal about computer science education and the exact logistics of bringing widespread computer science education to schools. Some audience members might have to be convinced of the importance of computer science in the first place.
• Values - This audience values education and optimizing the opportunities we give our future generations. This is very important to address and understand when I construct an argument aimed at this audience.
• Standards of Argument - I think research on the benefits of a diverse education, along with statistics on the relevance of computer science in general should help convince my audience. Little translation should be needed if the statistics are straightforward.
• Visual Elements - My audience might respond to some illustrated statistics about the need for computer science students. This will put the matter of computer science education into a more clear perspective.
• Purpose - My audience is reading my argument because they care about public education. I'm trying to expose the truth behind implementing computer science education into public schools. My argument is (hopefully) likely to motivate my audience to push for more resources in our public schools to teach computer science with.

2. Genre

• Blog (Example 1, Example 2)
• This genre is designed to give the reader fast information. The blog avoids all the formalities of formal writing and gets right to the meat of the argument. 
• This genre is exclusively used online.
• I'm likely to use the three main rhetorical appeals, especially logos. This topic is about education, so I should speak intelectually.
• Graphs and other illustrated statistics are effective in this genre
• I will use a more informal tone in this genre
• Video (Example 1, Example 2)
• This genre is designed to give lots of visual information, as well as audio. It's very effective in attracting a large audience, since a video is easy to consume.
• This genre takes place online, mostly.
• In a video, emotional and logical appeal are most prominent. The abilitiy to have constant visuals caters to these appeals best.
• Lots of powerful images and video clips on computer science are most effective in this specifc setting.
• This genre can be either formal or informal. If I choose this genre, I will take an informal tone.

3. Responses/Actions

• Positive Reactions
• Excitement for the future of computer science
• Sense of urgency to change how we teach computer science and improve our current resources for teaching it
• Greater involvement in local politics in order to change how we teach computer science
• Learning computer science 
• Negative Rebuttals
• "Everyone deserves to learn computer science right now" / Of course, in an ideal world, eveyrone would be able to learn computer science right now. Unfortunatley, most schools don't have the resources to teach computer science on a large scale. We need to attack the root of the problem which is a lack of computer science experts in our schools.
• "Computer science is not important" / In the United States, the number of computer science jobs is three times greater than the number of computer scientists students today. Nearly every company will rely on some kind of computer, and we need computer scientists to manage them.
• "Computer science takes too much money to teach" / While it is optimal to teach computer science using nice, new technology, it is not necessary. It's actually quite possible to learn the basics of computer science using just a paper and pencil.

Analyzing Purpose

In this blog post I will answering four questions given by the section titled "Thinking through the Purpose of Your Public Argument".

Screenshot from my computer, 10/28/15

1.Goals:

• Express my own, unique opinion on the overall issue of computer science education
• Express ideas that big media producers aren't willing to say (controversial statements)
• Express the complications that come with universal implementation of computer science education programs

2.Plausible:

• Get reader thinking about ideas I express about the complications about computer science education
• Start to convince readers of opinions I express

  Not Plausible:

• Completely convince readers of my opinions
• Change the way we approach computer science education as a whole

3. "Express the complications that come with universal implementation of computer science education programs"
   
Potential effects

• Increased awareness of complications stemming from computer science education
• Calls by citizens to their local government about the future of computer science education in our schools
• Petitions to change the way we teach and approach computer science education

4. The types of people most likely to advance my cause are young adults who are invested in the public education system and young students interested in education. Those young adults are more open and liberal than the average citizen. Therefore, they are more likely to accept what I have to say and act upon the ideas I express. Young students are unlikely to take strong, direct action on the matter of computer science education, but if I can influence the way they think, they could advance my cause.

Analyzing Context

In this blog post I will be answering detailed questions on items related to the "Reading the Context" Box on Writing Public Lives page 340.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/28

1. There are two main perspectives on the subject of computer science education. One group is those who believe it should be more widely implemented in our education systems, and the other is those who believe more computer science education is unnecessary. These ideas are represented well in this article.
2. Major points of contention are the practicality of implementing computer science education in all public schools, costs, and necessity.
3. The growing need for computer science professionals is an area that both groups can agree on. It's widely accepted that the market for computer scientists is growing rapidly and needs more people to enter that workforce.
4. The ideological differences are widely based around how strict our requirements should be to obtain a high school degree or graduate lower level schooling systems. Some believe that the requirements should include some kind of computer science benchmark, while others don't think it's fair to have.
5. Those arguing for more computer science education urge their audience to reach out to their local government to bring more computer science requirements to their schools. Those arguing against this general increase in computer science requirements urge their audience to see the logistical flaws in implementing computer science requirements into our public schools.
6. I chose the latter perspective moreso than the former. I chose this because, while I believe that computer science education is critical to have, it does not seem like we are currently equipped to require all schools to teach computer science.
7. I think the perspective stating computer science education is necessary will represent the greatest threat to my own. There are valid points to be made about the desperate need for computer science students.

EDIT:

After reading Evan's and Lawrence's posts, I learned a few things about how this project could work out. After reading Evan's, I learned that others are studying a similarly broad debate. Outsourcing is a very large and diverse topic, much like computer science education. Lawrence's post showed me the opposite. Lawrence chose to focus on the reaction to a very specific event. It's interesting that this project can take two distinct forms that still accomplish the common goal of constructing our own public argument.

Audience and Genre

In this blog post I will identify two specific audience groups that may be interested in my research. For each group I will identify publication locations and examples.

Screensshot from my computer, 10/25/15

Parents

Every parent wants the best for their children, and if what I have to say might affect the education of their children, parents are going to listen. Two locations that I might publish my research are online at NY times and WSJ. For both locations, a standard Op-Ed article format would suffice.

• NYtimes.com
• "10 year deadline to offer computer science to all students" 
• "A computer network that links all school districts"
• WSJ.com
• "Artificial skin that knows when it gets touched"
• "Charter Network Makes the Grade in N.J. School"

Educators

Educators, of course, have a passion for teaching others and showing others the beauty of knowledge. If I have something positive to add to the material educators use, educators are likely to pay attention to what I have to say on the matter. Writing a tutorial for ALA.org would be one example of a location and genre for educators. Another example is an article on Edutopia.org.

• ALA.org
• Cloud Computing
• Tablet Computers
•   Edutopia.org
• "Computer Science: The Future of Education"
• "The Pros and Cons of Computer Labs"

Extended Annotated Bibliography

This blog post contains the link to my extended annotated bibliography for project 3.

Annotated Bibliography

Narrowing My Focus

In this blog post, I will narrow my focus on to three of the 15 questions I posed in the previous blog post. I will give a short explanation on why I chose each of these as interesting/important to answer before I craft my argument.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/25/15

Who is most vocal about the way we should approach computer science education in the future?

• I think this is a crucial question to answer for a couple reasons. One, if I don't know what kind of people are arguing about this topic, I don't know how much credibility this debate really has as a whole. Also, if it's someone famous it's important to know their opinion on the matter.

Are most arguements about how we should introduce computer science education or if we should even at all?

• This is by far the most imporant question to answer in regards to constructing my argument. I need to understand exactly what the debate is about to even begin to formulate my own opinion and argument on the matter

What part of the world is most invested in computer science education?

• This question will give me a cultural scope of how this matter is playing out across the world. This is important to know, because if this matter is globally relevant, I need to know that.

Questions About Controversy

In this blog post I will discuss the topic I've chosen to participate in for Project 3. I will also draft a series of questions about this publiuc debate to construct an argument of my own about computer science education.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/25/15

Who

1. What political figures have come forth on the topic of computer science education?
2. How many professionals within computer science have made efforts in the educational realm of the field?
3. Who is most vocal about the way we should approach computer science education in the future?

What

1. What are the varying opinions on the matter?
2. Are most arguements about how we should introduce computer science education or if we should even at all?
3. What is computer science education in the general sense of our society? What types of changes will it cause?

When

1. How long has the debate been ongoing for computer science education?
2. When did computer science education first become relevant?
3. Will computer science education be a hotly debated topic for years to come?

Where

1. Where do these debates take place?
2. Is this conversation on computer science education only relevant in the United States? Just first world countries? Everywhere?
3. What part of the world is most invested in computer science education?

How

1. How are professional computer scientists represented in the media?
2. How was this issue first addressed and brought to the public eye?
3. How has the media latched onto a topic that may not be very interesting to everyone?

Reflection on Project 2

In this blog post I will be reflecting on the revision process I underwent for project 2. Specifically, I will answer nine questions from Writing Public Lives page 520.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/24/15

What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

• From my rough to final draft, I added/changed/removed many things. The biggest thing I added from the original to the final was evidence. My rough draft lacked direct quotations from the text. Another thing I added was smoother transitions. Going from one paragraph to the next was not smooth until the final draft.

Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

• My thesis changed to better fit the topic of arguments in computer science. My organization was originally done well, so I made few changes in that regard.

What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

• Fully addressing the topic was what led me to changing my thesis. Before revision, the thesis did not address the larger purpose of the paper.

How do these changes affect your credibility as an author? 

• These changes did not change my credibility per se. The changes did, however, make the paper more clear and effective as a whole.

How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

• These changes better addressed the audience's interests and reasons to read the paper by explicitly stating what the paper would cover. The audience, after all, is reading the paper to better understand how computer scientists construct arguments. 

Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

• In terms of sentence structure, I did not reconsider heavily. The style of my paper did not change drastically either. The changes I made were focused around adding evidence and connecting big ideas.

How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

• These changes help the reader understand understand my purpose by better explaining the points I make within the body paragraphs of the paper. In reality, the introduction and conclusion are the primary ways in which I reveal my purpose, but the body paragraphs reinforce my purpose.

Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

• I did not really have to reconsider the conventions of this genre. Rhetorical analysis are a large part of high school English, so this assignment came more naturally.

Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

• Reflection forces me to evaluate myself on a specific level as a writer. I would never reflect this deeply about my writing if I wasn't forced to in an assignment like this

Reflection:

After reading Chelsea's and Chloe's reflections, I realized we had similar experiences in some regards, but different experiences in other ways. For example, Chelsea's thesis stayed the same throughout both drafts. This is quite the opposite of what I did, considering my thesis changed drastically from first to final draft. In Chloe's reflection, she talked about how she went back and re-read her article to gain new perspective on how to write her analysis. I can relate to this, as I watched the TEDx talk I analyzed many many times to get the best idea of how to approach this project.

Project 2

Here we are, friends. The link to my final draft of project 2 is directly below.

L I N K

Screenshot from my computer, 10/24/15

Punctuation, part 2

In this post, I will examine three more punctuation topics from the punctuation section of Rules for Writers.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/24/15

The apostrophe

This section was a good review for apostrophe usage. I knew most of the intricacies of the apostrophe, but this section reinforced my prior knowledge. When revising, I will look at each case of apostrophe usage and make sure I used it correctly. 

Unnecessary commas

I have a tendency to be a bit of a "comma queen" when it comes to writing. Often times my sentences will be difficult to understand when they have unnecessary commas. This section helped remind me to keep a specific eye out for this cardinal sin. In the revision stages of my writing, I will be sure to pay special attention to unnecessary commas.

Quotation Marks

Historically, quotation mark usage has given me trouble. This section gave me clarification on a lot of subtleties when using quotation marks. Specifically, the portion about quoting within a quote was very helpful. I never understood how the single quotes were supposed to be used until after reading this section. I will go back into my draft and make sure all the quotes have been appropriately punctuated. 

After reviewing my draft, with these specific punctuation topics in mind, I caught some errors within my writing. I also saw correct usage of these topics.

This is an example of correct usage of quotations. 

• The only mention of his own credibility is that he has a “successful career in the tech industry”.

It was reassuring seeing the quotations had been used correctly. If I need to quote something within a quote, I will be sure to correctly use single quotes.

This is an example of unnecessary commas.

• Sparing use of firm, unsettling statistics will grab the audience’s attention, more than anything else in a piece of computer science rhetoric.

This was one of a few instances in my draft where I had unnecessary commas. I need to focus on correctly using commas next time I write. While having too many commas is not always terrible, repeated violations can seriously hurt to flow and effectiveness of your writing.

Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2

In this blog post I will link a paragraph analysis of project 2. I will also write a reflection on what I learned about the strengths and weaknesses of my documents paragraphs.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/17/15

From carrying out a pargraph analysis for my project 2 draft, I learned a couple important things. Something that I already knew, but was reinforced by the paragraph analysis was my lack of smooth transitions. Within my paragraphs, I lack smooth transitions, and more importantly, my paper does not effectively flow from one paragraph to the next. Another thing I learned was that I need more evidence within each body paragraph. I focus well on the main point, but the main point would be better developed in each paragraph if I include more direct quotes from the original TEDx talk.

Revised Conclusion

In this blog post, I will do the same thing I did with the previous blog post, except with my conclusion. I will rewrite the conclusion section of project 2 and explain why the new version is superior to the original.

Once again, I would not say the revised conclusion is stricly superior to the original version. However, the revised version does answer the question of "So What?" more effectively. I explicitly tell the reader how they should apply what they have just read in both versions, but the new version is more effective.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/17/15 

Original:

To conclude, a computer science argument needs many elements to persuade the audience. Humor, appeals to logic, and metaphors are just a few of those crucial elements. Partovi might consider reading this guide to computer science rhetoric before writing his next speech. Each of you new computer science students should keep this guide in mind as well. Never overlook these elements in computer science rhetoric that you consume, and especially do not overlook them when writing your own arguments in the field of computer science.

Revised:

While Partovi's TEDx talk was far from the ideal emobidement of computer science rhetoric, Partovi's speech had many of the rhetorical elements commonly found in computer science arguments. Partovi's attempts at logical appeal via statistics, appeals to his own skills as a computer scientist, and use of metaphors to explain central ideas are all standard when constructing an arguement within this field. When consuming the latest arguments within computer science, refer back to this guide. More importantly, remember this guide when you write your own arguments down the road.

Revised Introduction

In this blog post, I will rewrite my initial introduction. With the new introduction, I will focus on abiding by the guidelines expressed in pages 52-3 of Student's Guide. I will then explain why my new introduction is superior to the original.

While I wouldn't call the revised introduction strictly better than the original, the revised version does abide by the guidelines established in Points 1, 2, and 3 more than the original. The new introduction also gives background information on the topic covered in the public speech act. My original introduction was lacking this element entirely, and I think that's the largest flaw of the original that I fixed in the revised version.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/17/15

Original:

The rhetorical elements of an argument within the field of computer science are unique from the elements of any other type of argument. The specific cultural context of the argument, audience, speaker, and message the speaker is trying to convey will shape how the author forms his argument. In this paper, I will explain exactly how a member of the computer science academic field would construct their argument to effectively persuade their audience of something. Hadi Partovi’s method is unique, since his public speech act was a TEDx talk as opposed to a scientific journal entry. Nonetheless, Partovi still uses conventions such as appealing to his own credibility, presentation of compelling statistics, and a myriad of other tactics to make his argument as agreeable as possible.

Revised:

It is incredible that public speech acts have been used to persuade audiences for thousands of years. What's even more incredible is how little rhetorical strategies have changed. In an ongoing debate regarding computer science education, many voices come forward to give their take on how we should educate today's youth. In Hadi Partovi's TEDx talk on computer science education, Partovi attempts to combine appeals to his own abilities, compelling statistics regarding computer science education, and several other rhetorical strategies to specifically appeal to the upper-middle class audience of the Seattle, Washington area.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In this blog post, I will reflect on my draft of project 2. Specifically, I will review what the peer editing phase of this project taught me.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/17/15

After reviewing Bri's and Elliot's rough draft of the rhetorical analysis, I learned several things. For the below section, I will answer questions as they appear in order on page 197 of the Student's Guide.

1. I have an identifiable thesis. It points to specific rhetorical strategies and tools used by my speaker. I don't think my thesis needs much revisement, if any.

2. I organized my essay by using each body paragraph to directly address one specific part of the argument. Each paragraph definitely has a central point that is supported with lots of evidence and analysis.

3. I clearly identify and analyze several different elements of the text's rhetorical situation and structure. Each body paragraph is devoted to identifying and analyzing one specific element of the rhetorical piece.

4. I did explain why certain rhetorical stratgies. In fact, I addressed that specfic aspect of each rhetorical element I touched on. I then discuss each effect these strategies have on the audience and for the piece as a whole.

5. The one aspect really lacking in my draft is evidence. I have lots of analysis and assertions, but limited evidence. I plan on going back and adding direct quotes from my public speech act in order to back up what I have to say.

6. I believe I leave my reader with new knowledge that they will want to apply. I don't think I necessarily leave them wanting more. I'm not sure if that's the most relevant goal when writing this type of paper. I absolutley answer the classic "so what" question in my conclusion. I tell my audience why what I'm saying is important and how they will/should use it in the future.

Punctuation, Part 1

In this blog post, I will be discussing three punctuation topics that I read about in Rules for Writers.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/17/15

: Colon :

The colon is a unique tool in that it allows you to set up a list. Since I'm not very confident in my usage of colons, I never really use them in my writing. After reading the section on colons, I will likely implement more commas where appropriate. 

; Semicolon ;

The semicolon is another tool that I rarely, if ever, use. I've never been confident in its usage so I just avoided it. However, since I use lots of compound sentences, the semicolon could be an invaluable addition to my writing. After reading the section on semicolons, I feel more confident in my ability to effectively use them.

!?. End Punctuation .?!

Of course, after years of using end punctuation, I am confident using them. Reading the section on end punctuation was good reinforcement of what I knew already, but having used end punctuation for so long, I didn't learn much new information from the section on end punctuation.

Reflection

After reading Bri's and Elliot's rough draft of the rhetorical analysis, I reinforced some of things I learned about punctuation. Within these two drafts I peer edited, neither colons nor semicolons were used. This is why I only looked at end punctuation examples.

Bri's use of end punctuation

"[H]ow do we fix the problem without causing more harm than good in the American economy?"

In this example, Bri effectively used a different type of end punctuation from the standard period. After posing a question, you need a question mark. This was not new knowledge to me, but seeing the question mark effectively used in Bri's rhetorical analysis reinforces its usefullness as end punctuation.

Elliot's usage of end punctuation

"Physics has many uses in fields from biology and chemistry all the way down to sociology."

This is a classic usage of end punctuation. After a declamatory statement, Elliot uses the period correctly. We've all practiced this thousands of times, so there's not much else to say. Elliot used end punctuation well throughout his entire draft.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

EDIT: I have fixed the link! It now brings you to a version anyone can comment on!

In this blog post, I will link my oh-so-wonderful draft of my rhetorical analysis.


Dear Peer Editors,

Please destroy my analysis. Don't feel bad about telling me if even the tiniest thing is wrong or awkward or ineffective. This is a very rough draft so I need a lot of help to bring it up to the final draft status. If anyone is curious about the exact public speech act, here is a link to the original TEDx talk.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/13/15

Practicing Summary & Paraphrase

In this blog post I will be practicing summary and paraphrasing. From this text, I will pick out a lengthy, significant quote to practice paraphrasing on.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/13/15

Original Source

"When I went to school, every student learned how to dissect a frog every student would learn how electricity works, every student would learn how to prove a basic theorem. And this isn’t because we want to become biologists, or electricians, or mathematicians, not every kid goes into those careers. it’s to learn how the world around us works."

My Paraphrase of Original Source

In "Computer Science is for Everyone", Partovi reflects on the way education worked when he was a student. He believes that even if you don't go into certain professions, it's important to learn about things such as the internet, electricity, and anatomy.

My Summary of the Original Source

In his TEDx talk, Partovi emphasizes the importance of learning applicable skills in school, even if you don't use those skills in your professional career.

Project 2 Outline

In this blog post I will outlining my rhetorical analysis. The outline will cover topics such as the introduction, thesis body paragraphs, analytical claims and conclusion. I will also include a paragraph explaining how pages 122-5 of Writing Public Lives informed the choices I made in my outline.

Pages 122-5 of  Writing Public Lives gave interesting advice on topics for the following outline. With the introduction specifically, the reading helped me understand that I need to focus less on the actual issue, and more on the actual text. For thesis and analytical claims, I learned to take any analytical claims I have about the text and place them into the theses. In the body paragraphs, I will then elaborate on these claims and give evidence to back them up. Finally, the conclusions will wrap up my opinions on the text as a whole.

Outline

• Intro
• introduce background information on computer science education in the past and present
• introduce the goal/main point of the speech
• introduce the primary rhetorical strategies used by Partovi (the speaker)
• briefly touch on the cultural context surrounding the speech
• Thesis
• "In his TEDx talk, Hadi Partovi employs extensive use of logical appeal, along with appeals to his own credibility to convince his educated adult audience of the importance of piquing an interest in computer science in all students."
• Body Paragraphs
• Discuss use of logical appeal and its effectiveness
• Discuss use of emotional appeal and its effectiveness
• Discuss use of appeals to credibility
• Discuss how well all of these appeals worked together to prove main point
• Analytical Claims
• Slight disconnect between personal tragedy and rest of speech
• Very effective example with Ahman and Rahel
• Effective use of statistics/graphs, especially "half as many women in cs now"
• growth of Demand for cs grads is 3 times growth of cs students
• Gives immense credibility by mentioning the hour of code was introduced by Obama and on front page of google, everyone knows those things and will be impressed by that
• Use of the "seed" metaphor is a great visual for explaining the effectiveness of the hour of code
• Partovi understands his immediate audience is mostly adults/parents. uses many great references to kids, targeting the emotional appeal in parents
• Conclusion
• Recap the primary rhetorical strategies used and how effective each was
• Leave with a closing statement about how rhetoric within computer science works

EDIT:

After reading Alex's and Swati's outlines, I learned a few things. The main thing I learned was how extensive an outline can be. Swati's outline was especially thorough and well done. I plan on improving my outline after seeing effectively done her's is. After reading Alex's outline, I learned that there are other styles of outlines aside from the conventional use of bullets. Alex wrote more of his thoughts and plans out for each part of the analysis and plans on filling in the details later.

Draft Thesis Statements

In this blog post I will write a few potential working theses for my rhetorical analysis. I will then analyze each statement and discuss potential benefits and drawbacks of trying to develop each of the statements.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/13/15

1. In his TEDx talk, Hadi Partovi emphasizes the idea of a "seed" that computer science education plants in young students all around the world. Partovi's metaphor and use of logical appeal are specifically aimed at convincing his educated adult audience of the importance of computer science education.

• This thesis might be hard to work off of when explaining the "seed" concept. Explaining that in a brief and clear manner could pose a challenge. There are also parts of this thesis that would make writing the analysis easy. Writing about Partovi's use of logical appeal and his audience would be relatively simple.

2. In his TEDx talk, Hadi Partovi employs extensive use of logical appeal, along with appeals to his own credibility to convince his educated adult audience of the importance of piquing an interest in computer science in all students.

• This thesis is easier to work off of since it doesn't explicitly cover the "seed". I could cover that topic in a much broader way and not go into detail about that. Also, writing about logical appeals and appeals to credibility should be very simple.

EDIT:

After reading Elliot's and Chloe's blog posts, I have some new ideas for structuring my own theses. Elliot in particular did a good job of being clear in his theses by listing elements of the text that were ineffective. I forget to do this in my own theses and I will likely alter my own now. Chloe's theses were very similar to mine. She wrote two theses that were very similar, but in a different sentence form.

Analyzing My Audience

In this blog post I will be ansering the six bulleted questions in the "Identifying Your Audience" section in Student's Guide page 41.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/13/15

• Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?

I'm writing for new and incoming students in the computer science major. The audience is actually lacking beliefs and assumptions about the specific rhetoric of a computer science speech/text. This makes it all the more important for me to do a good job on this analysis!

• What position will they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

The students are likely to take the side of the original speaker on this issue. Of course computer science students have an interest in computer science education and see value in it. There does not need to be a specific response to this position because the position is already perfectly in line with the point the speaker is trying to make.

• What will they want to know?

The students will want to know what the speaker does to effectively argue his point. These students will spend many of their coming years constructing similar arguments and will want to know how to do so in the best way possible

• How might they react to my argument?

The students are likely to be very receptive to the arguments I give in my analysis, especially since they don't have previous experience with this specific type of rhetoric.

• How am I trying to relate or connect with my audience?

I'm trying to relate with my audience through our common interest of computer science. Professional interests are a great medium for connection.

• Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

Ideas such as computer science education and exposure to all areas of computer science will help me relate to computer science students. Most people in the major will have an interest in exploring all elements of the field, and I will be able to relate to the audience in that way.

More Development

After reading a few of my peers posts, I realized that it's important to connect with the audience through informal words or phrases or examples. However, there is a fine line with this strategy. If I become too informal, I could lose credibility, and the overall effectiveness of my analysis is compromised.

Another thing I need to keep in mind is the dominant demographic within the major of computer science. While I should not alienate any demographics in any way, it may be wise to ensure I appeal to the dominant group in some way.

EDIT:

After reading Lawrence's and Hallye's blog post, I learned new things about the how I should approach addressing my audience. Hallye had a great point in saying it is not my job to evaluate the "correctness" of the author's main point. It is, however, my job to analyze how the speaker constructed the argument and how effective it was or was not.

Also, the way Hallye phrased the final question was great. She said it is important to do what you can to connect to the audience, without coming off as too unprofessional. I will take all of these points into account when writing my rhetorical analysis.

Cluster of "Computer Science is for Everyone"

In this blog post I will be sharing the cluster I made for Project 2. I will also briefly explain how I organized my cluster.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/13/15

In my cluster, I broke up key information into three branches. They are rhetorical strategies, rhetorical situation, and cultural context. Within each of these branches, I included lots of detail on specific elements of these branches.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in Computer Science is for Everyone

In this blog post I will be analyzing rhetorical strategies in the TEDx talk "Computer Science is for Everyone". Specifically, I will be addressing the speaker's appeals to credibility, emotion, and logic.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/4/2015

Appeals to Credibility or Character

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Credibility and Character (Ethos)" on page 182 can you recognize in your text?

One item that is immediatley used by the speaker, Hadi Partovi, is a personal story. Partovi actually opens up his talk by retelling aspects of his childhood where he was able to learn computer science while his native country of Iran was at war. Another appeal to credibility comes when Partovi lists his own accomplishments in the technology industry as a computer scientist.

• How and why would the author(s) use these strategies?

Partovi most likely used these stories to give the audience a couple reasons to trust him and what he has to say. If Partovi jumped right into the core of his argument, fewer people would engage with what he had to say and Partovi's goal as a speaker would not be achieved.

• How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author's/authors' credibility and character?

These strategies garner respect from the audience and allow Partovi to speak with authority in regards to education in computer science.

• How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?

The use of these strategies is paramount in increasing the effectiveness of the text's overall message. It's the difference between some random man with a microphone preaching nonsense and an accomplished computer scientist giving an intellectual talk on education.

• Does/do the author(s) seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?

The author could very well have bias towards his topic. A computer scientist is much more likely to promote their field in education than any other person. I would not say this hurts his credibility, but this potential bias prevents Partovi from having the utmost credibility.

Appeals to Emotion

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?

Once again, Partovi's usage of personal stories provide an emotional appeal to his talk. Specifically, Partovi tells the story of him and his whole family suffering through a war that took place very close to their home. Partovi and his family were at constant risk of being bombed when he was a child.

• What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?

The author is attempting to create a sense of discomfort in the audience. If successful in taking the audience out of their comfort zone, Partovi can more easily connect with the audience and instill his ideals in the audience.

• What is the actual result?

I believe this strategy works like I forementioned, but not exactly. This story also just makes the audience sad and upset, which could actually hurt the overall persuasiveness of the talk.

• Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

Some of these emotions, like discomfort and curiousity are effective, while sadness and anger are ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation.

• How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author(s) or the logic of the text?

These emotional appeals definitely give credibility to the author. Knowing the speaker has gone through hardship adds a certain appeal and credibility to what they have to say.

Appeals to Logic

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Logic or Rational Decision Making (Logos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

The organization of the talk was excellent. Beginning by building his credibility, then laying out all the facts, and finishing with his ultimate message was very effective in persuading the audience. Also, use of relevent statistics and graphs contributed greatly to the talks logical appeal.

• What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The author is attempting to create an intellectual stimulation by employing these strategies. Partovi wants the reader to be able to take what he is saying and convince themselves of the things Partovi is saying.

• What is the actual result?

For the most part, I believe this to be the actual result. The audience at a TEDx talk would definitely respond to concrete facts and a clear organization of thoughts.

• Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

These strategies are very effective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation.

EDIT:

After reading Lawrence's and Chloe's posts, I realize that my text is unique in a lot of ways, but similar in many others. For example, Lawrence's text contains personal stories as a way of giving the author credibility, just like in my text. Also, a clear organization of thoughts seems to be universal in effective pieces of rhetoric.

Where my text differs is in the logical appeal. Neither Lawrence's nor Chloe's texts utilized statistics or graphs in their logical appeal. Stats and graphs were very important to the overall effectiveness of my text. Without them, it's much harder to believe in what the speaker has to say.

Analyzing Message in Computer Science is for Everyone

In this post I will be analyzing the overall message in the TEDx Talk, "Computer Science is for Everyone"

Screenshot from my computer, 10/4/2015

Does the author:

1. Express an idea or opinion?
2. Respond to a particular occasion?
3. Inform the reader about a misunderstood topic?
4. Analyze, synthesize, or interpret?
5. Reflect on their topic?
6. Advocate for change?
7. Move the readers to feel a certain way?

From these bulleted points, numbers 1, 6, and 7 are most relevant to my text. Partovi's TEDx Talk focuses on expressing his opinions on computer science education and how we should improve it. Partovi is definitely expressing his ideas and opinions on tha matter, advocating for a change in the way we educate, and moving the audience to feel excitement for computer science.

Of the bulleted points, numbers 2 and 4 are irrelevant to my text. There is no single occasion that Partovi is covering. The growth of computer science has been a long process. There was no big bang of technology that caused it. Also, there's no interpretation or analysis from Partovi in this piece. He's moreso stating his opinion and plans for action to improve our education system the best way he knows how.

I don't believe there are any layers to the message Partovi is portraying. I could be missing something, but in this kind of public speech act it is generally straightforward and clear what the speaker is trying to convey.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

Screenshot from my computer, 10/4/2015

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

I also believe in the importance of a well-rounded, pragmatic education. Specifically, I believe a basic understanding of computer science is important for a student to have. These social values have endured because I understand that being proficient in only one specific realm is not an optimal way to educate oneself.

2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?

I don't disagree with much of the cultural beliefs illustrated in this TEDx talk by Patrovi. I suppose if there's one aspect I don't agree with, it's that the method by which Patrovi suggests (the Hour of Code) we learn computer science. It doesn't seem like one hour of coding will be the best way to introduce computer science to the largest percentage of people.

3. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etf., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?

The text is written in a culture nearly identical to my own. Education is important. Strengthening our future generation and the middle class is important. There are no relevant cultural differences between my own culture and the culture in which the text was written.

4. If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social value, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

My text was written in my culture in the current time. Since this question doesn't really apply to my text I'll discuss how the culture as a whole has changed over time anyways. In the past 10 years, there's been a surge in computer science education as a result of the tech industry blowing up in popularity. More and more companies need computer scientists and we need effective education systems to foster our future workforces.

EDIT:

After reading Alex's and Bri's posts, I learned that many of my classmates' texts were written in either a different culture or time period. For example, Alex's text is a few years old, and therefore doesn't account for many significant events that have occurred in relation to his topic. Also, Bri's text is about New York City, a very different place from Tucson. This made me think about how important culture and time period can be when evaluating a piece of rhetoric. One tiny change in either of these factors can drastically change the way the text functions.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In this blog post I'll be analzying the cultural setting of my text, "Computer Science is for Everyone". Specifically I'll talk about when and where this text is published and how this affects the rhetoric of the text.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/4/2015

1. What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

This TEDx talk was given in the United States, specifically Seattle, Washington. This plays a key role in how the audience is likely to react to a speech on computer science education. In the United States, almost everyone goes through over a decade of education. The audience is likely to be very attentive towards suggestions for improving education. If the talk were given in a country where education is less engrained in society then the audience might not have been receptive to Partovi's ideas.

2. Does the text address these cultural values, belifes, etc., direclty (by directly mentioning and responding to them) or indirectly (by presenting a scenario or narrative that addresses them)?

The text indirectly addresses the audience's interest in education by giving examples of local students and their experiences with insufficient education. Partovi presents two children, one of which goes to a school miles from where the TEDx talk was given. The child, Rahel, goes to a school that just recently implemented computer science education. This concrete example, presented with a picture of the child, gives the audience a real connection to the ideas presented by Partovi.

3. What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?

The text is an address of the beliefs and values of the audience, as well as the current state of our education system. At times, Partovi is critical of our education system and demands very specific changes to the system. However, Partovi also acknowledges the advances that our eduacation system has been able to make in implementing more computer science education. Partovi absolutely is aiming to modify the lack of computer science education in our society.

Cultural Analysis of Computer Science is for Everyone

In this blog post I will be analyzing my text on computer science education for cultural messages. Specifically, I will be answering questions listed for "5." in Writing Public Lives page 83.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/3/2015

Looking through the text, a few cultural keywords that show up throughout are "evolve", "seed", and "education".

"Evolve" is a keyword as it is used to describe the field of computer science and how it is changing our world. One of the many aspects of our world computer science is influencing is our public education systems.

"Seed" is a keyword as it is used to describe how the Hour of Code program (an hour long interactive seminar on computer science) impacts students around the world. Partovi mentioned "planting the seed" in young students several times throughout his text to emphasize the type of education he believes needs to be implemented.

"Education" is the ultimate keyword for this text. Partovi's entire speech is on the importance of our public education system. The way we think about education defines our culture in a very definitive way, and Partovi's constant use of the word education never let's us forget what we're talking about and how important it is.

How do these keywords help support the argument that the author is making? 

These keywords support the argument the author is making by expressing exactly how Partovi feels and thinks about education in regards to computer science. Specifically, the words "evolve" and "seed" help the audience gainer a better understanding of exactly how Partovi wants computer science to be taught in schools

Why might an audience be more likely to support this argument if it is connected to these values?

An audience will likely support an argument connected to the education because most people value an optimal education system. Partovi's speech asserts that education needs to be constnatly evolving and growing as computer science does in order to give our future generations the best chance at success.