The “bad idea” I chose was “The Traditional Research Paper is Best” by Alexandria Lockett. From my first read, I didn’t completely understand the argument proposed by the author. However, going back, it became more clear to me why the author decided to begin the argument by contrasting the “modern” way of writing research papers to the “traditional”. The new and improved research paper does not oblige the student to go through the hassle of commuting to the library, searching for adequate sources, finding and investigating and repeating these steps all over again. Instead, at our fingertips are millions of sources for about any topic you search for on the internet. Yet, that is exactly the problem. The author refers to this abundance of information as a “data deluge.” Is the negative connotation in this term implying something bigger? I believe so. Lockett transitions into a body paragraph saying the word “unfortunately” followed by an explanation of the modern research paper downfalls. One example of such: “Instructors may underestimate the nuances of popular databases and overestimate students’ frequent use of databases as competency. However, Internet research really is a lot of work.” Therefore, one big dilemma is that, rather than approaching the traditional methods of research paper writing, instructors demand a greater number of sources to students that must navigate the “data deluge” of the internet to write their paper. Additionally, students will likely be much more disposed toward plagiarism, since “most people cannot handle the chore of deciphering the data deluge.” As if that weren’t enough, media owning companies’ “data collection practices and [the[ design of these companies’ websites direct users’ attention, which affects their research skills.”

Lockett, however, does not conclude here. The essay continues by entering the “research 2.0” topic. Internet research for a research paper can be used in a more effective way. The instructors must make part of the change, which has a lot to do with attitude. For example, changing the narrow views of Wikipedia and Wikipedia’s use when searching for sources and perspective. Even online writing groups are possible, which are very encouraging to writers. Lockett now concludes: “[…] few educational institutions and disciplines are cultivating the technical, scientific, and artistic competencies necessary for editing, navigating, and managing the Internet’s infinite retrieval mechanisms. When students are taught how to recognize that they have the power to diversify Internet content with high-quality research, the research paper 2.0 could play a major role in balancing the dynamics of knowledge production between traditional
institutions and emerging media.” In other words, the way we approach the “modern” research paper will greatly influence the result and quality of the final paper.

I chose this piece because I’ve had to do research papers in the past, and I was curious to see the author’s point of view on this topic. I agreed 100% with the term “data deluge.” Sometimes, it feels like your drowning in information, but it’s as if your own paper will be one more in the millions of results, so how great can your writing really be. However, the approach suggested by the author, and the change of attitude by students and instructors as well, may very much improve future research papers.

These hardships have without a doubt taught me and plays a part in the person I am today. I have learned to never think that something can’t happen to you. Anything is capable of happening to everyone. You can’t predict what happens and you can’t change what has happened. I have always been pretty independent on my own. I constantly remind myself from time to time that I can do anything if I put my mind and heart into it. Being this independent has really taught me to have faith in myself. I’m pretty content with myself but I would be lying if I said I didn’t want anyone else around me. I love my own company the same way I love other people’s company. Despite all that has happened, there was never a moment that I did not have faith that everything was going to be okay. This past year has also taught me to cherish every moment and day like it is my last. Something so little could change your life in an instant. Instead of fighting to bring moments back or trying to force things to happen the way you want them to, I’ve learned to just accept and live in the now. The past is nothing but photographs and memories. The future is not even here yet. In a way, the only thing that exists is now. You can only control your own perspective. I was once told, “Sometimes in life, temporary struggles are necessary in order to push yourself to continually strive.” In other words, nothing is permanent and what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. A bad day is after all just a day.

I loved John Lewis’s disposition about community. I can relate to myself. I was fascinated to read his article, which made me believe that everything is possible with love and peace. We can hope to have more individuals like John lewis in our society. I love how he is encouraging young people to fight against hate and aggression. Lewis inspires them to use love and peace. Lewis uses his life experience from his childhood until now how many obstacles he had to go through, but he never gave up, fighting against violence. I am inspired, by Lewis’s attitude about life and the power of community. After reading both articles, I could picture clearly how devoted both authors were to their community. I agree with Whitehead’s point of view about how the community changes overnight. Unfortunately, neighborhoods are expanding. As a result, everything around becomes so unfamiliar that one can feel bewildered time to time. He makes a good point when he says that it did not happen overnight, it was disappearing gradually, one only notice when it was gone. The author is proposing to support our neighborhood and try not to neglect it. At the end of the article, he delivers  hope for the future. He states clearly not to judge any behavior until it happens.

From the segment “Bad Ideas on what good writing is” I chose to write on the topic – “You can learn to write in general- by Elizabeth Wardle” where writing is simple is a bad conception. Elizabeth Wardle says how one cannot write something without a specific topic. Every writing experience is different when she writes – “context, audience, purpose, medium, history, and values of the community all impact what writing is and needs to be in each situation”. I agree with her as I feel every writing is intricate and not simplistic. One must study and explore the perspective of different situations or multiple writers to get a better hold in writing. Elizabeth Wardle in her writing implies that everything around us is changing, so is writing. A better writer requires more than a story. A writer should always take into consideration every possible aspect and have a thought process while writing. I chose this topic as I always thought that a good writer can write about anything, they do not need any topic, but after reading the article it gave me a better understanding on how one can improve in writing and reading. This reading made me realize the contradiction of Shakespeare quote – “the pen is mightier than the sword” –I realize the pen itself is not enough to make one an effective writer, practice and prior knowledge in writing might help one to be more successful. A writing speaks a lot about a writer’s perspective than the writer thinks it does. A writing takes a lot of study, research and sophistication as every word matters, it is more than just a thing to do.

After reading the chapter, ” Good Writer Always Follows My Rules,” I was impressed and attracted to the ideas. The following rules usually frustrate the writer. The Regulations do not make the writer a qualified writer. I agree with the author to give freedom to the writer to be more ambiguous and make the reader more interested. I chose this chapter because I can relate to the author myself someways. I am not into writing as a profession, but I think regulations can disorient the writer. Every writer has a technique of writing. Therefore, we have to accept it. The author also states that it is better to use rules with grammar to help the audience understand the correct language. I like how the author includes how to manage the time when one is writing. We should not stop writing. They are encouraging you to find your ways to write. Usually, the results are excellent. I was impressed by how they emphasize writers’ do to judge other individuals writing styles because of their structure. I believe if the writing style is unique, it can make chapters more interesting.

1. I chose to read Texting Ruins Students Grammar by Scott Warnock from Bad Ideas About Writing And Digital Technology. Arthur starts by saying that an old criticism that has been going around since 1975 that bad handwriting has been an issue for many years now a recent criticism came up saying technology is ruining students grammar or worsening. He also addresses the main problem with this bad idea, first is that “Complaints about writing deteriorating because of digital technology are simply part of a history of complaining about the worsening grammar, writing, mechanics, or style of younger generations” (pg 301). Secondly, the definition of grammar in the context is often misunderstood and lastly, the bad idea has no proof to be accurate.
2. The author has done his research and found that in the journal Reading and Writing, researchers studied the relationship between texting and grammar and they found no inconsistency in writings from all different age groups. Another study was made by writing researcher Michaela Cullington, she also says that texting is not affecting students’ use of standard written English, therefore, there is no connection. There has been much other research that has been done on this case and found to have the same results, this proves that texting has no connection to writing.
3. I choose this piece because when I read the title I already had a disagreement that texting is not worsening writing but I still wanted to read to find what the author has to say about this. While reading this chapter I had many agreements with what the author said especially when Warnock said, “perhaps we might instead see the use of digital writing as yet another example of how humans find ingenious ways to make the language” (pg306). I significantly agree because I think that texting is a language, we have a certain language we use to communicate with our partners, friends, and relatives. Texts and writing are two different things with different purposes and functions, texting is meant to be quick, casual, and easy to read without any rules to follow. Writing is meant to be the opposite, it has rules, you need to be conscious, and you need time to think about what you will write.