MbShea@PWP@English@UMCP

Morning!  I am working my way through paper 2 comments.  Recall that I lost the weekend for prime commenting blocks of time, uninterrupted by weekly work.  I am sure you can relate to this work cycle.  My only comment is that many people lapsed in referral links!  Please consider this essential digital composition skill! Links should:

1. establish trust for reader, with details like, date, publication, or other clue about the writers/publication credibility.
2. anticipate the type of platform (pdf, especially large ones, web exhibit, video, etc.)

Remember the LMGTFY memes?  This situation is similar.  You want to NOT DO THIS TO YOUR READER.  Preview FOR THEM, the source footwork/detective assessment.  Another way to think of this task is that YOUR demonstrate your research prowess. 

We can meet here again in the OHitS/AMA from Friday and Monday, last.  I am going to start posting short tasks in your ELMS calendar to move into peer editing mode.  By now, PLEASE think about openings and closings, as well as your three or four point paragraphs. Today, i want to speak about two additional paragraphs that need to be part of your opening cognitive wedge:

• ethos paragraph
• short definition paragraph(s) to transition into your three (or four) main body paragraphs.

ETHOS paragraph, often 2nd or 3rd paragraph i the review is pretty easy to write.  Go ahead, do this soon. The ease of this paragraph content/construction will help you get into the writing (overcome writing blocks):

Citation/ethos/introduce your lead researcher:  in class, we will talk about the conventions of citation in a close read of an article.  Basically, the steps are:

1. first mention, full name (in the ethos paragraph that also introduces the article).
   • (author, date)
2. last name throughout
3. Example:  Marybeth Shea is a professor of technical writing at the University of Maryland. She studies stasis theory in environmental policymaking.  Her research article appears in the Journal of Conservation Biology and is the subject of this review (Shea, 2014). 

Then, in rest of document, refer to the work using the last name:

• Shea's approach...
• Her findings...
• What Shea's inference fails to account for...

---

UP NEXT: what three or four key concepts require definition/description so that your reader can understand the point paragraphs that will occupy the fullest part of your review piece? More on Friday.

This link to the flow chart IS YOUR NEW BEST FRIEND. 

On the weekend, I will open up an Eli Review task for you to capture what you are thinking now about arranging your article review.  This will be due by Wednesday evening, with an Eil Review peer editing/review task to be opened on Thursday AM, with that task due over the weekend.  TBD. You will review SIX people's document plans.

Topic today:  those definitions (remember stasis step two?) necessary to your discussion that should occupy some part of the three paragraph OPENING Cognitive WEDGE. A good way to transition to the definition, is to write an And But Therefore (ABT) statement (meet me in the OHitS/AMA location for some clarity on this formulation.

You can review ABT statements (page 2 in your grid reading doc)  by the Master/Inventor (caution, he lobs an Fudge-bomb in this TEDMED Talk.

Olson holds a PhD in marine science. He left a tenured position to rework the entirety of science communication to, basically, help save all ecosystems.  He is that bold, focused, and big.  By the way, he is a big fan of South Park, using part of their narrative practices.