Reading Responses
Course Outcome(s): Generating Inquiry, Revision
This was my first reading response, while I did it later than I should have this reading really helped me understand that research is about joining an ongoing conversation and how to ask meaningful conversations within that space. I also reflected heavily on how my inquires should come from personal interest, a big part of the reason I chose retro gaming as my research project later on in the semester! It also made me focus on the importance of revision, its a very key part of the research.
Course Outcome(s): Generating Inquiry, Contributing Knowledge
In this second reading response I learned that research isn’t something specifically for academics roles, but comes naturally in different community situations. Like the example I listed in the reading response, my club at school Hack@UCF shares its knowledge through conversations, writeups, and gatherings, really embodying a research community, though I didn’t know it at the time. It really made me focus and understand how different communities define expertise and how shared community language can shape meaningful and effective conversations.
Course Outcomes(s): Multiple Ways of Writing, Research Genre Production
This third reading response really made me think critically on how different genres are not only shaped by, but also shape the communities that utilize them. Retro gaming is what I used for examples, I talked at great length about fan translations and READMEs to try and connect academic theory with real world examples. I really built my personal understanding of what different forms of writing exist outside of academic areas, and the fact that its tied to cultural values.
Course Outcome(s): Information Literacy, Revision, Contributing Knowledge
In my fourth reading response, I talked about my coding process for qualitative data, specifically analyzing fan-made texts like READMEs, forum posts, and ROM hacking logs. I talked a bit about the ethical practices like how I tried to anonymize contributors and really trying to avoid biased representation of data! I also talked about a big challenge I faced in my own personal research was trying to interpret the meaning of certain ambiguous data.
Course Outcome(s): Multiple Ways of Writing, Contributing Knowledge, Information Literacy
This fifth reading response talked about and compared Diab’s and Gagich’s works on multimodal composition. A big takeaway from this is I learned that not all writing is just plaintext, it goes so much further than that. Its about engaging with the widest audience you can through the use of multiple modes like visuals, structure, and audio. I tied this to my own personal research project by reflecting how I would use different tools (clear headers, audio, visuals) to make sure my work was more accessible to a wider range of people! I also posed a great question on how can we balance creativity with ethical responsibility, something I incorporated into my final project
Course Outcome(s): Revision, Contributing Knowledge, Research Genre Production
This sixth and final reading response talked a lot about the challenges I faced when writing my first technical blog post for a writeup for Hack@UCF. My way of approach for the audience that I was trying to convey information to didn’t hit the mark as intended, but peer feedback allowed me to better rework the article into something worth reading. Through that challenge I was able to take a better approach, more technical, more visual examples and I was able to be fairly successful on my other way around. I also learned how to analyze professional’s works within the umbrella of information security to help better adapt my own writing style to the audience I was catering to. The experience really helped me understand the importance of knowing your audience when writing, and I believe that this will help me in my future career later down the line