Class:Section 68, ENG112/Lesson Plans/Day 4/Class:Section 68, ENG112/Lesson Plans/Day 4/Brainstorm

From UMassWiki

In-Class Brainstorm:

Compare what you learned about a classmate from the oral interview and what you learned about about another classmate from an analysis of their writing. Please don't forget to sign!

When I wrote Kate's intro I learned different facts about her life. This was differnet from when I wrote a reflection on who Spike is from his reaction to The Wall, because I thought that I could read more about his experiences in his "new life" as a college student. Eirving 15:10, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

I found that I learned more from reading Jake's "The Wall" essay than I did from having a converstaion with Adam. I learned a lot about Adams likes, dislikes, and background yet i didn't get to learn how he analized topics or how he thinks. The similarites of learning about a person from reading writing and having a converstion is that you are still learning information about a differnt person. I also got to learn how they both viewed music. The differences were that I got to see how Jake thinks as well as have a better understanding of who he was. I was able to learn this by looking at what his views on the movie and life so far was. If I did ask how has your experience been at Umass to Adam, I prorbaly would have gotten a better feel for who he was. In the future I think it would be a great idea to read somebodies writing when trying to understand them as a person rather than interrogate them with questions. nicki 15:14, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

After reading "The Wall" paper, I learned more about the writer's values and morals. Her comparison of college life and the protagonist's life in the movie allowed for me to see her less obvious traits even through her writing style. However, in the interview with Julian, I learned more of his "superficial" traits, things that people are more comfortable with sharing with a complete stranger. Physically talking to someone can give you a completely different impression than reading their work. I enjoyed both ways of getting to know a person,simply because you find out very different information from speaking to someone and reading their work. Julia

The information that I gained from oral interview and from the analysis of their writing was totally different. I gained actual real insight as to who the person was when i read their writing where as when i interviewed them I mearly gained information that anyone could gather within a 3 minute conversation. From reading a persons writing I could tell they were a very moral type of person that valued their family. When I interviewed a classmate the information that I recieved was only surface information that did not show any deep beliefs of the person that make them who they are. Sanowak 15:15, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

There are many diffrences between the oral interview with Kim and what I learned about Ben though his writing. I understood who Kim was through the interview and what she liked doing. I had an understanding of her intrests and who she was briefly. The main diffrence between Kim and Ben, is that I didn't get any of Ben's intrests or hobbies, but I got an understanding of who he was as a person and as a writer. The similarities between the interview and the paper is that both gave me an understanding to an extent of who the person was. Evarney22 Evarney22 15:16, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

When interviewing Emily face-to-face, I learned about her interests and characteristics. I learned facts about her more than who she actually was (if that makes sense). When reading David's reflection on the wall, I got inside of his head and got to see how his brain reacts to things. These two were very different experiences. With Emily I got to learn the concrete facts, whereas I got to learn about Dave's abstract thoughts.Kate 15:17, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

Through the oral interview most of what I learned about my classmate was basic information. This included where they live, how many siblings they have, pets, and hobbies. From this information I was able to learn a little bit about their personality. By reading another person's essay about the Wall I learned a lot about their personality, values, and recent experiences at UMass. Unlike the interview I did not learn anything about their family, hobbies, and where they are from. In some ways I was able to get a better sense of my classmate’s personality and what they were like by reading their essay on the Wall. Kathleenw 15:18, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

When doing the interveiw i was able to learn a lot abotu the person that was mostly fluff and filler. It was how that person veiwed themselves and how they wanted other people to veiw them. However in the Wall essays we were able to see how they interperat things, and rather see thier thoguth process and how they actully were. It was more of an analysis than an interveiw. --Thebriandonnelly 15:19, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

When I did the interview of a classmate, I was able to ask about as many topics as I wanted and this allowed me to really understand the person and get a lot of good feedback. When I read the essay, it limited the amount of information I got and gave me a different type of analyasis. I had to think more about the words that were written on the paper and make an educated guess about what this person might be like. Analyzing the paper also allowed me to get a feel for the person's writing and compare that to her personality. It also gave me more of a chance to express my feelings and think deeper. I enjoyed doing this more than the interview.

MegFon 15:20, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

The differences between the oral interview and the analysis of the Wall essay is that in the interview you can ask any question you want. Finding out personal information or just general background facts is easy. Ask a question, get an answer, done. There is nothing left up to interpretation. The Wall essay is more of a personal relation to a movie, so one finds out intimite facts about the person, but there is no background information. I do not know how they grew up or any other important facts about their life that has help shaped their current views and aspirations. Ahol19 15:20, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

What I learned from the personal interview and what i learned from reading the persons paper was much different. The personal interview was alot more informative, and gave me a good sense of who the person actually was. The paper I read did not tell me who the person was. In the interview, I got direct answers from the person whereas when reading the paper, I had to make assumptions and take small clues to create theories. I can honestly say, sitting and talking with a person got me to know them a lot better than just reading a paper written by them.Starwars 15:21, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

-What I learned about the person whose writing I analyzed (Andrew) differed greatly from the person with whom I had an oral interview (Lincey). While I learned about both of their writing styles, I could only concretely analyze Andrew's writing style because I could I was reading a piece that was more in depth. Lincey's writing had less of a distinct writing style simply because the assignment was more basic. Even though Lincey told me about her more distinct writing style in the interview, I was not able to fully appreciate it because of the way in which it was presented. SharonC 15:22, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

The major difference between my oral interview with [a classmate] and reading over Adam's paper is that one is a verbal exchange and one is a readthrough followed by critical thought. By talking to [this classmate (who later dropped)], I got a feel for her personality while directly confirming what her hobbies were and what she was interested in. reading Adam's paper gave clues to his personality based on his arguments and ideas, but there was no way to verify and it was mostly guessowrk as to what his character was truly like.Theandrewreynoldsshow 15:23, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

After interviewing Sharon, I learned a lot of facts about her life. I got feebacks by asking her questions that I wasn't sure about or didn't understand. It made my writing of Sharon's introduction a lot easier. Comparing to writing Sharon's paper, writing about Ben based on his "the wall" essay is much more difficult. I could not ask questions for clariffication nor I can jugde him by his apearrance. Though "the Wall" movie could reflect one's values and moral effectively, a face-to-face interaction would always be more accurate and easy. Lqi 15:42, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

It seems like the theme here is that the interview gave us very concrete, material things to relate to the person, whereas the paper was much more exposing of someone's mind. I felt the same exact way; I interviewed Brian and my intro was like "He likes this, this, and this. He does this, this, and this." However I read Julia's paper and in that response I was talking about being aware of your own thoughts and feelings! These are radically different - but consider this. What kind of result do you think we would get if the essay was supposed to be about what you like, what you do, and what you desire? What if we were given half an hour each to interview, and everyone asked very deep and philosophical questions? I think we could easily reverse the glaringly obvious outcome (as profiled by every person writing the same thing here), simply by changing the way we look at the assignment. Magicsofa 10:48, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

Apparently my brainstorm was deleted?! I know I did one! Anyways, I feel the main difference between conducting an interview and recieving an anonymous essay is the human context. Typed words on a paper are concrete, and don't lend themselves to immediate assumptions. Only through careful analysis of both the topic matter as well as diction and gramatic stylisms can you come to a conclusion on the nature of the writer. With an interview, however, a bias is formed the moment you lay eyes upon your interviewee. The clothes they are wearing, how they style their hair, it clouds everything they say. It gives a potential for bias that is lost in the anonymity of type-written text. --Dave 21:07, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

For some reason my first brainstorm did not show up. I think I got a lot more from the interview than reading "The Wall" essay. I think when we speak to people in person we can infer things about them that sometimes don't come accross in writing, or that the person just won't share. Then again, it's possible to make a whole different set of inferences through analyzing someones writing. For example, I learned that Elise has the capacity to think visually when she wrote about a bird turning into an evil, domineering flying object in a scene from "The Wall." Jchalek 13:21, 21 September 2006 (EDT)