Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

Spring 2007

This assignment builds on an-in-class discussion about metacommunication. Steph has provided some examples of how to analyse a text/author for messages at a different level than the words themselves.

Compare your writing as it is packaged in Piecing It Together (our Class Magazine) and your writing as it is presented online in the Course Wiki.

• Most important, what do these two products (Piecing It Together and The Wiki) of our class metacommunicate about the class itself, and you as a member of "Section 71"?

• Reviewing all of your Reflection Letters, cite evidence from your own papers of improvement and success. Use quotes and reference properly (Penguin).

• What edits do you notice were made to your writing for Piecing It Together? How do you feel about them? Do they improve or detract from your sense of authorship? Do they clarify or obscure your intended message?

• Are your metacommunicative goals accomplished better in one venue (The Wiki) or the other (Piecing It Together?

• Do you/your writing come across differently in print than online? Is this "good" or "bad" from your point-of-view? Explain why (advantages/disadvantages).

Your Final Reflection Letter should have an overaching claim/thesis, logical and organized evidence with transitions, a conclusion, and a bibliography.

The complete portfolio is due at the beginning of your Final Conference with Steph.

Remember to put your most recent work on top and work backwards, chronologically, to Letter #1 (with Steph's handwritten feedback). Do not neglect to include Letter #2 (with Steph's inserted commentary), Letter #3, and Steph's metacommunicative response to your Third Reflection Letter.

Previous Variations