My strategy is a simple one, yet a long process. The first thing that one should do is read the text without annotating. This is to help expose you to the text, to help get you comfortable with the content.
The next thing, after you finish reading it once, read it again. However, this time you want to annotate with a black pen or whatever. This is to gain a better understanding of the content of the text.
After annotating the text for the first time, skim through the notes you made and the underlined details you found and write notes in a different colored pen. This is to analyze why you made the notes that you did and why you found them important and why you found the details that you found important.
After analyzing the notes you made, go back through the text and repeat the process an additional two times, each time with the same two pens, on being for the annotations, one being for the analysis.
For maximum results, be sure to be in a quiet room that you are very comfortable in and are able to relax. This let’s you focus on the material rather than the things going on around you.
On the day of Hallows’ Eve, we spent class in the computer lab. We talked about our blogs and how we are going to be migrating over to a new medium, which makes sense. We discussed things like the professionalism, commenting, and hyperlinks to “cite” people (despite it not being a proper citation).
The way to hyperlink, we simply create a link using the person’s name; for example, I’m going to link to Bill. Now, one can go to his blog and look at what he has to say.
Another thing we discussed is commenting on the blogs. I believe in the notion that we as scholars should collaborate and let our voices be heard. We have to work together as writers and scholars to let our ideas develop and grow while exploring a new medium.
On Wednesday, whilst we were sitting in the grass, we discussed the different moves that we use in everyday arguments and how we can translate them to our papers. In order to do this, we “drew” illustrations that mostly went along with the idea of either organic growing or mechanical building.
I gave the example of my brother who grew in size and thus, (having the capability of) growing in skill in hockey. In this analogy, I explain that as we grow, we become more experienced and this could be the same for argument. This was an example of the “organic” growth.
On the other hand, Gunther gave the example of building things and how when we argue, we continue building upon those skills. In this, he created the “mechanical” analogy.
As a synopsis, we expanded on the idea that as we grow or as anything is built upon, we gain experience with our arguments that we should, and normally don’t, apply to our papers. Bill says that professors are always seeing papers that have ideas that do not form connections, and the entire point of the exercise was to form connections between our arguments and our lives.