I feel like it would be everyones responsibility. Just so everyone can get some good valid information, and can even continue their research from those hyperlinks.

Everything these days have some type of bias. People like to take things out of context and cut off certain words. Just reminds you that not all sources can be trusted, especially ones that are quoted from people.

I agree. Hyperlinks allow you to go back and see where people have gotten their information from. You could see its validity and find the original sources of information. So in texts you wouldn't just spew information, you would actually show where you got it from.

I agree. It is very stressful to anyone not just students. Professors expect in depth research, not just the first three articles that appear when searched on google. But how can I go in depth to thousands of articles spewing the same information in different fonts? There are very few things that can be seen as original these days when there is so much being contributed.

I really think about this all the time. Even when I have to make my own research question for an assignment, my mind goes blank. What could I ask that doesn't already have an answer on google? There is just so much information out there it is so suffocating.

Papers these days really do require so many sources. It makes a lot of sense that students would prefer to find 10 websites at home than go to a library and find books. You cant "Command+F" on a book. It really is just about convenience more than trying to find good and valid information.

Researching has changed now that we have the internet at our fingertips. With one search we have several articles of information at hand without the hassle of going to a library to find multiple books of information. It just made for students to learn how to properly use the information on the internet. We really are forgetting about the primary sources that we know are valid, and going for websites published by anyone that could have false information.

That's very true. Even in TV shows and movies, a character who is a "writer" would always write poetry or fiction. Or even a character who likes to read, their personality would be all about reading poetry or fiction. Like even in the TV show "Jane the Virgin" the main character would only write and read about fiction love stories etc. These kinds of genres even get attention from media so no wonder people give it much more value.

So because people put more weight on creative writing, it is seen as more valuable. They don't see genres such as non-fiction, as creative. I wonder why we always tend to give value to one or the other and not to both. Just because an informational essay on any science topic doesn't get as much coverage as, lets say harry potter, doesn't make it less creative or less valuable.

She is saying that once everyone starts picturing the concept in the same way, it starts to be seen as separate from all others. If everyone views creative writing the same way, they see it on a different scale from other forms when it can actually be included with them

Growing up, you're never really given the freedom to come up with your own style. It feels like something you have to come up with on your own time. Every since I was taught about writing it's always the same 5-paragraph format with the same type of research for your body paragraphs for specific articles you have been given. You don't get to try to put your own flare on your writings as it wont follow "standardized testing guidelines" as he previously stated.

I see that adding humor into writing is much more complex than it seems. Especially since you can't physically hear it, everything you write has to be precise in order for your joke to go through. Like the context, the timing of it, the words that you use etc.

I have never once been taught about writings that would contain humor. I guess it makes sense since teachers really just try to teach what standardized tests are looking for. But standardized tests really didn't benefit anybody in the first place.

I now know that the research process is linear but it has always been taught that it is. In the paragraph it states "We may find ourselves returning to and changing our question..." but I feel as if I have been taught to only find research that supports the question, and if I don't, then that information is now irrelevant. That is also why I relate to the last sentence of that paragraph so much, it's a feeling I know all too well.

I understand that using the first websites of a google search is not really researching. But how does one actually do research? What has to be done to make a clear difference? Is it the way you start forming your paper such as finding the thesis as you look up information like this paragraph includes?

This shows how we really focus on finding a singular answer rather than discovering a topic and all aspects of it. I do agree with what they say our collective belief is, we always try to come up with one solid answer to a question. I believe that that's also where I go wrong when I write my own research papers.

That's what I was trying to say in my previous annotation. It was more so rephrasing everyone else's research in claim. It never felt like me speaking about information I have just learned but rather spewing out what I have read in efforts to get the assignment over with. No actual thoughts, opinions (which I understand should not be included in unbiased research) or room to expand on anything. I already had set things I was looking for instead of having the space to discover things on my own.

I didn't think of connecting a research paper to an argument. Of course that is essentially what it is but my mind never made that connection and it just makes my understanding of the paper so much easier. I thought of it more as "find a claim, find facts that support it", which makes research bland in my opinion, rather than now I understand it as "find your claim, back it up, understand the other side, prove that it is wrong/can not debunk my own argument, which would allow for my claim to be clear with no open spaces for misunderstandings.

This part took me a few tries to understand. I believe it is extending to what "researching" really is when it comes to writing research papers. It was always "look into the text find quantitative sentences that they used and use it in your paper as evidence." when it really should be making connections and allowing your audience to think about what more there is to the information you have found.

I actually agree with this. I feel like it's useful if I really don't feel like putting much effort into an assignment. It just feels boring and the same as every other essay I've had to write. I would always think about if that's how my future college professors expected my work to sound like, but I'm just so used to this structure already.

As long as I can remember, the 5 paragraph essay has been the main way I was taught how to write for so long. It was always, your first paragraph is your introduction with a good hook, then each paragraph is one main point, then you have one more paragraph for your conclusion. That was always like the easiest way to finesse your grade. The essays needed no extra thought or information. All the students essays would literally sound the same.

Through my years in multiple english classes, that really always was the main agenda that english teachers tried to push. It was just one writing assignment on to the other. We all just learned how to spew basic evidence and main ideas with no thought behind them. It was always just a cycle. I assume that's why I feel writing as such a task instead of something that is in need of actual complex thoughts and is stimulating.

Revising a lot always had a low-key negative connotation growing up, like if you turned in your draft and your paper was just filled with red marks and annotations you were seen as a bad writer. So instead of viewing those marks as an opportunity to add on to your draft and make it better, it was viewed as "this person really can't write." The goal was always to make as little revisions as possible. I've realized that the goal is actually not as good as I thought it was.

That's how the concept of revision was taught to me. In school when they would talk about the steps on writing an essay, revising was just editing whatever you had written in your rough draft, like if you didn't capitalize your "i" here or you forgot to add a comma there. I will accept that I still write like this. My "revisions" just consist of fixing grammatical errors and making sure that whatever I have written sounds smooth together.

This is completely true. I can't count the amount of times I would have multiple class sessions on "test-taking strategies" like reading the questions before the passages, or eliminating certain answer choices. I wouldn't have to memorize so many strategies if I was taught how to truly and thoroughly understand a text. If I knew how to, the questions should really be a breeze as I would already understand the passage itself.

I personally never liked tests. Not just because they were stressful, but because of what tests really represent. Tests don't really measure how well you understand a subject, they test how well you can memorize information and regurgitate it back to them. You can memorize so much information without truly understanding what any of it means. You memorize so much information for the test to forget it right after you take it, and repeat that cycle for every test you take. Therefore people don't really learn much from a course, they just learn how to memorize "key points" and throw it right back to their professors.