I was a technical learner before coming to here for pursuing doctorate. Since I am international student like many others fellows in our cohort, I have been taught to give the abstract knowledge in my assignments, projects or exams that I got from the classes, instead of my feelings, doubts and thoughts towards what I learn, or the learning process itself. I never thought that there should be a strong basement before I built it on and on. I had assumed that I got my structure in my family and during my prior formal education in Turkey.
As I stated in previous blogs many times, life is a challenge, a puzzle, or a Rubik’s cube for me. When I feel that I have a new challenge or surprise, I feel the power and excitement even in my veins, which is the desire for learning new things, opening new boxes in my brain for brand-new knowledge. I was thinking this class would put a lot new knowledge that I have to take a deep breath for a while to inhale them fully. However, I was greatly surprised in the process of this praxis class, when I realized that I was actually modifying my basement or foundations to scaffold a more stable framework for thinking how to relate academic writing, in depth reading and listening others’ and my thoughts on specific issues in reality. I would have never think more in depth about the basement or re-determining it before. The first paramount thing that I’ve learned about myself is how to use ‘third space’ more effectively to build a relationship between an article, background knowledge, and reality. I was tying these elements to each other loosely previously, but I started to get in between lines of the materials and thoughts with this class via asking more questions, and allowing to materials to interact with me.
Secondary fundamental learning from this class was to fill in the terms that I have been exposed to during my both masters in writing scholarly, such as theoretical and conceptual frameworks, purpose and research questions, importance of a particular writing, methods, analysis of data, and discussion. These constitutive technical components were known by their ‘term definition’, but I’ve started to notice that the ‘importance of connecting these elements to each other meaningfully both for writer and reader’ in a scholar writing/or material, such as how to make a explicit connection between conceptual and theoretical framework, how to relate components to each other and of course to discussion, how to celebrate and name other scholars’ works into our pieces, and conveying the main message to reader saliently so that entire piece of writing will make sense for readers as well.
After all materials that we discussed and guest scholars that we talked with, and issues that we relate to class discussions to our general build-on scholar identity, I feel I am on the true path to build my scholar skills. I feel like I am discovering new learning and tools session by session that I structure my knowledge not only in academic writing, but also how to relate this area into other academic parts of my identity. I would like to still extend my knowledge and learning about how to express myself explicitly in my academic work, learn more about how to generalize my knowledge and establish my style and scholar identity in an enduring way. I have still struggles about conveying message to reader in a brief and clear way, and expect continuing to have Dr. Kurth’s and Dr. Kozleski’s opinions to guide me in this manner through the process. We have seen very diverse and unique approaches so far, and I would like to determine the differences and commonalities between these academic identities and styles to be able to pick the right one for myself and revised it. I would like to start using the strategies that we learned in the class, both in technical and general composition of my academic identity to consubstantiate these learning with my prior knowledge and from other classes immediately after this class if not before to be ready using these knowledge to solve next level puzzle.
As I stated in previous blogs many times, life is a challenge, a puzzle, or a Rubik’s cube for me. When I feel that I have a new challenge or surprise, I feel the power and excitement even in my veins, which is the desire for learning new things, opening new boxes in my brain for brand-new knowledge. I was thinking this class would put a lot new knowledge that I have to take a deep breath for a while to inhale them fully. However, I was greatly surprised in the process of this praxis class, when I realized that I was actually modifying my basement or foundations to scaffold a more stable framework for thinking how to relate academic writing, in depth reading and listening others’ and my thoughts on specific issues in reality. I would have never think more in depth about the basement or re-determining it before. The first paramount thing that I’ve learned about myself is how to use ‘third space’ more effectively to build a relationship between an article, background knowledge, and reality. I was tying these elements to each other loosely previously, but I started to get in between lines of the materials and thoughts with this class via asking more questions, and allowing to materials to interact with me.
Secondary fundamental learning from this class was to fill in the terms that I have been exposed to during my both masters in writing scholarly, such as theoretical and conceptual frameworks, purpose and research questions, importance of a particular writing, methods, analysis of data, and discussion. These constitutive technical components were known by their ‘term definition’, but I’ve started to notice that the ‘importance of connecting these elements to each other meaningfully both for writer and reader’ in a scholar writing/or material, such as how to make a explicit connection between conceptual and theoretical framework, how to relate components to each other and of course to discussion, how to celebrate and name other scholars’ works into our pieces, and conveying the main message to reader saliently so that entire piece of writing will make sense for readers as well.
After all materials that we discussed and guest scholars that we talked with, and issues that we relate to class discussions to our general build-on scholar identity, I feel I am on the true path to build my scholar skills. I feel like I am discovering new learning and tools session by session that I structure my knowledge not only in academic writing, but also how to relate this area into other academic parts of my identity. I would like to still extend my knowledge and learning about how to express myself explicitly in my academic work, learn more about how to generalize my knowledge and establish my style and scholar identity in an enduring way. I have still struggles about conveying message to reader in a brief and clear way, and expect continuing to have Dr. Kurth’s and Dr. Kozleski’s opinions to guide me in this manner through the process. We have seen very diverse and unique approaches so far, and I would like to determine the differences and commonalities between these academic identities and styles to be able to pick the right one for myself and revised it. I would like to start using the strategies that we learned in the class, both in technical and general composition of my academic identity to consubstantiate these learning with my prior knowledge and from other classes immediately after this class if not before to be ready using these knowledge to solve next level puzzle.