Visual Rhetoric

        Here is a piece of static rhetoric that relates to my research topic about "teaching to the test." It is a cartoon that represents how teachers are only allowed to teach students material that is going to be on the standardized tests at the end of the year, and if they want to learn about other things that aren't on the test, teachers don't have time to discuss it. I don't think it would be as effective in getting its point across if it were any other kind of static image, just because pictures and words are needed in order for the viewer to understand the message being conveyed.

       The image is in black and what instead of color to show that the issue of standardized testing is nothing to be happy or excited about, but instead, a dark, negative topic and problem that needs to be solved. The intended audience for this cartoon is anyone affected by standardized test: students, teachers, parents, and others who are apart of the school system. Its purpose is to teach the audience about "teaching to the test," and let them know what it's all about, with a intent to hopefully warn and persuade them that something must be done in order to give students a better education.

       The image is presented in a way that is meant for you to take time and analyze it, instead of taking a quick glance. It is presented in this way because the presenter wants the audience to treat this as a serious matter. In perspective, the image is a pretty wide range of the classroom, displaying the teacher and students. The students don't appear to be happy, and neither does the teacher. With all of the elements mentioned above, this image creates a serious and negative effect on the audience, conveying a message in hopes of persuading the audience to treat this as a serious matter and act upon it.

What effect does this image have on you as a viewer? Does it do a good job of conveying its message?

Locating and Using Sources

        One scholarly article related to my research topic is titled "Teaching to the Test: A Controversial Issue in Quantitative Measurement." The process I used in order to determine whether or not the source was scholarly or not is as follows:

(1) I first recognized this article as being scholarly first by noting that it came from the Texas A&M University database. 

(2) Then the article noted that the author was a Master of Education Instructor.

(3) I noticed that the article had a more serious, polished look with no pictures. And it also included an abstract. 

(4) It also contained references to other sources at the end of the article. 

(5) The language was very professional and the article contained technical terms. 

(6) It was evident that the article was intended for academic or research communities with a purpose to share what the author researched.

        Summary of the Article:

In this article Styron presents a researched-based discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of “teaching to the test.” The article explores the concept of “teaching to the test” initially, and compares this current testing system to the old testing system used in the past. She concludes with agreeing with the recommendation of using specific procedures for deterring teachers from “teaching to the test.” The article does a good job with providing the disadvantages of “teaching to the test,” which also explain how this teaching method prevents teachers from adequately preparing their students for future grade levels and college. The author does a good job of conveying a rhetorical message by establishing ethos, or credibility through its scholarly research.

Hair: Keeping or Breaking the Shackles

     

   Hair is a very big deal to females in the African-American community. For hundreds and hundreds of years, many African-American females have felt the need to deter away from wearing their hair in it's "natural" state.  It all starts with this concept of "good hair." According to most African-American women, "Good hair is long. Wavy if not straight. Hair that looks more like hair you'd see on [European] women, and certainly not the very kinky hair that many black women are born with" (Thomas). Definitions may differ from woman to woman, but every definition fall between those lines. Why do African American women feel the need to avoid their natural hair state and make their hair look as close to "good hair" as possible? Some avoid being natural because they follow historical norms of wanting to be [European] in appearance (which ties back to slavery), while others feel that changing their hair's chemical makeup by chemically straightening their hair promotes ease of styling and the creation of healthy hair. 

        What is my hair history you may ask? My hair was in it's natural state until I was 8 years old. That is, no chemicals were used on my hair to straighten it. If my mom wanted by hair to be straight, free from tightly created coils, she would use a straightening comb to create a smoother hair texture. It would take hours and hours for this procedure, and as a child I  hated sitting there for such a long period of time and was scared of the amount of heat the straightening comb generated. (Straightening combs are placed on the stove to reach a desired heat, and then placed on the hair to straighten it). So I begged by mom to chemically straighten my hair. She then began to chemically straighten my hair, every six weeks, until my sophomore year in high school, when I decided that I wanted my hair to go back to it's natural state again. It took a lot of time and effort, but after a whole year, all of the chemicals were successfully out of my hair.

        Now, my hair has been in its natural state for just about three years. I wasn't initially sure why I decided to make the switch, but I'm glad I did. Don't get me wrong, it is much more harder to maintain hair in its natural state and it takes longer to style, but it was certainly worth it. And, needless to say, my hair has become my trademark. It is very common that a person says the first thing they notice about me is my hair. And just over Spring Break, my mom and I were in the store, but in two different places, and she said she immediately identified me just by my hair; she didn't even have to see my face. (It's pretty funny, I know.)

       I really take pride in my hair. I feel like my hair is a part of who I am. Once it's chemically altered, that takes away from its originality and a part of me. I love my kinks, curls, and coils, and definitely believe that my hair is apart of my cultural identity.

(Source: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/oct/25/tangled-issue-g/)