In this session, Katya was not feeling well so she was given the exercise that she completed.

Katya and I agreed that the paper is "taking shape." The paper is moving from sources that simply list reasons for divorce based on limited sampling to more complete discussions of individual causes to more statistically generated studies. Practiced "The Sandwich" again when organizing Katya's second core paragraph, practicing and reinforcing the importance of part 3 of The Sandwich to draw out and present important insights related to the quote. Moved on to including bar graph for a third source's perspective. Noted that Katya will need to find the full AARP article from which the bar graph was taken. Noted that this bar graph cites findings that are not in agreement with the previous two sources' findings. At our next session we will have to discuss (1)"tipping point" as well as (2) how varying "findings" can be reconciled and (3)what would we find if the searches were written "Scholarly articles on divorce"?

Introduced Katya to Purdue OWL, an excellent resource for students on the college level, covering writing style manuals like the MLA style handbook, but also covering scientific style sheets for scientic papers and lab reports. Mentioned that Purdue OWL also has various style and format guides, plus samples of each writing project.Checked wording and added additional observations in Katya's commentary after Stanley block quote. Questioned what Katya plans to do next. We looked at the bar graph provided by AARP, but wondered if it would be better to follow Stanley's list with another source's list to provide that lists are just that lists. Then we would be in a position to say that lists without statistical backup are open to criticism. Statistics have real value. Statistics provide the basis for making statements like "primary cause," "root cause," "secondary cause," "circumstantial or conditional or contributing cause." Stressed the inportance of discussing each cause as they come up so the reader can feel reassured that he is following the discussion. Focused on the pattern: term introduced, example provided, according to quote presented, followed by Katya's comments analyzing the quote. Mentioned how important good, clear topic sentences are, and the same for transitions because transition guide the reader and help to develop the argument of the paper. Reviewed the requirement that Katya's paper include a paragraph on the concept of "tipping point." Last, reviewed the various required formats of the Works Cited page.

Katya was not available.

Looked at the first thing a reader reads: the Title. Discussed how a title could be a turnoff, or it could prompt the reader to read on. Katya took her working title -- The Causes of Divorce -- and changed it to Who Pulled the Plug? We agreed that was a much better title. We moved on to restructing Katya's introductory paragraph. Her opening sentence was great. Complimenting Katya. We looked at what should happen next. We agreed that the statements should now focus on what researcher are saying. Observation: Researchers have come up with lists of why people get divorced. But the problem is: not all these researchers list the same reasons. Complicating the issue is that some researchers are a lot more reliable than others. Those two statements, I said, could be the theme of the paper. We added: those two statements set up where the paper goes from here. Next, we used the phrase "According to" to identify the first source the paper will quote. We researched Scott Stanley's credentials and found he is a marriage counselor and the author of the book Fighting for Your Marriage. We added his credentials after his name. Then we block quoted the words we needede from an article he wrote. After that, we said Katya needs to comment on the quote -- which she did. Noted that this part 3 of "The Sandwich" could be expanded further before going on to a new paragraph and a new block quote.

Kayta showed me the progress of her first piece that she had completed. She used the critiques that I gave her and came up with a beautiful piece of artwork.
Katya and I worked on using the silo

Started the lesson with a lesson on the required format for page one of any research paper. (A bit surprised Katya was not familiar with the required format.) Went through two of my own handouts: "Writing a Rearch Paper" and "Setting Up the Rearch Paper: the Order of Events." Focused for a moment on my image of the upside down pyramid to describe how the introductory paragragh starts off with broad statements that then get narrower and narrower to end with a thesis. Gave Katya a sample of that progression. Focused next on the AARP bar graph and Katya's commentary on the graph. Noted with her that her commentary drifted away from the graph. Found out that part of her commentary was really taken from another source, and that source was a blog. We went to that blog and found the source was sensationalizing, biased, and written to appeal to a radical audience. While Katya thought the articles in the Grim Beeper were "fun," I tried to emphasize the importance of choosing credentialed sources that are reliable. Response from Katya: So, I shouldn't use a Grim Beeper articles. (Her reluctance to give up the "fun" and give up Grim Beeper articles surprised me.) Focused next on applying the principles of "The Sandwich" when block quoting. Focused next on how to block quote. (I was very surprised to find out that Katya did not have even the basics of block quoting.) Went on to focus on setting up the Works Cited page. (And again I was surprised to find out that Katya did not have even a very basic understanding of how to set up a Works Cited page.) Noted for myself that we will need several lessons on block quoting, applying The Sandwich," and how to add entries to the Works Cited page.

In this activity, Katya was going to work on solving quadratics using three methods.

In this activity, Katya could not work but she wanted to complete the lesson for the day. The lesson was uploaded on teams and was completed.

Looked again at the graphs and charts Katya found online. We noted that one such bar graph was taken from a survey published by AARP. The intriguing part of the graph was the fact that each bar was composed of three parts: "most significant reason," "next reason," "third reason." The reasons were listed on the vertical side of the chart: money problems; control freak; alcohol/drugs; fell out of love; cheating; different lifestyles; abuse. The most frequently cited cause of divorce was abuse, but equal in frequency cited was cheating.Standing out was the next reason and also the third reason most frequently cited cause was abuse. Katya needs to find the full AARP article. What Katya found, instead, was a poorly written commentary on the graph written by a blogger. We discussed the unreliability of many sites online and how to sift the reliable from the unreliable. We discussed anecdotal "evidence" versus statistical evidence and articles that have been peer reviewed or found in reputible journals known for publishing well-documented articles. Turned next to the three parts of "The Sandwich." In the first part (which must always be there), the source of the quote to follow is identified. If the source is a person, then that person's credentials need to be cited. In the second part of The Sandwich, the quote is presented. In the third and most important part of The Sandwich, the writer comments on the quote. We discussed the various ways of commenting on the quote and the importance of using this third part of the paragraph to reassert the writer's control over the paragraph and provide the reader with the key takeaways from the quote. Commenting on, analyzing, elaborating on, or criticizing are not the same as repeating the words of the quote. Simply summarizing the quote is just a dumbing down of the quote. Good commentary is what makes part three of The Sandwich outstanding and appreciated. Shared with Katya my own essay "Writing a Research Paper."