#28 "Coaches Can Read.."

Branick, Sean. "Coaches Can Read, Too." Writings About Writing: A College Reader. Boston:

           Bedford/St.Martin's, 2011. 557-573. Print.

Summary

     Sean Branick was a freshman student at Dayton University when he wrote his ethnographical paper. Branick wrote his paper on how coaches are a discourse community. He explained how they must form multiple literacies, such as interpersonal literacies, situational literacies, and textual literacies. He believes that textual literacy consists of the actual play designing; interpersonal literacy describes how they are able to read people (as in their players); and situational literacy is the idea that “… coaches much be able to actively read a game in order to put their players in the best possible situation…” (568). He also discusses how they have common goals, lexis, and genres.

Dialectical Notebook

In this column you RESPOND to the quotes	In this column you TYPE OUT the quote
I think Branick makes a very good and well thought out point. I would have never even considered “reading people” to be a form of literacy. During this section, I am intrigued by his notion, but not entirely convinced. He really convinces me during the section Multiple Literacies on how coaches have many different types of literacies.	“Here Branick makes an important connection between literacy and coaching. Are you persuaded by his connection? Why or why?” (561).
I think that Branick did a really nice job of transitioning from idea to idea throughout his entire paper, especially in this section. His last sentence of each section introduces what will discuss next in the paper. This makes it easier for readers easier to follow and not so choppy. He is clearly using Swales ideas of genre and lexis to exlpain the different aspects of the coaching discourse community.	“Note how Branick links elements of one characteristic (genre) to a previously discussed characteristic (lexis)” (564).
I like how he makes this paragraph of transition informal. It shows that he is trying to make sure the audience understands what he just accomplished and what is going to be discussed next. Like I said, it’s informal, therefore some people may not like the style, but I think it is an effective way to guide the audience through the paper.	“What do you think of Branick’s strategy here for transitioning to a new section/topic?” (565).
In his introduction, Branick does a good job of laying out his ideas to the audience. Then, through subheadings of specific sections, he is able to support his claims with specific evidence and examples. These examples are shown through many different methods, such as actual interviews or even on the field scenarios.	“Throughout the paper, Branick gives an overview of his claims and then uses those claims to organize his content. How well do you think this strategy works?” (567).
I find that his quotations are a very good example for how ours should be in our project 3 papers. He does not just drop quotes into the paper, he introduces them, and then explains. Also, I think it is important to point out how he only used 1 block quote. Many students (including myself) tend to use those more than necessary.	“Notes how Branick integrates direct quotes from his interviews in order to support his claims rather than simply listing one long quotation after another” (566).
I actually think that his conclusion is the weakest part of entire paper. It seems like he was just trying to “cut to the chase” too quickly. He needed to do a more thorough summary of each of his points. I’m not saying that he needs to go in depth with each idea, but he VERY briefly overviewed each of his claims in the conclusion.	“What do you think of Branick’s conclusion? Do you find it effective? What else might he have done here?