Blog Post 28

Citation

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

           Bedford/St.Martin's, 2011. 557-73. Print.

I. Summary

In his article, “Coaches Can Read, Too: An ethnographic Study of a Football Coaching Discourse Community”. The author talks about how coaches must read the emotions of their players, thus making them capable of reading how their plays feel. There are 3 factors that make for an effective coach.  They are Goal-focused coaching, effective coaching, and confidence in coaching.  He then gives examples of specific coaches from the University of Dayton and how they were effective as coaches.   

II. Dialectic Notebook

In this column you RESPOND to the quotes	In this column you TYPE OUT the quote
I am persuaded by Branick because I think he makes good connections between coaching and literacy.  Coaches have to be able to see how their players are feeling without talking to them. In a sense they have to “read” their emotions	Here Branick makes an important connection between literacy and coaching.  Are you persuaded by his connection?  Why or why not?
No Branick  did not mention Swales previously in he’s paper.  I don’t feel as though he needs to bring up swales mainly because Swales talks about discourse communities.	Has Branick mentioned Swales previously in this paper? Do you think he needs to? Why or why not?
Headings help keep the readings organized and they help me a lot by letting me know what exactly I’m reading about.  I don’t think he should change anything about the way the paper is organized.  I think it flows well.	Branick is using a fairly complex system of primary headings, secondary headings, and tertiary headings. How helpful are these to you as a reader? What alternative organizational strategies might he have used?
I think that the way Branick moved to the next topic was really good.  I liked that it flowed well right into the next series of topics.  The final sentence of the pervious paragraph sets up the next section very well.	What do you think of Branick's strategy here for transitioning to a new section/topic?
This strategy was very effective in making his point very clear.  Every point that he made works very well with all the other points he made.  I think that this gives the paper a very effective message.  His main argument was not forced on the reader.  It flowed very well out of the paper.	Throughout his 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?
I found the conclusion to that powerful as the rest of the paper.  It seemed very basic to me.  I did not find it that effective.  I really like how he said “I hope” back in back to back sentences.  It made it sound a not as good as the rest of his paper.	What do you think of Branick's conclusion? Do you think it is effective? What else might he have done here?