An Easy to Follow Scholarly Article

Because SCIgen attempts to imitate the style and form of scholarly work, the conventions are very similar. However, when directly comparing it to one specific scholarly article, “Considering Culturally Responsive Teaching, Children, and Place in the Music Room” by: Wiens, Kimberly Friesen, some differences are brought to the surface.

Simply by looking at the articles without yet reading them the structure and form are very similar both articles are separated into section of about a paragraph long and each is labeled to inform the read what will be discussed. Furthermore, SCIgen imitates the labeled Introduction, Conclusion, and References in the article as well, this done to demonstrate to the reader the point of the author is well introduced in the introduction, proven in the conclusion, and researched seen in he references. The structure is very important because it should look professional and the structure should correlate with the purpose of the article; because the article is made to introduce a discovery, show proof, and conclude with tying it all together, the article labels it throughout to show which point will be proven there to make the greater idea proven farther and finally concluded in the end.

            Although the structure between the two articles is similar, SCIgen does add a few diagrams and drafts which is its version of presenting data adding ethos to their piece by implementing credibility because of the usage of graphs used from outside references.  In contrast, the Music Room article does not have a lot of graphs but its paragraphs are significantly longer than those of the SCIgen article, showing possibly the more elaborated information that it has in comparison to the SCIgen article.

            Considering that the articles are suppose to be proving a point not only should the structure correlate it, but the style should as well.  Both articles contain a didactic tone, because the articles are teaching the audience its discovery and should come off as knowledgeable. Additionally, both articles almost immediately introduce the idea they want to prove, with little to no “fluff,” because their topic is straightforward and research based there may not be need for it, it should be straight to the point. Being a researched based article it does not feel the need to sound persuasive, but it wants to sound informative which further explains the little to no fluff aspect.

            Because they are scholarly pieces or are imitating one, it is aimed at audience that already has quite a bit of knowledge of the discipline. With this said, both articles contain jargon of their discipline, to compliment their credibility and didactic knowledgeable tone. However, the Music Room article does also try to use a lot of everyday vocabulary as well, which definitely makes it easier to read even though it is directed at music teachers. In contrast, the SCIgen article is even hard to finish, and contains so much jargon that it can be nearly impossible to finish or get through because after all it is imitating a scholarly piece, but because the Music Room piece is a legitimate academic piece it is directed at a certain audience but does not make it too difficult to read if the person is not included in the directed audience.

            Both of course are trying to prove a discovery, however, being the SCIgen is not really a good source the reader can recognize that it is actually trying to be nearly impossible to read in an attempt to make a full affect. In contrast to the Music Room article that is point is proven that teachers should not just teach students but teachers should learn from them. They should learn if they play instrument from a different culture, they should learn different learning skills, and how students like to learn, alone vs. group, in silence vs. with noise, etc. The article was basically trying to reach out to not just music teachers but all teachers that it is important to be sure that students are learning in an environment that is courtesy to their needs, and this point can be seen whether the reader is a music teacher or not. On the other hand, it is really difficult to point out the SCIgen article because it made no attempts to simplify or breakdown its point even the introduction was difficult to follow. Therefore, the Music Room article definitely had a more poignant even if it didn’t “sound” as “scholarly.”