Learning Outcome 1.

“Demonstrate the ability to approach writing as a recursive process that requires substantial revision of drafts for content, organization, and clarity (global revision), as well as editing and proofreading (local revision).”

To begin the process of revising paper two, the significant writing project of my choice, I first returned to the rough draft I had composed and considered the comments that both my peers’ and professor had left regarding my work. I decided which suggestions would be immediately beneficial in helping my paper find a more defined shape and which suggestions could be implemented later when I would focus on local revision.

With the suggestions for global revision in mind, I began to search my rough draft for  ideas, arguments and evidence that best supported and advanced the overall argument of my paper. By identifying and analyzing my stronger sub-arguments while weeding out the weaker ones, the overall argument of my paper began to evolve. Evidence of my changing argument can be seen in the thesis statements of the first and final drafts of paper two. In the first draft, my original thesis for the paper involved discussing the negative impacts that technology has on the “mental wellbeing, physical health and professional development of younger generations.” However, as I began fleshing out and elaborating on what I deemed my more compelling sub-arguments, I realized that the strength of my paper would be greatly increased if I were to focus in depth on just one aspect of technology’s negative impacts rather than three. Therefore, the thesis statement of the final draft of paper two claims that, “the relentless bombardment of information associated with technological advancements is negatively affecting the mental well being of younger generations.” By narrowing my thesis in the early stages of revision, I was able to compose a paper containing dense and insightful sub-arguments rather than shallow, glossed over ones

Being open to large scale global changes in the early stages of the revision process allowed me to compose meaningful writing in my final draft of paper two. In the selection titled, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Nancy Sommers discusses the necessary processes for creating meaningful writing. According to Sommers, rather than constraining the early drafts of a writing project to fit a predetermined meaning, writers should, “seek to discover (to create) meaning in the engagement with their writing, in revision.” In other words, meaningful writing can only be achieved through the recursive writing process. By taking the time to extract, engage and revise my ideas from the rough draft of paper two, I found myself able to explore avenues of potential meaning within my revision that I had not recognized when writing my first draft. 

Link to Paper 2 First Draft:https://bwalker11.uneportfolio.org/english-110/first-draft-of-significant-writing-project-paper-two/

Link to Paper 2 Final Draft: https://bwalker11.uneportfolio.org/english-110/final-draft-of-significant-writing-project-paper-two/

Learning Outcome 2.

“Be able to integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis and synthesis of relevant sources.”

As I composed the final draft of my significant writing project, I incorporated summary, quotation, and analysis of outside sources as evidence to support my arguments. Primarily throughout the paper, these rhetorical tools would present themselves in the following order; first, I would introduce the outside source being incorporated using summary, then I would insert the quotation from the source, and finally I would analyze the quotation by making connections and creating relationships between my ideas and those found within the source.

An example of my ability to select, integrate and explain quotations can be seen on page two of the final draft of the significant writing project linked below. In the second paragraph on page two, I selected a quote from Sam Andersons article, “In Defense of Distraction,” to help support my argument that the integration of technology into schools is overwhelming young minds. Before introducing Anderson’s quote, I summarized the main point of his article while infusing the direction of my own argument into the summary as well. Next, I integrated the quote itself which says,“Schoolkids [now] spread their attention across 30 different programs at once and interact with each other mainly as sweatless avatars”(2). Finally, I analyzed this quote by explaining its significance in relation to the source it came from as well as its significance to my overall argument.

Link to final draft paper 2: https://docs.google.com/a/une.edu/document/d/1uSH2M0Mg93WEJZKH3KknO597wztMKHhkcF_ImuSnick/edit?usp=sharing


Learning Outcomes 5 and 6.

The final draft of my significant writing project not only demonstrates my ability to construct a correctly formatted MLA works cited page but also displays my mastery of comma errors.

Page seven of my chosen significant writing project, visible through the document linked below, shows the correctly formatted MLA works cited page for paper two. On this page, sources used throughout paper two are alphabetically ordered, properly indented, and, with the help of The Little Seagull Handbook, accurately cited based on their source of origin.

Page one of my chosen significant writing project shows one of the techniques I have developed to combat comma errors. The technique is simple: breaking up long sentences into shorter ones. On page one of the final draft of paper two, there is a section of the first paragraph that reads, “The video then transitions to the same toddler performing identical motions on an iPad. This time, though, the toddler is pleased.” In the first draft of paper two, the section had read, “The video then transitions to the same toddler performing the same exact motions on an Ipad, except this time the toddler is pleased.” By breaking the latter sentence up into two, shorter sentences, I not only eliminated the chance of a potential comma error but also enhanced the clarity of my writing. As I composed the final draft of paper two, I analyzed many of my lengthier sentences to see if I could break them up and clarify them as I did with the sentence above. 

Link to final draft paper 2: https://docs.google.com/a/une.edu/document/d/1uSH2M0Mg93WEJZKH3KknO597wztMKHhkcF_ImuSnick/edit?usp=sharing


Learning Outcome 4.

“Be able to critique their own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision early in the writing process and local revision later in the process.”

Link to Peer Review: https://files.uneportfolio.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/676/2017/11/PDF-Peer-Review-Kevin-paper-2.pdf

As I have progressed through English 110, my peer review practice has evolved significantly. When I first began peer reviewing for the course, many of my comments focused on minor local revisions rather than on important global revisions that are much more useful early on in the writing process. However, once I learned that my peers would reap more benefits from comments regarding their ideas, evidence and organization, I consciously tried to focus on these broader areas as I peer reviewed their papers. Evidence of my progress towards achieving this learning outcome can be seen in the peer review document linked above.

Comments number two and three in the document show that I evaluated my peer’s ideas. In these comments, I focused on my peer’s thesis, advising that he condense the statement and make it more easily identifiable to the reader. Based on what he had written in his draft at that point, I composed an example of how he could condense the ideas he was expressing into a more specific, angled and sustainable thesis statement.

Comments number five and six in the document show that I evaluated my peer’s evidence. These two comments note my peer’s use of a specific quote within his draft, suggesting that he consider whether this quote best supports the arguments and ideas with which it was integrated. Should my peer desire to keep the quote he chose, I suggested that he provide more content in both his introduction and analysis of the quote. By doing this, I explained, he would be using the quote as evidence for his own ideas rather than letting the quote speak for him. I then gave him an example of a possible connection he could make between the quote, his ideas, and his overall argument.

Finally, comment twenty-two in the document shows that I evaluated my peer’s organization. Once I had finished reading the paragraph that contains this comment, I realized that my peer could move around some of his sentences so that the insightful ideas he had relayed would have a greater impact on his reader. Therefore, in comment twenty-two, I suggested that he move the final sentence of the paragraph to the beginning and make it the overall claim sentence of the paragraph. As I had learned in English 110, often times the main argument of a paragraph comes at the very end when the writer finally realizes what they are trying to argue. In this case, I believed that the main argument my peer was trying to convey in this particular paragraph was articulated in the last sentence of his paragraph.

Once I have verbally communicated the more important global revisions to consider,  I have learned to then point out some minor local revisions for my peers to address.  For example, comment one in the document shows that I evaluated my peer’s local errors. The comment reminds my peer of the MLA conventions that his paper should follow.  

Now that I have completed three peer reviews for English 110, I feel very confident in my abilities to produce useful feedback, both global and local, in the early drafts of my classmates’ work.