Learning Outcome 1:
According to Sommers, there are two types of writers; a student writer and an experienced writer. Student writers focus solely on local revision, and avoiding editing or changing the core ideas of their paper. On the other hand, an experienced writer is not afraid to modify the arguments of an essay. One part of first example of my edits is content. In my first draft I end my second paragraph rather abruptly. This ruins the flow of my paper and doesn’t fully develop my idea of the potential of combining art and science. In my second draft I end the paragraph with evidence and direction for thought. This not only allows my paper to flow into the next paragraph, but also allows me to fully emphasize my ideas. My second example of edits is organization. i was able to shift several topics around, in order to make the paper more coherent and flow better. The third type of edit is a clarity edit. Often times in my free drafts, I struggled to word some of my thoughts in a coherent way. After going through the peer review process, I was able to reword and rework ideas so that they were more coherent. This example displays my ability to review on what I said and what I was trying to say and clarify my thoughts. Lastly, my local edits are clear after reading my first and final draft. This is due to proof-reading that I do after writing every paper. Overall, I believe that ENG 110 has prepared me to become the “experienced writer” that Sommers talks about.
Learning Outcome 2:
I used the TRIAC paragraph style to incorporate sources as evidence in the final draft of my chosen significant writing The TRIAC style begins with a claim/topic sentence first, then restate and refine what you talk about next, then provide an illustration or a quote, analyze that quote and make meaningful connections, and finally conclude by reviewing briefly in a few concluding sentences. I utilized the TRIAC paragraph in all of my papers written for this class, because I found it to be the simplest and most coherent way to write and display my ideas to the reader.
Learning Outcome 5 and 6:
I feel that I definitely demonstrated my ability to cite sources using MLA guidelines, as well as make local revisions. I feel I was already strong in these areas, and the resources provided for this class helped my master this skill. The Little Seagull Handbook by Richard Bullock, one of our course materials, was an excellent resource here. It gave a helpful template which I used to cite all sources from various media. I also used the example citation given to help make sure that I did it correctly. The Little Seagull also gave examples of all the different ways in-text citations can occur in and in what situations the different versions are used.
Learning Outcome 4:
Peer Markup with 150 Word Comment
My feedback during all peer review sessions I feel was very specific and helpful. Learning Outcome 4 wants us to be able to critique my own and others work, emphasizing global revision early and local revisions later. I made sure to clarify when more time should be spent on a particular section, with more evidence to support earlier claims and fill out the thought completely. I also was ties into the idea portion of the comments. There were times where the paper I was reading was vague, and I was careful to suggest some specific with a couple of words; like when I understood what they meant, but it could have had some more clarification of certain words, in their thesis for instance. Lastly, in regard to organizational comments, there were places where my peer said something really strong, but it just didn’t tie in well with their specific claim; it could be adapted into its own claim or simply moved into a better spot within the paper. I feel my peer review were strong and effective, but in the future, I hope to improve on my suggestions for ideas and organization, without being vague to my peers.
