Reflection on Open Letter

Milosevic, Peter. "Writing A Letter" 2012
Public Domain

In blog post below, I answer five questions from the Student's Guide (Pg. 253-256) regarding the open letter draft. This post will also be the last post for this class... which is sad but relieving.

•  Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer

This is an odd question for me, especially when this course usually asks the "ability" of other writers or my peers. I think that my draft was an experiment were I made a generalized summery of my experiences in the 109H course and gave a few points of "growth". From there I used my peers comments and information from prior posts to revise my draft. When I was creating the final draft, I had to avoid my habitual writing qualities, such as pointing out information I had taken out of the class but not clarifying the effects this information had on my writing process. I was sure to elaborate on all the point I brought up. 

• Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments, or concepts you have learned?

For most of the letter, I analyzed how I was introduced to new writing processes and how I implemented the new information into my writing style. I spent a good portion of the draft discussing how I adjusted my approach to introductions and conclusions. This was probably due to the clashing of information that learned in high school and in the 109H course. I felt that I learned more detailed and meaningful information in the 109H course rather than the A.P classwork, so I really had to elaborate on the "why" factor.

• Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing (either quotes from your writing or rich descriptions of your writing process)?

I mostly quoted from my previous blog posts and used a few sentences from the Student's Guide. I usually compared my previous understanding on certain topics- genre, blogs, social media- with the content we learned in class. It was mostly an indication of how misinformed I was prior to entering the class, which I would then indicate growth by quoting/referring to my blog posts or projects.

• Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?

I mostly indicated where I have grown as a writer. That in term would lead into the "choices" made in my writing process; such as, avoiding certain vocabulary terms, adding a more meaningful conclusion to my projects- rather than restating the thesis- and avoiding blanket writing which ignores the audience. Once I abandoned my old writing techniques, I believe created more effective rhetorical pieces that understands the target audiences and uses a series of rhetorical strategies to persuade/dissuade that audience.

• Did you use specific terms and concepts relating to writing and the writing process?

I mostly focused on genres and rhetorical techniques. I found that the projects involving the analysis of these two subjects advanced me as a writer. Though they may seem broad, I made sure to refer to the rhetorical analysis project and the QRG to explain how theses topics effected my work. The QRG introduced me to a new writing style, while the rhetorical analysis project made me research my audience before critiquing my author of choice.  

Draft of Open Letter

Marie-Lan Ngyunen. "Fencing Final" 2013
Public Domain

Below is the link to my Draft to my Open Letter final. I was able to introduce the subject and thesis pretty well so it should be rather easy to follow and assume to the overall point of the letter. I also introduced it in a more formal tone. Since this is a semi-formal letter, I avoided using "dear" and overly sentimental vocabulary. However, I was able to find a happy median between being too formal or too relaxed. I think the mood of the letter fits the project description.

I didn't use the more structure techniques found in essays in this letter, so avoided using transitions, repeating the thesis, or even presenting a definitive thesis in the introduction. I felt that having an obvious thesis statement or conclusion wouldn't necessarily fit with the genre of this project.

Here is the Link!

I also commented on Kyle's letter and Jayni's letter. 

Reflecting More on My Writing Process

Unknown. "Celebration" July 4, 2009
Public Domain 

1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?

I think the most challenging part of this year was preparing for midterms and trying to juggle the studying involved. I found it rather difficult fitting in any serious studying into my schedule without sacrificing focus to the 109H blog post requirements. I was able to finish all of the posts on time, however I wish I was able to spend more time o the coarse readings and brainstorming the topics of the three projects.  

2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?

I found that time management was essential in regards to the completion of the posts and creating quality projects. As for my writing and editorial skills, I found that the skills I used in my high school advanced literature and language classes were somewhat useful in this class setting. I had a decent understanding about rhetorical analysis and essay writing, so I applied those skills throughout the semester. Basically, the class gave me more in depth content and information about those previous skills.

3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.

A genre is basically the framework or structure of a certain writing piece. And with a genre a reader can expect the different forms of writing conventions that may be employed by the author. These conventions act as a means to effectively introduce the argument or purpose of the essay, article, or blog post. The genre also acts as a window in to the audience type and their opinions/beliefs. From this, reader can better understand why an author employs certain rhetorical techniques in their writing. Understanding genre allows readers to understand purpose and strategy in writing, thus making them less susceptible to fallacious argumentation or less credible claims/evidence. 

4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?  

I will most likely develop the skill of argumentation and rhetorical analysis, as these skills are essential to my discipline. Furthermore, I plan to advance my writing ability long after this coarse with more writing related classes throughout my freshmen and sophomore years. Also reading articles and highlighting rhetorical strategies within will keep this skill fresh in my brain.

5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H?

I think my most effective moment in this coarse was my QRG presentation and the collection of data to support the claims made in the post. I had to use a variety of source work in order to fin d the most effective data necessary to support my thesis. The sources included library database citations as well as a number of credible online sources. I found that the search for these sources was the most important and time consuming aspect of the project, but the end result was ideal and had substantial evidence to support the main thesis.

6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H? 

I think my least effective moment in this semester was the time management. I always finished my work on time, however I felt that at times I would be overwhelmed by the work or finish an entire section in one day. Had I created a more effective schedule at the beginning of the year, I may have had a better handling of the section work. But, I don't think a calendar would have helped, as my other classes were the main reason I strayed from my planned routine.        

Revisiting My Writing Process

The post below reflects upon one of my first posts from Module I. Compared to my writing capabilities from August, I believe I have grown as a writer and have a better understanding of the process necessary to create quality argumentative/analytical pieces.

Antonio Litterio. "Fountain Pen" 2001
Public Domain

Looking back on the Calendar and Writing Process blog posts, I found that I have become more of a analytical and rhetorical writer, but still have not mastered the time management aspect of this coarse. My original plan for the Calendar post was to use my schedule to my advantage, using the spare time I had between classes to work more on the quality of my blog posts or create a strategy for completing the three projects. However, my schedule began cluttered with personal chores, work, or the occasional test that needed more time out of the planned schedule. What I believe was the source of these issues was the fact that I created a coarse schedule that was unrealistic and ignored my obligations to other classes. However, I did manage to fit in real comprehensive work on the three project during the weekend before the due date as well as miscellaneous days in between,

Regarding the progress with my Writing Process, I found that I am now more analytical in my readings and argumentative processes. Normally when I was given an article, social media post, or a class reading, I would more or less do a superficial analysis or take a broad argumentative position on the subject matter. Now I pay more attention to the rhetorical situation and recognize the target audience of all articles and readings. Plus, I now have a better understanding of the types of argumentative positions.

I believe that my time management has remained fairly constant. However I have improved in terms of my understanding of the level of thought and dedication to assignments. When I initially came to this class, I didn't have a definitive understanding about college life or the work involved. Now, I am more dedicated to the quality of my work and am role contentious about my homework schedule.  

Reflection of Project III

Prabhu B. "Spectacular Reflections" 2007
Public Domain

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to the next?

After reviewing my original document, I found that my argumentation style was beginning to skew. Instead keeping with the refutation argumentation concepts, I started to propose solutions to the issues, support some of the claims made by the article I was reviewing its points, or just going off on tangents. I stuck with the refutation strategy as seen in the quote below.

Ex. The fact in the matter is that Harmon and other anti-sequencing authors are misinformed or misinterpreting the science itself. Why is Harmon and the sequencing opposition misinformed? The most reasonable assumption would be that these opponents are victims of “pop science,” the blind acceptance of facts or fear of new science that has been relentlessly cycled through mass media.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

I kept my original thesis. I found that if I kept to the point I listed while brainstorming I won't have to revise my argumentation style. I think that was the real issue with my draft. I had a thesis that clearly indicated a refutation style argument; but I just didn't stick with the points.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

Although I did not change my thesis, I did reconsider my audience. I couldn't write an article that used a series of complex statistics to support my claims. Instead I used emotion an ethical appeals in order to indicate the loop holes in my opponent's argumentation. I realized that my audience was the general middle class American who does have a in depth knowledge of gene mapping, so I kept with the basics.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

I think it increases/strengthens my credibility, as I write to inform the reader in the strongest way possible. It would be unethical, moreover ridiculous to bombard my reader with complicated statistics on an issue they won't research further into.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

I will inform the reader in the strongest way possible. It would be ridiculous to bombard my reader with complicated statistics on an issue they won't research further into. Plus, my writing style mirrors a TIME magazine article. It should be simple, visually appealing, and relatively easy to read.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

I kept with my normal sentence structure. I found that is was simple enough for the general reader to follow but also included enough information to support my claims. Normally my sentences were designed to look like the example below.

Ex. However the manuscript eventually shifts from research and data oriented subject matter to the basic theory of genome mapping. That theory states, in layman's terms, that there will come a time where it will be necessary for the human race to engineer its own DNA as its fundamental properties will stand as a limitation to human progress.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

If the reader can understand the topic and issue with less academic vocabulary and more emotional appeals in terms of rhetoric, than a greater portion of my audience will understand the point I am trying to make and support my claims.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

No, I kept with the style the TIME magazine company used and the final result looked like an extended/special edition of a TIME magazine report.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

I feel that the draft I create will always be second rate to the final product. I realized that any brainstorming writing I usually make when I want to quickly create a document for this project is not as great or organized compared to a document that I revised for hours and monitored the document's style.  

Publishing Public Argument

Here is my Final Project Three Report!

U.S Mint. "Three-Cent Nickel" 1871
Public Domain

1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue (before reading/watching/hearing your argument) below:

←-------------------------------------X--------------|-------------------------X------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:

←----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------X----------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:

         _______ My public argument establishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument proposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument positively evaluate a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm supporting).

         _____X__ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm refuting).

4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:

I avoided commentary on the article in question. I simply referred to any relevant information about the issue in quotations or added any previous information in order to support my claim. Most of the article was based on my personal opinion on the issue, which I then supported be referring to outside authors.  

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed n your public argument below:

I believed I used logos and ethos throughout the piece. I tried to debunk my opponent's argument by demeaning the substance behind it; either by referring to the loop holes in the argument or the ridiculousness of the rhetoric involved in the argument/article. 

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals

                   

 ___x__ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view

                   

 ___x_ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)

                    

____X_ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)

                   

 ___X__ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating

                 

 ___X__ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)

                   

 ___X__ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)

                    

_____ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)

                    

___X__ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently

                   

 ___X__ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)

                   

 _____ Other: 

Logical or rational appeals

                    

__X___ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                   

 __X___ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                   

 _____ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position

                   

 __X___ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position

                   

 ___X__ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc.

                   

 ___X__ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voice over, etc.)

                   

 ___X__ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments

                   

 ___X__ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument

                   

 ___X__ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)

                   

Hyperlinks:

• Genetic Testing Company 23andMe Returns to the Market
• Genetic Test Impacts Chemo Choices In Surprising Ways
• What We Learn When We Sequence the Genes of An Entire Nation

Reflection on Project III Draft

Hine, Lewis. "Glass Factory Worker" 1911
Public Domain

Below, I answer a series of questions regarding the Project III draft review. I reviewed the drafts made by Savannah and Mehruba, and found the work they made influential for future revisions in my draft.

• Who reviewed my Project III Draft?

Trey Blocker was the only person to review my draft. I assume that more people will eventually comment on it, but since I am making this post now I can only confirm Trey's contribution.

• What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received?

Trey was very informative in the draft commentary. he stated that I should keep with the argument style I am aiming for- a rebuttal of an article that discredits my position. Furthermore, I rally need to skim through the draft and remove the excess research data and medical findings statistics. They seem to overwhelm the piece and at times confuse the reader. Other than the minor grammar and spelling errors, the essay seem to flow well.

•  What aspects of Project III need the most work going forward?

I would have to work on the target argumentation style as well as keeping with the theme of the piece. I am trying to design an article style essay that gives the reader just enough information about the issue so that the author can propose or rebuke the context of the debate. I am trying to design a counter argument to the gene sequencing opposition's core beliefs, pinpoint inconsistencies, and remind the reader of the flaws within their argumentation styles.

• How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?

I feel more confident in the overall direction of my draft. I now know that I have to focus more on a rebuttal style essay rather than melding the argument style into a proposal, rebuttal, and position hybrid. I found that such a combination will overwhelm the reader, contribute to my essay being too lengthy- especially in regards to the design of the piece- and that the information I would use would frequently be repeated throughout. I am trying to approach this essay with a new form of argumentation and keep the overall piece brief.