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).
This year my revision process has been: read and annotate, make up a working thesis, write an outline, go back to the reading to find evidence, write 1st draft, peer review/ teacher review, 2nd draft, writing tutor, 3rd draft and finally proof read. Nancy Sommer’s , author of Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. says that “experienced writers describe there primary objective when revising as finding the form or shape of their argument”. From the beginning of the semester to now I have definitely improved with my ability to approach writing as a recursive process. So much that on my third paper I had much less edits to do and the writer process was way more enjoyable. In the beginning of the semester when we were writing paper one I had to continuously go back and redirect what I wanted to say since readers had a hard time understanding what I was trying to get across. My main goal of revision was to make sure that my claims matched my thesis and matched what I wanted to even say. Sommer’s talks about repetition and “merely restating the same idea with different words”. During revision when we are doing peer edits this is usually where that problem get’s solved and new ideas get brainstormed.
Learning Outcome 2: Be able to integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant sources.
In my third writing prompt I chose to use quotes that would further my prompt and could be used as evidence. In one of my paragraphs my claim was that social media not only leads to cyberbullying but it also affects individual’s relationships. So how I organized my paragraph was I had my claim and I talked about why social media affected relationships. I then introduced the source and what the source was all about. Next came the quote. I chose a personal thought, a mini story to enhance my point. To me having someone’s personal experience can help make a claim stronger. After my quote I then explained why the quote and then connect it back to what I’m trying to prove.
Learning Outcomes 5 and 6: Document their work using appropriate conventions (MLA). Control sentence-level error (grammar, punctuation, spelling).
I chose my third writing prompt because I believe that is is my best work in my ability to cite sources using MLA and make local revisions. One thing that I struggle with in general is taking the extra time to make those local revisions. What I have figured out that reading my paper out loud helps me catch those local revisions. I feel confident now in my abilities with what the proper MLA citation is and don’t believe that is a problem.
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.
Comment 1, I : Comment 1 is about her into paragraph. What I suggested she could do was think the bigger picture first, hook people and slowly narrow in on exactly what you are trying to prove ( thesis). To me it just seemed like the writing before the thesis wasn’t what the thesis was really about.
Comment 2, O and L: Comment two was about her thesis but the reason why I put O an L was because I though that the sentence structure could be better with her thesis but also she might need to remove some parts of the sentence to fully narrow in on what she’s really trying to argue in her prompt.
Comment 3, L: For comment 3 I marked it with an L. I did this because it was a local edit for the draft but also an important one. Her quotes and citations were not in MLA format. I normally wouldn’t have marked a local edit but since MLA format is important I did.
Comment 4, E: For comment 4 I wrote E because she had put a quote in her paper but didn’t talk about the quote afterwards. Instead she just started a new paragraph talking about another topic. So I suggested that she made sure that she went back to explain the quote and not let the quote explain do the talking and leave the reader trying to interpret what she was trying to say.
Comment 5, L: Looking back at what my comment was I realize it was about her claim sentence, so instead of categorizing it as an L I want to categorize it as an I. I had suggested that she should phrase her claim better, to be more direct with what she’s trying to say.
Comment 6, 0: For comment 6 I suggest that she find more information about real life examples to help support her claim.
Comment 7 , L Again here it was a local edit regarding MLA format.
Comment 8, L: For comment 8 there was another local edit. This time I suggested that she should smooth out the sentence since it sounded choppy.
Comment 9, E For comment 9 I say she should explain her naysayer maybe using more evidence. But also show the relationship between the evidence and the peer’s ideas.
