Personal Reflective Writing Analysis
March 9, 2013
Department of English
University of Washington
Ever since I studied abroad in the U.S., improvement in argumentative writing was the most difficult part as an international student. While I naturally acquired listening and speaking skills as time passed, writing required me to practice it for betterment. In high school, I had trouble in English literature class because it was difficult to fully express my thoughts through in writing in English. Calculus was a clear cut for me with concrete answer while author’s theme in novel was ambiguous to define. After 10 weeks of Eng111 class with you, my ability to analyze complex text has been improved, and I write papers that have clearer claims with supportive stakes. All my papers deal with genre/audience awareness and creating strong arguments to get my point across. Through writing essays on developing complex claims that matter, being able to argue them, and revise them so that they are …show more content…
polished ended up me fully understanding the outcomes and how essential they are to writing worthwhile papers.
Short Paper1 was the most enjoyable assignment because it was about telling my own magical experience not having required format. I met Outcome1 through short paper1 as I addressed genre and audience awareness by applying conventional tone in overall diary entry as if audience is my lifelong best friend: “Today, instead of complaining of mom like I always did to you, I wanna…that made me realize mom’s great love.” I also conveyed my story in depth by creating helpful visuals, such as picture of my mom and me, so that it can help bring up the image of close relationship of mom and me. Although I believed I understand genre and audience awareness, after peer review and catalyst review, I discovered that I still missed audience awareness while telling the story so I mainly concentrated on revising for audience. To engage audience in more familiar tone, I put some sentences begin with “You know” to demonstrate previous knowledge of audience and intimate relationship. Beyond your comment, I strengthened relationship with audience even more by fabricating a story, such as “You were so surprised and eventually we cried together…haha what a best friend.” Surprisingly, as a result of 10 weeks of this course, I was able to find out my weakness on audience awareness that I had not realized at first time. At a time breaking down second paragraph as you advised, I reread my paper and noticed that I put too much detail that sound redundant. Hence I omitted some unnecessary parts of the story, especially in paragraph 2 and 3 instead I added more audience engagement. This paper becomes basis for following papers because it allowed me to thoroughly understand Outcome1, the demands of a particular genre and audience that are necessary for academic writing.
Initially, I found Short paper2 challenging to write because it was difficult for me to analyze Suvin’s claim and stakes in his writing. As I mentioned, I had hard time compiling a complex arguments in writing since high school. To be expected, my first draft of Short Paper2 was weak; I missed some of Suvin’s points and poorly analyzed the difference between SF and each of realistic/non-realistic genres: “Non-realism literature is different from Science fiction although it offers strangeness to readers. Literatures of non-realism genre such as folktale, myth, and fantasy have strangeness but since it is totally impossible and unrealistic, it does not lead readers to cognitive estrangement and critical thinking.” Before I began revising, I reread Suvin’s essay and notes that I took in class to get a guideline for revision. Through peer review in class, I was able to map out necessary points of Suvin’s essay for critical summary that I initially struggled with. As a result of revision, my final draft fulfilled Outcome 1,2, and 4 as I clearly incorporated Suvin’s claim and abridged his main points in my own words, which is the purpose of critical summary that meets Outcome1 and 2. Most apparently, I strengthened stakes that support Suvin’s argument: “Suvin appreciates Science Fiction because it encourages readers to think critically through cognitive estrangement that demolishes ordinary assumptions of readers. Critical thinking makes SF different from realism and non-realism genre as an important outcome of SF.” As I fully understand his main claim and stakes that matter, it was much easier to expand his overarching claim in details. For example, I explicitly stated how realism and non-realism genres differ from SF in Paragraph2 and 3 that I mostly neglected in the first draft. Although you did not mention in comment, I also found that my definition of cognitive estrangement is somewhat unclear and redundant over times so I redefined cognitive estrangement more straightforward and excluded needless repetition. Since critical summary should be simple while conveying necessary and relevant ideas within the text, I went to Odegaard Writing& Research center to get help with my grammar and structure after finishing revision.
In the first draft of Short Paper 3 I conveyed respectful tone given fan letter genre by praising Butler’s work, “Since your book, Parable of the Sower, gave such a strong impression to me, I am already looking forward to being captivated by other pieces of your work, especially Kindred, in the near future.”, which satisfies Outcome1. I also clearly addressed cognitively estranging feature that I found interesting in Parable of the Sower and made argumentative claim to meet Outcome3: alternative way of vote to achieve social reforms. The main focus of revision was to regain audience awareness that was lost, especially in Paragraph2. I brought up superfluous summary of her book that is unnecessary to mention considering audience of this letter, Octavia Butler: “However in Lauren’s community, people could not change anything by vote because their opinion did not have any political power which made people gave up on their politicians in the end.” Hence I eliminated needless abstract of the book instead I added more personal analysis with the story: “It was shocking for me that they did not even try to vote nor expected anything to be changed by their hands despite living in horrible reality, because I never doubted that we can reform and lead our society in the way of vote that reflects the will of the people.” Moreover, I searched more biographical information of Octavia Butler to better understand her intention of writing Parable of the Sower and to express my knowledge on Butler in my writing; I found panel discussion of Butler at UCLA and put a quote in Paragraph2. Also, as you commented, I made deeper connection with Butler on the matter of racism; I compared my passive attitude to her progressive actions against racism by inserting a quote that manifests her motivation to writing. By doing more background research on Butler and using them in my writing, I was able to connect myself to Butler in depth and convey stronger fan energy.
Major Paper2 was the most demanding assignment since I had to incorporate all theories, strategies, and texts that I learned from past weeks along with outside research. Because I found new cognition that I used for Short Paper 3 difficult to further develop without enough knowledge on politics, I evolved my new cognition from my lead discussion question: safety of prescription drugs. It was easier topic for me to access and develop because I am taking Psych322, which deals with drug use. In the first draft, I did well on outlining some main components of the paper, such as explaining my cognitive estrangement from the book and have proper outside sources that support my argument, which meets Outcome1. Yet my claim was quite unclear and most importantly, not specific enough to argue as most of your comments said: ‘good, but what is your argument?’ So I chose to revise primarily for a clear and argumentative claim with reasonable stakes, Outcome 3. I generated a strong claim that incorporates different kinds of points that I addressed in the rest of paper: “Because pharmaceutical industry, unlike other industries, primarily deals with public well being, commercialization in drug industry can threaten public safety. Therefore, I will argue in this paper that pharmaceutical industry should prioritize preserving and promoting public health with ethical standards rather than chasing quick fix and profit.” Since I came up with so many ideas related to prescription drugs in the first draft I found that I listed many claim-relevant points without connecting them to my main argument. Thus, I tied my paragraphs back to claim for each topics that I used for evidence to support my claim, which I rarely did for the first draft. For instance, I said, “Thus, FDA should command rigorous restrains and rules on innovating prescription medicines even if it will take longer and demand more effort, because prescription medicines must guarantee safety of public above all.”, in the end of paragraph while analyzing an issue surrounding FDA’ policy on pushing prescription drugs through market.
To check structural issues regarding my Major Paper2, I went to the CLUE writing center at MGH.
I was able to improve fluidity of writing that was pointed out through overnight peer review by correcting awkward sentences and eliminating unnecessary sentences that are not relevant to my argument, such as “As competition of innovative medicines patent among drug companies is getting severe, they mobilize in every way sometimes do not even stick at morality” I also made some changes on quotes for better quote integration so that they can become part of my argument. For instance, I put a quote, “New study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical companies spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development.”(Peterson 37), to argue that drug companies have neglected their initial priority of promoting public health, which was an outstanding part of my claim. As a result of a massive process of revision, I successfully fulfilled all Outcomes for Major
Paper2.
As an international student who is not fluent in English, I was anxious of taking English composition class. Different from my worries, it was so much fun having course-related conversation in groups and sharing ideas on discussion questions that we found ourselves from the book. At first, I was so embarrassed when you called my name and ask, “Min, what do you think?” because I was ashamed of speaking clumsy English in front of others. Actually, I did extra hard on homework and discussion questions in case you are asking me questions. However, as time passed, I got used to your unexpected questions and began to speak up my voice in class, which I think, for me, the significant outcome of taking this class.
Sincerely,
Department of English
University of Washington
Ever since I studied abroad in the U.S., improvement in argumentative writing was the most difficult part as an international student. While I naturally acquired listening and speaking skills as time passed, writing required me to practice it for betterment. In high school, I had trouble in English literature class because it was difficult to fully express my thoughts through in writing in English. Calculus was a clear cut for me with concrete answer while author’s theme in novel was ambiguous to define. After 10 weeks of Eng111 class with you, my ability to analyze complex text has been improved, and I write papers that have clearer claims with supportive stakes. All my papers deal with genre/audience awareness and creating strong arguments to get my point across. Through writing essays on developing complex claims that matter, being able to argue them, and revise them so that they are …show more content…
polished ended up me fully understanding the outcomes and how essential they are to writing worthwhile papers.
Short Paper1 was the most enjoyable assignment because it was about telling my own magical experience not having required format. I met Outcome1 through short paper1 as I addressed genre and audience awareness by applying conventional tone in overall diary entry as if audience is my lifelong best friend: “Today, instead of complaining of mom like I always did to you, I wanna…that made me realize mom’s great love.” I also conveyed my story in depth by creating helpful visuals, such as picture of my mom and me, so that it can help bring up the image of close relationship of mom and me. Although I believed I understand genre and audience awareness, after peer review and catalyst review, I discovered that I still missed audience awareness while telling the story so I mainly concentrated on revising for audience. To engage audience in more familiar tone, I put some sentences begin with “You know” to demonstrate previous knowledge of audience and intimate relationship. Beyond your comment, I strengthened relationship with audience even more by fabricating a story, such as “You were so surprised and eventually we cried together…haha what a best friend.” Surprisingly, as a result of 10 weeks of this course, I was able to find out my weakness on audience awareness that I had not realized at first time. At a time breaking down second paragraph as you advised, I reread my paper and noticed that I put too much detail that sound redundant. Hence I omitted some unnecessary parts of the story, especially in paragraph 2 and 3 instead I added more audience engagement. This paper becomes basis for following papers because it allowed me to thoroughly understand Outcome1, the demands of a particular genre and audience that are necessary for academic writing.
Initially, I found Short paper2 challenging to write because it was difficult for me to analyze Suvin’s claim and stakes in his writing. As I mentioned, I had hard time compiling a complex arguments in writing since high school. To be expected, my first draft of Short Paper2 was weak; I missed some of Suvin’s points and poorly analyzed the difference between SF and each of realistic/non-realistic genres: “Non-realism literature is different from Science fiction although it offers strangeness to readers. Literatures of non-realism genre such as folktale, myth, and fantasy have strangeness but since it is totally impossible and unrealistic, it does not lead readers to cognitive estrangement and critical thinking.” Before I began revising, I reread Suvin’s essay and notes that I took in class to get a guideline for revision. Through peer review in class, I was able to map out necessary points of Suvin’s essay for critical summary that I initially struggled with. As a result of revision, my final draft fulfilled Outcome 1,2, and 4 as I clearly incorporated Suvin’s claim and abridged his main points in my own words, which is the purpose of critical summary that meets Outcome1 and 2. Most apparently, I strengthened stakes that support Suvin’s argument: “Suvin appreciates Science Fiction because it encourages readers to think critically through cognitive estrangement that demolishes ordinary assumptions of readers. Critical thinking makes SF different from realism and non-realism genre as an important outcome of SF.” As I fully understand his main claim and stakes that matter, it was much easier to expand his overarching claim in details. For example, I explicitly stated how realism and non-realism genres differ from SF in Paragraph2 and 3 that I mostly neglected in the first draft. Although you did not mention in comment, I also found that my definition of cognitive estrangement is somewhat unclear and redundant over times so I redefined cognitive estrangement more straightforward and excluded needless repetition. Since critical summary should be simple while conveying necessary and relevant ideas within the text, I went to Odegaard Writing& Research center to get help with my grammar and structure after finishing revision.
In the first draft of Short Paper 3 I conveyed respectful tone given fan letter genre by praising Butler’s work, “Since your book, Parable of the Sower, gave such a strong impression to me, I am already looking forward to being captivated by other pieces of your work, especially Kindred, in the near future.”, which satisfies Outcome1. I also clearly addressed cognitively estranging feature that I found interesting in Parable of the Sower and made argumentative claim to meet Outcome3: alternative way of vote to achieve social reforms. The main focus of revision was to regain audience awareness that was lost, especially in Paragraph2. I brought up superfluous summary of her book that is unnecessary to mention considering audience of this letter, Octavia Butler: “However in Lauren’s community, people could not change anything by vote because their opinion did not have any political power which made people gave up on their politicians in the end.” Hence I eliminated needless abstract of the book instead I added more personal analysis with the story: “It was shocking for me that they did not even try to vote nor expected anything to be changed by their hands despite living in horrible reality, because I never doubted that we can reform and lead our society in the way of vote that reflects the will of the people.” Moreover, I searched more biographical information of Octavia Butler to better understand her intention of writing Parable of the Sower and to express my knowledge on Butler in my writing; I found panel discussion of Butler at UCLA and put a quote in Paragraph2. Also, as you commented, I made deeper connection with Butler on the matter of racism; I compared my passive attitude to her progressive actions against racism by inserting a quote that manifests her motivation to writing. By doing more background research on Butler and using them in my writing, I was able to connect myself to Butler in depth and convey stronger fan energy.
Major Paper2 was the most demanding assignment since I had to incorporate all theories, strategies, and texts that I learned from past weeks along with outside research. Because I found new cognition that I used for Short Paper 3 difficult to further develop without enough knowledge on politics, I evolved my new cognition from my lead discussion question: safety of prescription drugs. It was easier topic for me to access and develop because I am taking Psych322, which deals with drug use. In the first draft, I did well on outlining some main components of the paper, such as explaining my cognitive estrangement from the book and have proper outside sources that support my argument, which meets Outcome1. Yet my claim was quite unclear and most importantly, not specific enough to argue as most of your comments said: ‘good, but what is your argument?’ So I chose to revise primarily for a clear and argumentative claim with reasonable stakes, Outcome 3. I generated a strong claim that incorporates different kinds of points that I addressed in the rest of paper: “Because pharmaceutical industry, unlike other industries, primarily deals with public well being, commercialization in drug industry can threaten public safety. Therefore, I will argue in this paper that pharmaceutical industry should prioritize preserving and promoting public health with ethical standards rather than chasing quick fix and profit.” Since I came up with so many ideas related to prescription drugs in the first draft I found that I listed many claim-relevant points without connecting them to my main argument. Thus, I tied my paragraphs back to claim for each topics that I used for evidence to support my claim, which I rarely did for the first draft. For instance, I said, “Thus, FDA should command rigorous restrains and rules on innovating prescription medicines even if it will take longer and demand more effort, because prescription medicines must guarantee safety of public above all.”, in the end of paragraph while analyzing an issue surrounding FDA’ policy on pushing prescription drugs through market.
To check structural issues regarding my Major Paper2, I went to the CLUE writing center at MGH.
I was able to improve fluidity of writing that was pointed out through overnight peer review by correcting awkward sentences and eliminating unnecessary sentences that are not relevant to my argument, such as “As competition of innovative medicines patent among drug companies is getting severe, they mobilize in every way sometimes do not even stick at morality” I also made some changes on quotes for better quote integration so that they can become part of my argument. For instance, I put a quote, “New study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical companies spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development.”(Peterson 37), to argue that drug companies have neglected their initial priority of promoting public health, which was an outstanding part of my claim. As a result of a massive process of revision, I successfully fulfilled all Outcomes for Major
Paper2.
As an international student who is not fluent in English, I was anxious of taking English composition class. Different from my worries, it was so much fun having course-related conversation in groups and sharing ideas on discussion questions that we found ourselves from the book. At first, I was so embarrassed when you called my name and ask, “Min, what do you think?” because I was ashamed of speaking clumsy English in front of others. Actually, I did extra hard on homework and discussion questions in case you are asking me questions. However, as time passed, I got used to your unexpected questions and began to speak up my voice in class, which I think, for me, the significant outcome of taking this class.
Sincerely,