Learning Outcome 1:

I made the biggest jump possible in my revision process from paper 1 to paper 3, I completely rewrote paper 3 after my 3rd draft. If you look to my project 3 page you will see that my 3rd draft and my final draft don’t share a single sentence I completely trashed it. This I feel showed big growth in my ability to make global revision changes. Local revisions have always been something I have done in high school making sure the sentence structure makes sense, no grammatical errors things like that. Before this class and even in Paper 1 I never really made global revisions because that kind thought about the big picture in my paper never crossed my mind. Once I had my idea I went with it even it wasn’t even really answering the prompt or was missing the point. What helped me get to this point was peer review, having my peers review my paper and me reviewing theirs helped me see the big picture of the essay and helped me dive deeper into my thoughts and create a more meaningful essay. For paper 3 after peer review, I got a lot of comments on my thesis being a little too harsh and may be hard to make sure all my points I make in my body paragraphs coincide with one another. At that point, however, I was already 1000 words deep into my essay and although they never said to completely rewrite my essay I had to look deeper into my thesis and the pieces I was working with to see if it even made sense. I ended up realizing that the point I was trying to make was just a strong emotion I had toward a part of a piece and one didn’t even capture the point of that piece I drew it from and but it also didn’t even relate to the other pieces I was working with. I had really missed what the points the authors were trying t make and failed to relate it to the big picture. So I sat on a Monday night for 3 hours working on a conclusion that would tie in all the pieces while relating it to the big picture and I ended up having to trash all 1000 words of what I had previously written.  A revision session like this was something I would never even considered in project 1 I would have just turned in what I had happy to be done.

Learning Outcome 2:

For paper 1 we were allowed to draw on sources from our own favorite meal essay and “The End of Food” by Lizzie Widdicombe. For Paper 1 I worked with both sources but I did my best work when working with “The End of Food”.

Ex-

The main point I was trying to make in this essay was that Soylent isn’t useless but that does not mean it is useless. Soylent still has many applications that solve real-world problems. In this paragraph, I was trying to convey the negative sides of Soylent and prove why it could never replace food. f first start off by introducing the quote I was going to use by stating my position saying how soylent could never replace food. I then look to introduce Widdicombe’s own first-hand experience to strengthen this claim with someone who has actually tried soylent. Widdicombe didn’t even know what to do with her Saturday because food provided punctuation to her life. I then use this evidence to strengthen my own claim by saying how without food you no longer have those human interactions during lunch or something to look forward to its just monotonous work.

Learning Outcome 3:

My annotating approach consists of marking down anything that I know I could either use for my essay later or anything that is interesting to me. I will underline things that surprise me or things that are important or crucial to the author’s point. I will usually follow an underline with markings in the margin either answering a question that was asked or explaining what the author meant there. I also use many symbols in the margins like exclamation points or question marks. For this class mostly what I decide to mark up with each source are quotations that I could use within my essay. Since all sources used in this class, we are using as sources in our essays once I knew what I was being asked to write about I would make sure to mark things in each piece that I could use for my argument. After reading Susan Gilroy selection I realized The annotating I am doing is much to surface level and it actually hurt me in my final paper. I had to rewrite my final paper because the thesis I had made was completely wrong in my interpretation of the texts I was working with I had just based my paper on something that bothered me in one of the texts and tried to relate it to the other 2 texts even though I was missing the points the authors were really trying to make. This is what Gilroy stressed in her selection. When you annotate a text you should be analyzing the text this adds an evaluative process and allows you to answer questions like: “What is the writer asserting? What am I being asked to believe or accept? Facts? opinions? Some mixture? What reasons or evidence does the author supply to convince me?” (Gilroy) If you can answer these question when annotating this allows you to relate the issues in the text back to class discussion and themes of the course. By doing this I would not have made the same mistake as I did in paper 3.

Learning Outcome 4:

I felt that over the course of the semester my peer review efforts were fairly good and I gave consistent effort throughout and genuinely tried to help my peers improve their essay I always tried to stay away from the local comments and make global comments ones that would actually help my peer make a more clear and concise argument. I felt that I gave my best edit to my peer’s essay for paper 1 because the prompt we were responding to didn’t have much variety in the ays you were able to respond to it so I knew exactly what points my peers were trying to make. Unlike in Paper 3, the prompt allowed much more variety in the responses you could make. So I found paper 3 the most difficult to really give good global comments that would help my peer make a stronger argument. For example, for Paper 1 I made edits on Bryans paper:

“Maybe try to explain the quote using something else besides this quote explains. Maybe one of the templates from they say I say.”

“Have you thought about maybe adding a counter argument about missing phytochemical from fruits and vegetables”

These are just a few comments I made that demonstrate my ability to help and improve my peer’s essay. For the first one, I helped improve the flow of the paper because for every quote that was used in the paper he introduced it by saying “This quotation says”. This gets monotonous and is a simple easy fix to improve ones flow of there paper. For the second comment, Bryan made a point that could easily be strengthened by integrating the text and introducing a counterargument.

 

Learning Outcome 5 and 6:

Over the course of this class, each project was under MLA guidelines. In class we went over resources to use for MLA format we were given handouts on sample MLA papers on how t properly quote and properly format works cited page. We were also given other resources like “The Little Seagull” and Owl Purdue. Personally, I used Owl Purdue the most especially for the works cited page because it showed you how to properly format each source depending on where it came from not just a generic format. For example:

As seen from above by following owl Purdue prompt I was able to properly cite each source adding quotation mark, italics, etc when needed. For local revisions made to my papers, I made the bulk of them during the time provided in class before we turned in our essays. I would read over my final draft in my head and catch any last grammatical errors, missing words and sentence structure fixes.

These are the type of edits I would make for all 3 of my papers just doing one last read through my paper to make sure each sentence makes sense and flows smoothly.