LO: Document their work using appropriate conventions (MLA).
Having little experience with accurate use of MLA citation in high school, I believe I learned the most from learning outcome 5 “Document their work using appropriate conventions (MLA).” Previously, I no knowledge on how to correctly use in-text MLA citations, much less the difference in citing journals vs videos. Yet, by the final paper I demonstrated in-text use of MLA citation that was specific to the source being used. For example, I cited Christopher Soghoian’s TED talk as “(Soghoian, 2:41).” and Joshua Blumenstock’s scholarly article as “(Blumenstock, 1073).”. This different citations reflect by growth in learning on how to use MLA citations specific to the type of source; author and page number in the article, while speaker and time of the quote for the video.
In all honesty, my big datal final draft does not reflect adept ability of learning objective 6, “Control sentence level-error (grammar, punctuation, spelling)”, in the local revision process. While I was careful to refer to My Little Seagull in situations where I was unsure of correct use of punctuation, I had careless spelling mistakes. Specifically, “informatio” (Sanborn, 3) is a reflection of failure to effectively locally revise. This could be avoided by simply using spell check on Google Docs or reading the final draft aloud before printing.
LO: Employ techniques of active reading, critical reading, and informal reading response for inquiry, learning, and thinking.
LO: 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).
Over the course of the semester my approach to revision has grown dramatically; from doing just a first draft and final to pre-writing, first draft, peer review, and then final draft. I felt as though the development of my recursive process aided me in forming and finalizing my claims. Specifically within the process of revision for my big data paper I focused on sentence variety or, as Nancy Sommers says in “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.”, “rewording… to avoid lexical repetition” (Sommers). My run on sentences or overuse of complex sentences had been pointed out in previous papers and drafts which lead me to focus upon this in my revision. For example, in my introduction there is a sentence “The data collected by these objects is just one source of Big Data which is a complex, new idea that refers to the large volumes of data that is generated by people in a variety of ways and can be analyzed and used in just as many ways.”(Sanborn, 1) which was pointed out by a peer as wordy. So in my final draft I broke the sentence down into three separate sentences “This relatively new term refers to the unimaginably large masses of data generated in numerous ways from Google searches to Alexa, a virtual assistant made by Amazon, recordings. As many ways as big data can be collected it can be analyzed and used in just as many ways. From marketing to something as different as finding patterns in crime in a given area.” (Sanborn, 1). Not only did I create sentence variety and fix a run on sentence by breaking it up, but it also allowed me to go a little more in depth. This revision is what Sommers would refer to as a students revision process, not an experienced writers. My first drafts could be classified as short or underdeveloped, but this is because for me a first draft is all about simply getting my ideas on to paper; which I find the most difficult. Yet when you compare this first draft to my final one can see “substantial revision of drafts for content,” (Learning Objective 1). I would agree with Sommers that is my recursive process “in a second draft, I begin to see the structure of an argument and how all the various sub-arguments beneath the surface of the sentences are related.” (Sommers). I like the element of her philosophy on revision because although some may see my early recursive process as underdeveloped it is my way of forming my ideas. From this and feedback from peers, I am able to add in evidence and clarify claims in my final piece.
LO #2: Be able to integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant sources.
One of the six learning outcomes for English 110 is the ability to “integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, and analysis.” while delves further than previous courses that simply required choosing an effective quote and analyzing. In the previous paper on social media my use of quotes was heavier than my own analyzations or claims. This lead me to pick fewer quotes for my Big Data paper and more analyzing and summaries, which meant the quotes I choose had to be especially effective. Specifically, a paragraph of my naysayer surrounding privacy exemplifies my ability to select, integrate, and explain quotations. Within this paragraph after stating my claim, I introduced the quote by introducing the source and his credentials. Following the introduction was a summary of the basis of the argument which lead to the quote itself. After a sentence to reflect on the quote I connected it to a similar claim by another source; “Similarly, the Future of Privacy Forum, which studies data privacy out of Washington, claimed that big data could possibly lead to “discrimination in employment, benefits, housing, and education.”” (Sanborn, 5). This reflects my integration of sources, as I was able to connect the idea of one source to another. Following a brief analyzation upon the quote above I made the connection more clear by stating “This statement from the Future of Privacy Forum connects to Soghoian’s claim that big data can lead to civil rights issues.” (Sanborn, 5). Also, reflects effective selection of quotes as I was able to use a quote from each source that could connect to the other.
The pre-writing activity was helpful for me to process the ideas I had and to organize them. I also created a google doc on which I pasted the essay prompt questions and quotes from my sources that best supported my thesis.
The revision of my first draft was a little difficult because of the break I took a week off, so coming back to the essay I had to review what I was trying to say. The peer review was helpful in my revision as it helped me focus on what I needed to fix and clarify as well as pointing out mistakes I overlooked. My revision I focused mostly on making my claims more solid by further explaining them and adding more evidence. I began with the main claim that social media allowed the freedom to express and develop one’s true identity with the naysayer being that it was detrimental to self worth. Most of the peer comments was about incorporating the self worth piece more in my essay and I was struggling on how and finding supporting quotes. This lead me to change the naysayer to social media also pressuring people to be someone else which better fit and I was able to find supporting evidence. I felt pretty good about the finished product of my essay, although I felt my conclusion was a little weak I was unsure on how to conclude the piece.
The pre-writing activity was was new to me and I found it helpful in forming ideas for my literacy narrative – I realized that I had multiple ideas I could work off from. I liked how it could be free flowing without being concerned about structure.
Usually in past practice I would do two drafts – a first and a final. The recursive process for the Literacy Narrative went a couple steps further to include a second draft before the final and an in depth peer review. The specificity of this process helped to guide and result in a more through final paper, yet because my first draft was so unfocused my second draft was a totally different paper than my first. Looking back, I should have asked a peer to review my paper again; it would have been helpful in writing my final and resulted in a better final draft.
My high school English teacher harped on the correct use of commas so much that the comma rules are forever etched in my brain. Yet, when it comes to the use of other forms of punctuation, specifically colons and semicolons, I struggle. This lead me to overview the section on colons (P-6) and semicolons (P-2) in The Little Seagull Handbook. I learned that semicolons are used to join related independent clauses, so the fragments before and after the semicolon must be able to stand alone.
Ex.) Our team had poor communication last night; we lost the game.
Also, I learned that colons are used to set off a list, quote, or explanation.
Ex.) On my walk to the grocery store I went over what I needed to get for dinner: potatoes, chicken, and cheddar cheese.
LO: 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.
Throughout the semester my peer review skills, outlined by learning outcome 4, have developed to become more specific and focused. On our first project, the literacy narrative, my comments were few, nonspecific, and made with concern of offending the writer. Having guidelines for our peer reviews aided me in improving critiquing other work on both the global and local level. On a peer’s social media paper to “emphasize global revision early in the writing process,” (Learning Objective 4) with the comment “C: I understand what you are trying to say, but it would be more clear if you could be more specific in what you mean by connecting – do you mean in person/physical? Maybe connecting this sentence with the following could be effective.” (Luedee, 1). This critique is a comment on a claim that intends to help the writer clarify what they are trying to say. It also contains a suggestion on how to do so, which reflects thoughtful critique. Though overall, I believe I could improve my peer review practice by adding more suggestions to my critiques as I find this personally helpful having others’ suggestions.
While watching Carol Dweck’s TED talk about the “Power of Yet”, we jotted down our thoughts. In my annotations I referenced other concepts or events that reminded me of points that she was making, questions I had, quotes that related to the points she was making, and specific words/phrases that popped out at me. Dweck’s idea of the fixed and growth mindsets made a lot of sense to me; I could pick out people in my life that I could describe as having the fixed mindset that are usually quite miserable and others that have the growth mindset that are generally more successful.
Recent Comments