Four-Part Framing Letter
Learning Outcome 1:
My revision practice for the significant writing project I chose was quite noticeable. It was a great deal recursive due in part to my professors comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the essay. I’d say the content I used stayed the same, but it was the organization and clarity of it that was drastically changed. Through my professor, I did my global revisions to the paper first and then proofread for local errors and corrected those later on. What I initially worked on in the first revision was what I believed to be global revisions within paragraphs, but were really only local revisions. I didn’t quite understand that global revisions included taking out paragraphs, adding in new ones, completely restructuring multiple paragraphs to better fit the thesis, something Nancy Sommers talks about. Through peer review and through the red-pen edit of my professor, I was able to better understand where I could improve in order to more clearly state my ideas. They were the ones who showed me places where I said things that weren’t relevant to the conversation, or where I didn’t analyze a thought completely. As for my “philosophy” of the revision process, I’d say I was right where Sommers puts the bulk of college students. I thought of the revision process as a rewording activity beforehand, but now understand it’s about making sure that I fully talk about my thoughts on something and leave nothing to chance. I only looked at the little parts of it, not looking at the big picture, or the entire essay as one.
Learning Outcome 2:
The way I used sources as evidence in the final draft of the chosen significant writing was through the TRIAC paragraph style. This style has you write with a claim/topic sentence first, restate and refine what you’ll talk about next, provide an illustration or a quote, analyze the quote and make meaningful connections, and finally conclude it all by reviewing it all briefly in a couple of sentences. The TRIAC paragraph was what I used in all my papers written for this class as I found it the most simple and comprehensible way to write and get my ideas across. An example of this in my significant writing project was in the 5th paragraph of the essay. I start with my topic sentence by posing two questions talked about earlier in the essay. I then go on to say how I cannot give an answer and how that part is up to you. I then give a sentence regarding what exactly in the article I will be talking about and then move into my quote, “As Southan explain, the analogy is in regards to a little girl falling into a lake, ‘Would you jump in and rescue her, even if you hadn’t pushed her in? Even if it meant ruining your clothes?’ (435).” I then go on to break down and analyze what it was I wrote and by talking about what really matters in life. I give example of ways this might apply to one’s own life and then conclude by saying that you’ll feel better in the end and that compromise is key in order to progress efficiently.
Learning Outcome 5 and 6:
In regard to the chosen significant writing process and my ability to cite sources using MLA guidelines and make local revisions, I feel I did this quite well and without much issue. The Little Seagull Handbook by Richard Bullock was a great resource here. It gave the format in which I need to cite all sources from various means and then goes on to give an example citation to help make sure we did it correctly. It also gave examples of all the different ways in-text citations can occur in and in what situations the different versions come into play, like if you mention the author while introducing the quote, you only end with the page number, (8). Looking at the local revision process, it’s something I’ve done for many years and feel I’ve mastered. One example in my final draft was the correction of commas. When I write my free drafts, the overall goal is to get all my ideas onto paper, and this often has led me to many run-on sentences. That’s no problem for me as I always find them and fix/reword them to correct them. One may fall through the cracks at times, but for the most part, it’s something I expect to find and am always on the lookout for.
Learning Outcome 4:
My feedback during all peer review sessions I feel was very specific and helpful. Learning Outcome 4 states how I should be able to critique my own and others work, emphasizing global revision early and local revisions later. However, I often tie in both global and local to all my reviews because if I don’t understand what I’m reading (local revisions) then the rest of the paper may be confusing. My professor always kept tabs on our peer review and said everything I did was well done and that I may only need to add more suggestions in my closing note to the peer. A few examples of my review session include local revisions in the introductory paragraph when her claim sentence was strong but needed some work to make it look as strong as it sounded. Turning towards evidence comments, there were places in the essay where they could have expanded on a topic, sometimes it just felt too rushed. More time should be spent here with evidence to support earlier claims and fill out the thought completely. This also ties into the idea portion of the comments. There were times where my peer wasn’t specific with a couple of words; like when I understood what they meant, but it could have had some more clarification of certain pieces, in their thesis for instance. Lastly, in regard to organizational comments, there were places where my peer said something really strong, it just didn’t tie in well with that specific claim; it could be adapted into its own claim or simply moved into a better spot within the paper. Overall, my peer review is on-point, but as always there is room for growth. I could improve on my suggestions for fixing a comment as I know having some ideas in my head already helps me think of things down the line.
