"Reflection on Open Letter Draft"

For the class peer review on our final projects, an open letter, I reviewed Jenny and Clay's drafts. For the rest of this blog post, I will be reflecting on the feedback I received on my own draft and what I have learned from that feedback using the bulleted list from A Student's Guide To First-Year Writing pages 253-6. 

Sullivan, Matthew (2007) "something to see here" via Flickr
Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License

1. Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer?
Yes, I provided a lot of context about the type of writer I used to be compared to now. However, after reflecting on the feedback received from my peers, I should add a few more examples with textual evidence in order to better support my claims and keep my reader interested.

2. Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments, or concepts you have learned?
I provided various explanations of experiences I had throughout the course, however like I already mentioned, I should provide further examples and evidence to make the analysis stronger. 

3. Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing (either quotes from your writing or rich descriptions of your writing process)?
A few, from the blog posts and deadlines but not enough! I want to add textual evidence and hyperlinks from the final version of Project 3 because I feel like it would be a good way to exemplify the skills I have gained throughout this course; Project 3 was a more independent project that I felt strongly about. 

4. Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?
Kind of, but not exactly (depends on which examples I am talking about)... maybe this would be effective to add to when I talk about organizing my time. 

5. Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?
Yes! I tried to incorporate/explain most of the steps and concepts my newly improved writing process. However, I am worried that maybe it is a little too long and list-like. I might remove parts of it that are seemingly less important than others and focus on the new concepts that were really useful to me throughout the course and outside the course as well.

In general, I plan on revising the overall conventions of the genre I am writing in as well as my writing style. I tend to write wordy sentences, and for a letter, that writing style might not be very effective to keep my audience's attention. Additionally, I plan to revise the content within my letter by making sure I provide sufficient explanation for my examples as well as make sure that the examples are clear and effective.  

Draft of Open Letter

Reneman (2013) "Draft" via Wikimedia
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License

Dear Peer-Reviewers,

My "draft of open letter" is very rough. I am not quite finished yet and plan on adding more of a conclusion! It would be really helpful to me if you could please add comments where you are confused or think I should add more examples or explanation. If you think of any ideas or have suggestions please comment them on the document, I am open to all kinds of feedback including inspiration! Thank you! 

To access my draft of project 4, please click "HERE".

Reflecting More on My Writing Experiences

Dear Reader,
In this blog post I will be answering a few questions about my experiences in this course!

Discott (2014) "A Lecture Classroom" via Wikimedia
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?
The biggest challenge I faced was having to adapt my writing process in order to effectively progress through the course. Because I used to be a procrastinator, it was difficult for me to have to plan out/manage my time in order to complete each deadline successfully. Over time, however, I learned to manage my time well and keep up-to-date with my projects and deadlines. 

2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?
I learned that my work really is better when I make effective use of my time in order to plan and gradually develop my work, as opposed to writing the entire project in one night and revising it heavily. 

3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.
Before this course, I had really only ever written analytical essays (with a strict format); my experience with writing was very limited/restricted. However, in this course, I have learned a lot about various genres of writing as well as when to use them and how to construct them effectively. I think that understanding this concept ('genre') is critical to being an effective writer because you have to understand the conventions of the genre as well as the audience to create an effective/successful work. My first experience with an unfamiliar genre was our first project, the Quick Reference Guide. Through this project, I learned a lot about the various conventions of writing within a specific genre. 

4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?
Being a journalism major, this course has been extremely useful to me; it has prepared me to write in certain genres that were unfamiliar to me before, that I will have to write in (hopefully) in the future. Additionally, I have learned to manage my time and preparation well, helping me create better work.

5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H? 
Personally, I really enjoyed project 3 and how we were able to choose the genre we wanted to write in. Through this project, I was able to implement the many writing skills/strategies this course has taught me into a project that interests me and pertains to my major. 

6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?
My least effective moment from this course was probably project 2 on rhetorical strategies. Although I understood the information that I was writing about, the genre/style I was writing in felt uncomfortable to me. Also, it was not as exciting or interesting to me as the other projects because it was less about my interests and my major and more about rhetorical strategies. However, I did my best and completed the project and deadlines! 

Revisiting My Writing Process

Dear Reader,

In this blog post I will be revisiting a few of my first blog posts (1.10 "My Writing Process" & 1.12 "Calendar Reflection") and reflecting on how I have and have not changed as a writer through my experience in the course. 

Koul, Anirudh (2009) "Reflection on the River Thames" via Flickr
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License

After reflecting on these two blog posts on my writing process and time management, I had originally stated that I was not much of a planner, I was a bit of a procrastinator, and I was a heavy revisor. Throughout the course I have progressed a lot as a writer and my writing process has drastically changed. Because of the set-up of the course, I was incapable of procrastinating if I wanted to get all my work done by the deadline (and do it well!). Also, the blogs that eventually became the foundations of our various projects helped me become a heavy planner. Although I am still a heavy revisor, because my work was well-thought out and well-planned, my revising process was much lighter than usual. 

Moving forward, my new skills with time management and as a writer will help me, particularly within my major (journalism). In the next 2 or 3 years of college I hope that I will continue to do a good job with time management and planning in order to create better work. In the future, I hope to be writing articles on current on-goings and in order to do so, I will need to be able to manage my time well. In this course, I have learned to effectively manage time and work as well as create effective plans of my work. 

Reflection on Project 3

Dear Reader,
In this blog post, I will be answering some questions from Writing Public Lives (page 520) on "Reflecting on the Revision Process" for Project 3. 

Sullivan, Matthew (2007) "something to see here" via Flickr
Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
Apart from small details like word-choice and grammatical errors, during my revising process I changed certain aspects of the overall purpose of the argument. At first, I was only writing about Rolling Stone's failures affecting the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVA. However, during my revision process, I ended up shifting the focus of my argument more towards how Rolling Stone's failures ruined Phi Kappa Psi's reputation as well as fed the public's misconceptions of university Greek life in relation to rape culture. 

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
After peer review, the revisions from my classmates helped me reconsider the possibilities of the purpose of my public argument. I found it to be much more influential to write about university Greek life throughout the nation (and my experiences), rather than just at UVA. Additionally, when I added more information on universities who don't have a Greek system but still have high percentages of reported rapes (Harvard and Yale), I was able to really bring my argument together (that rape is a societal issue on university campuses, not an issue only within the Greek system--which Rolling Stone provokes their audience to think). 

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
Like I explained in questions 1 and 2, my changes were provoked by a shift in purpose of my public argument and what I wanted my audience to take away/consider after reading my project. I wanted my audience to reconsider their misconceptions of university Greek life (that were reinforced by Rolling Stone's article) because rape culture is a societal issue, not a Greek system issue.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
By using a specific example, Rolling Stone's article "A Rape on Campus", I was able to building credibility for myself in the beginning of my public argument. Additionally, by adding my personal experiences within Greek life, I was able to use myself as a credible source and evoke an emotional response from my audience.  

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
They provoked more rhetorical strategies in my project and helped me formulate an argument on a topic that has not really been discussed/reported heavily on in the media. 

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I reconsidered my style when I added my personal experience with university Greek life. I write...
"Being a woman and a member of university Greek life myself, I have experienced and witnessed the effects of these stereotypes. Whether or not some of the stereotypes stem from truth, it is ridiculous to claim that the entire Greek system is at fault for all reported university sexual assaults. I, for one, have never felt unsafe or uncomfortable within the Greek community in any environment."
...By shifting my style from what seems to be more evaluative into more personal, I hoped to gain trust/credibility with my audience.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
The changes assist my audience in understanding my purpose by evoking emotional responses, building credibility, and pointing my audience more towards the idea that their judgements of the Greek system, inspired by Rolling Stone's journalistic failures, are not always true and that they shouldn't blame Greek life for rape culture when it is a societal issue. 

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
No, despite the many changes I made during my revision process I did not have to make any changes with the conventions of my genre (an opinionated blog/essay for Buzzfeed). 

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
After reflecting on my writing and revision process for Project 3, I feel that my identity as a writer has progressed so much since the beginning of the semester. Without even realizing it, I was able to apply various rhetorical strategies in my writing that effectively support my argument. Also, I was able to write in a genre that I have never (formally) written in. I never thought that reflecting on my writing and revising process could reveal so much about the kind of writer I am and my capabilities to write in genres or about topics I am unfamiliar with. The changes I made to my project during my revision process helped me build an effective argument that I think is important and necessary to be heard.

Publishing Public Argument

Attached are the links to my final public argument and my final notes on my public argument with 3 examples of my genre...

Stansbury, Addie (2015) "My Public Argument" via Google Docs

• My Final Public Argument

• Notes/Review of Public Argument

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

Dear Reader,

For deadline #12, I reviewed Lauren Hart's and Breanna Featherston's drafts for Project 3. In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions about my own project.

Huithril (2015) "Edit" via Phanaticmc
Public Domain

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?
Ann Emilie Tjorhom and Mark Lubniewski

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? 
The feedback I received was really helpful, particularly the feedback from Mark in the "audience" section and the feedback from Ann Emilie in the "purpose" section. Mark wrote, "at this point, it seems as though the mishandling of UVA was prompted by existing misconceptions about Greek life established beforehand, rather than Rolling Stone’s article building a fundamentally new image in people’s heads - after all, if Rolling Stone established the stereotypes, why would UVA react the way it did?". I found his point to be really helpful because I had not realized this before. I plan on re-evaluating how I can better explain this to my audience because I understand that existing misconceptions were already a problem but I want to emphasize how that issue combined with Rolling Stone's article failure led to more problems (and therefore, my argument).

3. What aspects of project 3 need the most work going forward [audience, purpose, argumentation, or genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas?
Personally, after looking over the peer review documents, it seems to me that I need to work most on purpose. Ann Emilie wrote, "Addie starts talking about the merits of Greek life towards the end, which could be an asset to her argument, but end up distracting readers from the causal argument she is trying to make". I realized after reading this that she is right. I plan on reconsidering how to effectively tie-in the "merits of Greek life" with my argument.

4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?
I feel pretty good about my draft, however, there are some changes that need to be made. Hopefully I will be able to combine a lot the advice/recommendations I received from the conference as well as from the peer review documents.