 |
| de Ruiter, Bob. "Failection." 10/23/15 via Envatotuts+ |
1. The biggest portion of revision I did from draft to draft had to do with content. I expanded more and more as I continued drafting. I would rather write slowly, and go over my work multiple times before adding to it. This way I revise small portions as I go, and simply add content the further I am along in my drafting process.
2. My thesis evolved the better I knew the article. After reading it more and more and analyzing it more closely, I realized what was highlighted and valued by the article as extremely important. This effected my thesis, as I changed it to reflect my new perspective on the article.
3, 4, 5. As I mention above, the changes came from a personal better understanding of the articles thesis, and the methods with which this thesis was argued. The thesis changes this prompted did not effect my credibility, but gave a more accurate analysis to the audience. It did not alter the intended audience of my analysis however.
6. Most of the changes that I did to my project involving sentence structure dealt with punctuation, specifically commas.
7. Learning how to effectively and correctly use commas caused my sentence structure to be more clear, and thus the purpose and meaning of each sentence to be understandable. This lead to better understanding of what I was communicating for my audience.
8. Yes, at times I did have to reconsider the conventions of the genre, and most of this was related to my audience. We went over this in class a few times which helped me understand better.
9. Taking time to reflect on my project doesn't help me reconsider my identity as a writer. Instead, it actually makes me realize what my writing identity is. Typically I don't go through writing a project with a specific identity in mind. Looking back and reflecting on my project process helps me learn about how I write, and what is successful for me and what is not, helping me realize my writing identity.
After reading Jon and Grace's posts I learned a few things. One, people seemed to have a reasonable grasp on the personal writing identity and revision processes. Second, a lot of the struggles that my peers had were related to conventions of the genre. The analytical heavy style lead to verbose and complicated sentences, which in turn lead to tricky punctuation and punctuation errors. Also, the idea of balancing the audience as new students, while trying to rhetorically analyze was easily the hardest part of this project, and I'm still 99% sure I didn't execute this correctly.
Our reflections both seem to be relatively different from one another! I think it's interesting how you revise small portions, and then go through and add more content. That's something that I've never tried as a writer. I always just try to write out everything in my head, and go through and revise it. However, we both seemed to revise our papers with our audience in mind, and attempt to make it better for them. Writing with an audience in mind isn't something I've ever really considered, because I typically just write with my teachers/professors in mind.
ReplyDelete