Reflection on Project 3

In this blog post, I will reflect on Project 3 by answering a series of questions listed in Writing Public Lives page 520.

Silverman, Renee, "JUMP 4 JOY." 08/22/09 via Flickr. Attribution-NoDerivs License.

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

The organization and tone of my draft were revised from one draft to another. In terms of organization, I tried to revise my draft so that the ideas flowed logically into each other, rather than abruptly from one point to another. This also helped me establish my pro position argument more effectively. I also adjusted the tone so that it addressed my audience and purpose more clearly and effectively.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

I focused my thesis a little more so that it only addressed the pros of my position. This meant that I had to significantly decrease the amount of time I spent refuting the opposite position, even though I included a little of this to increase my credibility. In terms of organization, I adjusted the draft so that the ideas flowed into each other logically and made my argument more clear.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

My shift in tone occurred due to a reconsideration of my audience. I had to adjust my writing so that it appealed to a more unscientific audience. In addition, my organization changed partially due to a shift in purpose, so that it addressed my pro position argument more clearly.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

These changes increase my credibility, as the change in argumentation shows that I am a knowledgable source for this topic. I specifically made changes that increase my credibility through my tone and my use of evidence.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

The shift in tone and organization makes the argument easier to follow for my audience. Since my audience is likely not a part of the scientific community (even though they are interested in science), I adjusted my writing so that it is  engaging and understandable for them. This should help my audience understand and agree with my argument.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

I changed my writing style so that it sounded a little more informal and understandable. This involved using simpler sentence structures and using more colloquial diction.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

These changes made my writing more informal and easier to understand. In particular, the lack of scientific language in my writing should make the argument more accessible for this audience. These changes should therefore help my audience easily understand my position in this argument.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

I did have to reconsider some of the conventions for a blog post. At first, my writing looked more like an essay, as it included dense sections of text and fewer pictures and blank spaces. To fix this, I made the writing a little less dense and added more spaces and pictures.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

This process helps me reconsider the type of writer I am. It especially helps me understand exactly what types of revisions I need to focus on with my writing. Oftentimes, I have all of the content I want to address written in my draft, but I need to change the way it is communicated in order to address my audience and purpose. This reflection helped me understand the areas I need to focus on in any future writing that I do.