Learning Outcome 1

In revising the rough draft of Essay 3, I performed much global revision, showing my acceptance of writing as a recursive process and thus demonstrating that I am able to follow the first Learning Outcome.  For instance, I condensed my Rough Draft’s paragraph on strong and weak ties, as well as the naysayer paragraph immediately after. This idea was inspired by my annotations in the “Envisioning Again” activity, in which I originally wanted to combine the two paragraphs, since both referred to strong/weak ties and were somewhat repetitive. I ended up fusing the ideas but retaining the two-paragraph structure due to the length of the section.  I then realized they were somewhat inconsistent with my thesis of Essay 2 that stated weak ties are encouraged more than strong ties today by social media, so I shifted the strong/weak ties paragraph’s focus to the benefits of weak ties almost exclusively. This work demonstrates that I was actively watching out for places where I repeated or contradicted my ideas.  I checked on the organization of ideas too, when I moved both revised paragraphs to the center of my essay from the end, to act as a transition between the two parts of my thesis (the book and protests) since the paragraphs concerned both.  I used this same logic of condensing and rearranging with another major global revision of mine: combining the paragraphs on the importance of global warming and on why some don’t believe humans are causing it, an idea that came from my teacher.  Other global revisions made besides these can be seen in the comments on both the rough and final drafts of the essay.  I performed some local revision as well, based on suggestions from my peers, such as removing contractions to create more formal diction and putting more force behind ideas by saying “will” instead of “can,” among others.  However, most of my editing was in global areas.

Based on this essay, I believe my revision methods are closer to those of what author Nancy Sommers, according to her selection “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” would consider an experienced writer.  She asserts that amateur writers tend to focus on simple rewording and “…blind themselves to problems on a textual level” (Sommers), so that they may miss areas that repeat something already said or do not address counterarguments.  On the other hand, more experienced writers take on a “holistic perspective” (Sommers), to look not just at their wording but content as well.  Although I did perform some rephrasing, I certainly demonstrated I was paying attention to the form of my paper with my search for greater efficiency and ways to improve my argument in Essay 3.

Learning Outcome 2

As for the second Outcome of integrating ideas presented in the selections we’ve read into our writing, I’ve kept up my use of the “quotation sandwich,” along with TRIAC and Barclay, throughout Essay 3 in both the rough and final drafts. I always introduce my quotes and follow them up with analysis.  The best example of this is found in my third paragraph of Essay 3’s final draft, a Barclay paragraph in which I compare and contrast McKibben and Kingsolver’s views.  I brought up a quote from each author about their strategy to combat climate change, followed by a further explanation of what they’re doing in my own words.  This paragraph is also an excellent demonstration of my ability to balance my voice with the voices of others, something I had a problem with at the beginning of the semester.  I discussed here what I believed to be the pros and cons of both authors’ efforts, mostly addressing their different levels of assertiveness, and found that McKibben was too aggressive, whereas Kingsolver was rather passive.  I then connected the writers’ ideas to my thesis by claiming that a combination of both authors’ mindsets was needed to resolve global warming, which could be achieved with the idea I proposed.  Rather than simply devoting the paragraph to providing information about the authors, I brought their ideas together with mine. Another such instance of me letting both myself and an opposing writer have a say, this time in the form of a naysayer paragraph, appeared later as the 5^th paragraph of my final draft.  In this section, I addressed the potential concerns of “People of McKibben’s more direct mindset,” including McKibben and his followers, that my idea of a book might not be strong enough to cause social change.  And such balancing occurred throughout my essay, several more times besides these.

Learning Outcomes 5 and 6

The final two outcomes are also showcased well in this Essay. All my internal citations and the Works Cited page are formatted correctly in MLA, as required by the fifth Outcome.  Except for the format of the Works Cited page, this area hasn’t changed much since my first major essay. I didn’t encounter many problems with the sixth Outcome of controlling error patterns in this paper either; I’ve stated in the past that I often excessively use commas and semicolons, but I discovered a method for resolving this that I share in my Grammar/Punctuation Mini-Lesson.  Thus, only one instance of using a semicolon where I could have instead used a period to break up a sentence was pointed out to me by my peers in this Rough Draft, in the third paragraph where I write “The scientific community understands the issue well, and the solution of transitioning toward the use of “clean” energy ASAP is within our grasp; the problem is, as McKibben refers to it…”  It was suggested I instead state, “The scientific community understands the issue well, and the solution of transitioning toward the use of ‘clean’ energy ASAP is within our grasp.  The problem is…”  However, to resolve this, I shortened the independent clause before the semicolon to just “The scientific community understands the issue well,” rather than changing the punctuation because I felt the clauses were closely related enough to still merit a semicolon.

 

Brainstorm for Essay 3

Rough Draft of Essay 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRCi2Evs7sJbzVx-lMQ4N4cXX164uOBAezgdx7rAVZ8/edit?usp=sharing

Sample of “Envisioning Again”

Final Draft of Essay 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_zwWydJOG9v1bD78bhFU6tXBHKM2k_o6hW71tpqbxV8/edit?usp=sharing

Works Cited

Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication. 1980.