Writing as a recursive process: From draft 1 to the final copy of my essay a lot has changed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v9332ZZlA7Xu6EOjGKoigXWBHhYn2h2e_-37OvMLAYQ/edit

This is the link to my first draft, and underneath is the link to my final draft.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jAb1UWKZk1zNhIsWdBsNyMjtQb_2Ts4C6VsbZY_voy8/edit 

One thing that I really tried to add to the final draft is more citations. I only used two or three in the rough draft, so I really tried to add more in the final draft. As shown highlighted on paragraph two, the first citation I added when reviewing was an Anne Hallward quote. Another thing that I changed a lot when comparing the rough and final drafts are my explanations. In the first draft I did not go into an explanation on why I used a certain example. This lead to the reader not comprehending why I included it in the first place. In my final draft I went more in detail really bringing it back to the original thesis statement in order to tie everything together. This helped the reader actually understand why I included the examples I did. I learned a lot when editing my paper, because I realized that tying points back to the thesis statement really help get the point across to the reader creating a better written paper overall. Another huge problem I fixed was choppy transitions. In the rough draft my transitions were not transitions at all. My paper jumped around from paragraph to paragraph and often did not make sense. In the final copy I tried to smooth those transitions between paragraphs in order to make a better flowing paper.

For my podcast script a lot of the changes that I made was details. My peer reviews all said that there needs to be more detail, so that is the major change I made. Other than adding more detail into the podcast script it did not change anything. Here is the link to my final and rough draft for context:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13zgiJu8iKVoP0wfjsGX0givMohnu8qPyi6_hp5uOX3M/edit ,

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJG_2WHLmiCVncOyPj8krReyvK0vxkYOUef6Zw0l4s0/edit . 

Integrating your ideas with those of others: This was a huge change for me. In previous classes when I wrote papers I did not use many quotes, and when I did they were often incorrect. The quotation sandwich was new to me, because often I would only do one half of the sandwich. I would often jump right in putting down a random quote, and then barely explaining why I put it in the paper in the first place. Editing our first paper really helped me get down that you have to introduce the person who said the quote, followed by the quote, and then lastly actually explaining why this quote is relevant to the paper. I never introduced the person who said the quote to begin with, and then after I would just briefly explain why I put it in there. In old papers I often used quotes as fillers rather than examples that actually fueled the argument, so that was a huge transition for me in this paper. I learned that quotes are actually a huge help to the paper, and they should be used more often, and used with more importance that just as a filler. Quotation sandwiches are very important to a paper!

I only used one quotation since the story was a personal one, but I struggled with it. I introduced the quotation wrong, and instead of using a quotation sandwich, I jus threw the quote in and did not talk about it after it was put in. I really need to work on different ways to integrate others people’s ideas. Here is my one quote:

In 2011 a study was performed by six different research teams, where they looked at the adolescence and gender norms in different countries. One thing that they heard is very important.

“The hegemonic myth: There is a global set of forces from schools, parents, media, and peers themselves that reinforce the hegemonic myths that girls are vulnerable and that boys are strong and independent. Even in sites where parents acknowledged the vulnerability of their sons, they focus on protecting their daughters.” (Blum et al 1)

As you can see I introduced the quote and integrated it, but never following up introducing it more. My goal is to be able to introduce quotes in different ways that are not repetitive, and are introduced correctly. 

Active, critical reading: One thing that I do think I am pretty good at in annotation. Taking AP Language and Composition it was drilled into our heads how important annotation is in order to fully understand the text at hand. The issue where I fall short is stated above. I want to work on is taking the good annotations that I have done on the text, and transition that into information I can use on my paper through quotations and paraphrasing, and just overall using elements that can add to the argument I am making. In my blog post about “AIDS Inc” I used a good text to text citation. “Epstein is showing her concern, because she thinks that real life examples of how the disease affects lives would help people be more careful instead of the sugarcoating that loveLife did. This reminds me of Anne Hallward’s Ted Talk over telling shameful stories. This paper really did prove Hallward’s idea about how telling shameful stories can lead to global change.” I connected the two texts that we read in class in order to make the blog I am writing more understandable to the reader. Below is an example of some annotating I did for the paper “AIDS Inc”.

For the podcast we had nothing to annotate, but in general my annotations have not really changed. When I annotate I typically use a red pen, and also a highlighter. The highlighter is for quotes that I may or may not use in the future. 

Critiquing your own and others’ work: This was another huge step for me in the writing process. I can critique my work very easily, and I enjoy when people tear apart my paper with notes on what I need to change, because it tells me what exactly I need to work on. The issue I have is critiquing other papers. I know I shouldn’t feel bad, but when editing other people’s papers I always feel guilty. This is something that I desperately need to work on. I know that critiquing only helps their paper get better, but I always have an issue peer reviewing. When looking back at my comments on other people’s posts the one thing that I really looked at was the introduction and conclusion. On both papers I reviewed I made comments about their introductions and conclusions either about their thesis or something that they threw in there that doesn’t make sense, and with local revisions the thing that I commented on most is MLA formatting. I focussed on that, because I struggle with it to, and I know it is helpful to have reminders. Here is an example of the very first comment I did critiquing someone’s blog post. “The one thing I wish you integrated into your post is Hallward’s Ted Talk, but other than that your post was really great.” This is not very different than the comments that I make now on people’s papers. “I feel like it was kind of thrown in randomly. It may be better to define social cohesion in the introduction since it is in your thesis” This is an example of me telling someone that they should add the definition of social cohesion to the intro rather than in a body paragraph. I do not think I have changed much when critiquing, and it is overall something I really want to work on.

I have been working on my peer evaluations. I have learned to be more critical with reviewing. I have learned to do this because by not critiquing someone’s work it actually hurts them. This is because the comments left are just help, so because of that, I have been peer reviewing better than before. Here is a student’s paper, and my comments that I left:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PsJzu6iYiSjmnrLNYEQwvWc7ivCSbLbowM2a35NHKrg/edit

Using MLA citations: Using citations is one of the biggest things that I struggled on in my paper. Most of the comments made are comments about how I should have cited a certain paraphrase or how I incorrectly cited a podcast. I struggled distinguishing when or when not to cite a source, and that is something I really have to work on. I also struggled on how to cite certain things. For example before this paper I have never cited a podcast before, and when doing an in text citation I cited it incorrectly. My work cited page is also not very good, because I did not cite correctly. When citing in the future I need to look at the little seagull book in order to do it correctly. “Baker v. Nelson: The Forgotten Same-Sex Marriage Case.” Constitutional Law Reporter, 22 Oct. 2016 constitutionallawreporter.com/2012/12/20/baker-v-nelson-the-often-forgotten-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case/. This citation I included on my work cited page, and it was done wrong. I did not include the accessed day, month, year. These little mistakes are what I need to work on in order to correctly cite my sources. 

Unfortunately on the final draft I forgot to add my citations, but in general I believe my citing has gotten a little better. Here are my citations that I forgot to add on the final draft highlighted in blue:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PsJzu6iYiSjmnrLNYEQwvWc7ivCSbLbowM2a35NHKrg/edit.

Managing individual error patterns: The two errors that I notice quite frequently are not including commas in long sentences, and ending a sentence in the wrong spot after using an in text citation. For example: “Epstein states “This means that Ugandans are more likely to know their neighbors and to live near members of their extended families.” (Epstein, 116)”. In this quote I do both problems in one example. I do not include a comma after Epstein states, which is needed in that spot, and I put the period after the quote. Instead I should put the period after the in text citation in order to properly end the sentence. Some strategies that I might use to fix these problems is to reread my work multiple times. Most of the problems with not adding commas is due to the lack of rereading sentences in order to make sure they are smooth and grammatically correct. Another big help would be to read it out loud. By doing this a person naturally pauses at commas, and when a sentence seems to long it needs to be rechecked. These errors did improve from the first to the final draft, because of all the editing, but some of these mistakes still slipped through. My goals in this area are to just double check my work, and to be more careful, so these mistakes do not keep occurring. 

The problem that I most had on the podcast script is not including commas. One huge thing that I did was not add a comma after using the word instead. Instead I wanted to be president, because I thought it was cool to be a leader for the USA. This was an example of me not adding a comma after the instead.