DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Before project one, I did have a basic understanding in how paragraphs should lead from one to the next. However, once again, I would lose focus. I was still trying to be informative and add in as much detail as possible. During this project I learned how to summarize. Referring to my original outline specifically, I would not add evidence that didn’t support the thesis. I put myself in rambling time-out to say the least. When it came to genre conventions, it was difficult at first for me to adapt to different situations. I did not really know how to start. After being comfortable writing in discussion points and writing homework assignments, I realized that you must respond to each genre convention appropriately. For example, I would follow the discussion board rubric when responding, and support my evidence as best as I good. My language did not have to be as confident as I was saying that I learned something new. My language was centered more towards being enlightened, like when I wrote about learning how to focus in my first discussion point. The homework assignments were addressed differently. I needed to show evidence that I could keep my new found knowledge and use it for future assignments. Even this portfolio possesses that language, because I need to support the fact I learning about rhetorical situations, audience, genre, etc has stayed with me. 

 

For both of my projects, I had to learn how to make each paragraph's tone flow into the next. At first, I had no idea how to do this. I realized that if I make my topic sentences more relevant, I could flow my information with more excellence. For the second project specifically, I tried to make each topic sentences about ethos, pathos, and logos, so I could then transition to my concluding sentences of each paragraph and still have it relate the the assignment as a whole. I would end of paragraph talking about why ethos was successfully used, and then the topic sentence of the next paragraph I would have describing another rhetorical strategy. To my audience, this transition in easy to follow because I was still connecting both rhetorical strategies together. I was still shifting the discussion to further thinking, but not jumping too out of the way to cause confusion for my readers. I thought about the format of "state evidence, then support evidence." If I went through each of my statements, and realized which sentence I did not support, I could not only add more information, but also make my writing respond appropriately to it's genre using basic conventions.

 

I find that genre is still a difficult concept for me to grasp. It helps me to think of music in such terms - genres of music are the specific aura and sound of each artist/song. When talking about writing, I think about genre being the summary - the tidbit. I found that analytical writing was difficult for me because I was still attempting to describe most of my evidence as exploratory. Instead of using facts like I was supposed to, I was merely describing ideas. After realizing this mistakes, especially on my second projects essay, I feel like I bettered myself in using appropriate language pertaining to its genre. However, I am still not perfect. Even with writing this portfolio, I've had to really think about how I word things and what will be more appealing to my audience. I've learned that I cannot just try my own mind to make sense of matters. Writing is sort of like art. One must not think solely on the words, but also the context, the genre, basically the whole appearance of your work. The quality of my writing I felt has increased because I am not longer thinking about writing "efficiently." I think about my writing as having it's own voice now, rather than just a bunch of smart words put together to string together sentences.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.