Writing Portfolio

Reflection

I have always experienced severe anxiety in new situations, and this class was not an exception to that rule. As a current pre-engineering student, English is not my passion even though I do like to read. Writing has never come easily to me, which is why I was threatened by the length and depth of the first project.  It quickly helped me identify my strengths and weaknesses, most being the latter. At the beginning of the first project, I felt overwhelmed, leading me to overcompensate and create a more intense proposal than necessary. Although I struggled to write the paper in the beginning, I found the words flowed more easily after I conducted my primary source interviews. These personal conversations with working Engineers helped me the most in terms of connecting my topic to the concept of a discourse community. 

I submitted what I assumed was a decent polished draft. However, my marks did not reflect my overconfidence of abilities. Basically failing the first project was a wake-up call. I did take time to get feedback, as while I am not an adept writer, I certainly wanted to put in the effort to improve my skills and do well in the class. After receiving the constructive feedback left on my P1 polished draft, it was evident I lacked consistency when it came to the flow of my writing. In certain segments of the project, I would bounce from one subheading to the next with nothing connecting them. Due to my poor performance, I chose to revise my P1 polished draft for my e-Portfolio. Having some distance between the initial writing and final edit really gave me clarity and areas for improvement were much more obvious.  This project helped me develop skills in preparing an annotated bibliography, conducting interviews, using primary source material, and apply MLA citations accurately. The consistent feedback and preparatory assignments all helped me grow as a writer during these few weeks.

I felt more confident with my finished product for P2.  This was in part to being familiar with a rhetorical analysis prompt, but also feeling more confident and having awareness to be more disciplined in my composition. Applying a compare and contrast review of artifacts came more naturally to me than the research essay genre. I also liked learning more about rhetorical strategies and how different authors used them to influence, inform, or incite emotion. It made me start to think more about the writer’s intent and purpose and not just my response to words on a paper. They thoughtfully choose strategies and mediums to specifically engage the viewer or reader. I had never really thought about what the author was thinking or reasons for their strategy. But having to dissect the two artifacts made me look at the creator and purpose and not just the end product. I found the exercise to be enlightening and it helped me relate more to their composition style, but even more so to what motivated them to craft their work. 

This is not to say that I did not run into any complications throughout the completion of P2. For the first draft I found a PowerPoint of a formal science presentation formatted as a YouTube video. I thought it would easily juxtapose with an article that was more informal in tone and appealed to the pathos of the audience. I wrote my first draft on the video, assuming I would quickly find the second article and work through it during my revised draft. However, the other reliable sources I found had a similar tone of formality as the YouTube video presentation. I ended having to scrap my entire first draft and find two new artifacts when I had already developed 500 words. This was a critical decision given my aforementioned general anxiety approaching a blank page. Reflecting on my finished product, I am satisfied with my decision to change this source. The second artifact I used was a highly dense scientific research paper, and it proved difficult to comprehend. The source used formal scientific vocabulary I was unfamiliar with and delved into concepts that were beyond my abilities at times. I chose to analyze the methodology and took extra time to research within the article to better understand the rhetorical strategies of the authors' argument. Although this took more time than the first artifact, it allowed me to appreciate the difference of purpose and approach in appealing to a formal or professional audience. 

The process of having to research so many different artifacts before making my selection ended up helping me gain a better understanding of composition strategies and the importance of choosing various rhetorical styles and genres and the impact those decisions will have on an audience. I enjoyed doing this project because it allowed me to immerse myself into my major through the search for the right artifacts. By exploring an issue affecting engineers globally like sea level rise (SLR), I was able to begin to explore and comprehend the discourse community of engineers.

P3 taught me things I never even thought I would need to learn through the composition of multiple genres for more than one audience. I chose a PowerPoint, social media advertising, and a PSA styled video for my three genres. My only experience prior had been developing PowerPoints for school presentations, so the composition of these genres took significant time. I was able to apply my insights gained from P2 in regards to composition and the selection of effective genres depending on my goals and the identity of the audience. This class has taught me a deeper understanding of genre, and the importance of properly analyzing and understanding their application. Previously I only understood the traditional meaning of genre such as a comedy or drama. Having multiple assignments with a layered approach helped clarify the nuances of different concepts in a deeper way. The genre I enjoyed composing most was the social media advertisement I posted to Facebook. It was my favorite to create and I also learned it would be the most efficient genre in spreading awareness of the impact of SLR. I normally do not use Facebook as a platform but it was the right tool for the advertisement genre and audience. I also learned that connecting with different demographics will require different strategies. 

P3 helped me gained more awareness and skills in citing sources in various genres. It took me multiple attempts to determine the appropriate way to recognize sources in a PowerPoint and YouTube video. I was able to get critical feedback from Dr. Wenzel when I was at a loss. I had thought I needed to have an MLA formatted works cited page, but learned some genres have unique citation designs. Dr. Wenzel used the example of movie credits as a form of works cited and that really help me better understand the purpose of citation in general. 

In the past I believed asking for help was a sign of weakness and ignorance. I eventually came to realize that asking for help is the exact opposite and shows a curiosity and desire to improve. I now accept feedback in a more positive light instead of feeling defensive and threatened knowing my end product will be much stronger for the inclusion. Most importantly I learned the importance of allowing adequate time for a drafting schedule. Without the multi-layered process that we were required to follow, I would have ultimately failed the class. As stated earlier, several times I had to scrap entire drafts and needed extra time to determine a new direction. It also allowed for much needed breaks in the writing process which let me go back and see my work with fresh eyes. 

Overall, taking the ENC 2135: Research, Genre, and Context course has greatly improved my skills as a writer and even more so as a reader or viewer. Going forward I will think about the author's perspective and their motivation, try to define the purpose and style of their composition and be able to better deconstruct the rhetorical strategies they are using to invoke my thoughts or feelings.

The growth I made over these several weeks will transcend the context of this course. I have a better understanding of purpose, process and expectations which will be helpful during future writing requirements for other classes. I am sure Dr. Wenzel’s comments, “Be definite! Be specific! Be concrete!” will be my inner author mantra going forward. While I struggled for the most part throughout the course, it was rewarding to have Dr. Wenzel’s and my classmates’ guidance to help gain awareness of the importance of establishing an effective approach and process before any words are written.  I will apply the same process of breaking down future papers into smaller sequenced parts so the assignment will be less daunting which will help quell my anxious nature.

An ancillary benefit is that I learned a great deal about my current major’s discourse community throughout the research activities involved in all the projects. I plan to participate in more writing workshops in the future to continue to improve my writing and myself.