—————

Throughout this semester, I was challenged with different styles of writing in our Language and Literacy Narrative, Rhetorical Strategies Essay, and Research Paper. Each phase allowed me to exercise my writing ability, thought process, and methods while simultaneously reaching the Course Learning Objectives. Initially, it felt as though I hadn’t improved much as a writer. Now, looking back at the past few months, I have become more organized and methodical as I found my groove for each paper. Through this retrospection, I can recognize my writing habits and assess what worked well for me. 

During phase 1, I began to explore and “recognize the role of language attitudes and standards in empowering, oppressing, and hierarchizing languages and their users, and be open to communicating across different languages and cultures.” Writing my Language and Literacy Narrative allowed me to process these hierarchies within my own experiences. Some aspects of oppression that I grew up around and internally accepted and normalized were brought to light in a way that allowed me to dissect where the issue is truly embedded within our systems.

I was able to educate myself on the unfortunate lingual hierarchy of the English language. While reading our assigned texts, I was able to learn about others’ experiences dealing with these unjust standards and their lingual and cultural oppression. June Jordan’s essay, “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You and The Future Life of Willie Jordan,” was extremely clarifying for me as it was the first time I sat down and began to reevaluate my ideas of what “academic” English was and what was drilled into my brain throughout my fourteen years of American education. I knew what Black English was and I recognized and witnessed too many times the horrific and demeaning attitudes toward different dialects of English especially within this education system. However, before reading Jordan’s paper I had never questioned the way the English language was taught within the classroom setting—I just blindly accepted that there was a single way to write academically. As I mentioned in possibly all my essays this semester, something that stuck with me was how Jordan’s black students did not hesitate to reject their language within an academic setting because of how ingrained the idea of “correct” or “proper” English is in this country’s education system. It is heartbreaking to realize that our schools teach us to turn on ourselves and our identities in favor of a frankly racist idea of propriety and professionalism.

In our second and third phases, when reading the provided texts and media, I was able to reach the goal of “recogniz[ing] and practic[ing] key rhetorical terms and strategies when engaged in writing situations” while working on the rhetorical analysis worksheets for each reading. I was able to break down the writing and draw connections from the author, their background, and the exigence to the rhetorical strategies they employed to strengthen their arguments. This allowed me to understand the texts in their entirety instead of gaining only a surface level grasp on their points.

Throughout phase 2, I began to “develop strategies for reading, drafting, collaborating, revising, and editing.” The rhetorical analysis worksheets aided my reading process because through the act of picking out aspects of the texts such as the context, exigence, intended audience, etc., and the repetition of filling out these worksheets, I began to notice and analyze these within the texts on instinct. I was able to develop strategies in my drafting, editing, and revising processes while writing this paper and continued to do so during phase 3 because I was able to flesh out my ideas thoroughly in my first draft and then would go back and revise by assessing the gaps in my writing flow. When noticing any rise in complexity or confusion of my arguments, I would take the time to break down and dissect my ideas so that I would be able to understand my thoughts and allow my writing to be clearer. 

Phase 3 was when I applied and practiced many of these course learning objectives. I was able to “understand and use print and digital technologies to address a range of audiences” when writing my research paper. I employed the use of two videos in my research because public speeches differ from texts and essays in a way that they are a bit more dynamic and the speaker can interact with the audience and assess and adapt to their reactions resulting in a more audience directed approach to their arguments and evidence. This provided me with a more well-rounded research pool to support my ideas. 

This phase required methodical research which allowed me to learn to navigate and “locate research sources (including academic journal articles, magazine and newspaper articles) in the library’s databases or archives and on the Internet and evaluate them for credibility, accuracy, timeliness, and bias.” To create a strong, well-supported argument, I ensured that all my sources were credible. I utilized online library databases as well as Google Scholar to refine my searches. 

I used a mixture of media, peer-reviewed articles, studies, and class provided texts while “practic[ing] systematic application of citation conventions” by following the rules for citing these various types of sources in their proper MLA formatting. 

Because this phase was especially research-heavy, I wanted to ensure my voice and my opinions were clear and heard throughout my writing. I did not want to overwhelm my paper with quotes and articles and arguments from other people entirely. The practice of “compos[ing] texts that integrate your stance with appropriate sources using strategies such as summary, critical analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and argumentation” is one I maintained throughout the semester. Letting my voice shine through is one of my strengths as a writer because it allows me to express passion through my texts and make my work more my own. 

My arguments were supported by evidence from various sources which I fleshed out by practicing summary, critical analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and argumentation. I connected points across different authors and speakers to raise and answer questions to solidify my points. Summarizing was helpful to develop an understanding of the evidence in the context of my writing. I critically analyzed and interpreted to cover all bases and understand the root of the speaker’s argument, who it was directed towards, and what the points they were trying to get across were. I utilized synthesis to deepen my analysis by testing the points of a certain source against the words of another. Altogether, I was able to integrate my stance and compose a fleshed out argumentative essay. 

While I was able to reach many of the course learning objectives this semester, there are some I haven’t had much practice with. For one, “explore and analyze, in writing and reading, a variety of genres and rhetorical situations.” While I was able to explore and analyze many readings these past few months, the first time I have explored my writing is in this very assignment. I do not feel as though I have reached this objective yet because I need to break down my argumentative strategies more often which will allow me to create a faster connection between my thought process and my final results. Another goal I feel I have not reached is “engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.” While we did have the opportunity to work with our peers within breakout rooms and share our docs, for me, it was difficult to get thorough critiques and suggestions that drastically improved my work. Perhaps it was the fact that through a screen we were wary of being too harsh or critical of each others’ work in the chance that our advice is unclear or comes off the wrong way, it was easy to read each other’s work and have nothing else to say but “I like it.”

—————