I was unsure of where to begin with the first assignment because I am a novice in the

field of exercise science. That position left me questioning whether or not I had the right and
means to compose a text. Luckily, I am currently enrolled in the introductory course to exercise
science, and the lectures provided me with general information about and popular topics in the
field.
Overweight and obese conditions are consistently discussed in the exercise science
community, but searching for sources was difficult because I was finding sources but the context
of many were within other disciplines. However, there was an obvious contrast between the
professional and academic texts throughout my search. When I confirmed my two sources, I had
some idea of what to discuss in my paper based on those apparent differences.
My first draft was horrible. There was no introduction or conclusion and minimal
analysis concerning the academic text. The only viable content present was a thorough analysis
of the professional text. I was able to connect more with the professional text because its
rhetorical appeals were identifiable and easier to expand upon. So, I organized the paper in a
subject by subject manner. I discussed the rhetorical elements of the professional text in the
general order that they appeared in the text and briefly introduced the academic text. The
feedback from the peer review session indicated that there was minimal focus on the academic
text, sections where the reader was curious about how the academic text compared and
contrasted to the professional one, and moments where I omitted sections of information that
could have been further explained for unfamiliar readers. With this information, I prepared to
write the second draft.
The second draft of my paper went in a different direction than I originally anticipated.
For the first time, I made an outline after my initial draft because I felt as though my content

needed to be reorganized. I revisited my texts, especially the academic one, to locate their most
effective rhetorical elements, and I realized that they utilized the same rhetorical elements in
different ways. Therefore, the organization of my text went from subject by subject to point by
point. Focusing on how one rhetorical element functioned in both texts in one paragraph
generated a greater contrast between the two texts. I also developed an introduction where I
discussed the foundation of exercise science and how overweight and obese conditions related to
the foundation. My conclusion was still nonexistent at this stage because I had not identified an
overarching message for the field based on the two texts. In the peer review session for this draft,
readers recognized variations in my voice due to diction, confusion surrounding my section
about how the texts addressed their constraints, and a continued lack of discussion concerning
the academic text.
For my final draft, I still had a significant amount of content that needed to be added and
modified. I had never considered how my voice varied because of diction, so I became more
aware of that during the composition of the third draft because of the peer review session. I also
revisited the section about constraints because I was overcomplicating the matter and my
analysis was creating more confusion than clarity. When I addressed the constraints section, I
recognized an imbalance between the support and analysis between the academic and
professional texts. So, I reread the academic text again and found more quotes to support and
further my overall analysis of it. The final component of my paper was the conclusion; I had an
idea of what connected the two texts and related to the entire field of exercise science, but I was
unsure if it was valid. After discussing it with Bret, I was confident that it made sense and
appropriately connected the texts and related to the field. The overall message is that the texts
rhetorical elements, while different, allow them to be recognized and utilized in a variety of

disciplines and that the field of exercise science is successful because of its ability to relate to
other disciplines, which expands its discourse community. Although it is only in the conclusion,
the message is balanced by an example and the length of the conclusion. Altogether, this paper
allowed me to truly analyze my writing process, to recognize how it affects my final product, and
to discover that the writing I complete in the future will have to be accessible to a wide-ranging
discourse community.