Você está na página 1de 3

Dear Roberta,

Throughout the process of writing and revising the writing process, I have learned
abundant information about different types of writing, aspects of writing, and
mechanisms to employ during the practice of writing. I learned how to structure a
paragraph thoughtfully, making sure the topic sentence connects back to the thesis and
details what my paragraph will be about, the concluding sentence sums up my main point
of the paragraph and connects back to the thesis, and the paragraph as a whole remains
focused and on-topic with what I am arguing. I also learned the vitality of a first draft and
the fact that a first draft is meant to be a platform for ideas to flourish; a first draft is
meant to be edited. I learned how to analyze academic and nonacademic disciplines and
the different techniques and skills that should be implemented for each kind of discipline.
In addition, I learned how to cite properly and what to avoid when incorporating citations
into my paper. I learned what writerly choices are and when certain writerly choices are
necessary. I also learned to observe and reflect on my own writerly choices and pay
attention to how they affect my paper and my argument.
I decided to revise Writing Project 1 and Writing Project 2 because those two
projects had the most errors, and I felt that I could best revise, edit, and restructure these
projects in order to show that I have developed as a writer over this quarter. For Writing
Project 1, I first reworked and added specificity to my thesis, so that it wasnt just an
obvious statement. Instead, I created a thesis that explained the qualities of each genre,
the outcomes of those different qualities, and the purpose of comparing and contrasting
the two genres. I then reorganized my paragraphs, so that each paragraph was only about
one convention. Within each paragraph, I made sure that my topic sentence related back

to my thesis and set up my main point for the paragraph. I revised the paragraphs so that
they each remained focused on my argument. I also delved deeper into my analysis of the
genre, providing details about the purpose of each convention and how it relates to the
genre as a whole, rather than just the example (of the genre) that I included; I thought
about what the point of the convention was and what would be lost if the convention were
not in the genre. Most of my revisions were for the first part of my paper, which detailed
the genre of song lyrics. Then, I added a transitional sentence to connect the description
and analysis of each genre to one another, in order to increase the overall flow of the
paper. Toward the end of my paper, I added clear and specific statements of what exactly
the purpose of each genre, and its conventions, was. Lastly, I went through the paper and
made small grammatical, word choice, etc. changes/fixes. The feedback I received was
very helpful, and I used it as a sort of roadmap for my revision. I feel as though my
revisions increased the overall clarity and cohesion of the paper, and I am very happy
with how it progressed and how I have been able to develop it from when I first wrote it
at the beginning of the quarter. Moreover, when I read through the paper before starting
the revisions, I knew exactly what should be fixed; I knew that it lacked total focus,
directness, and some proper mechanisms.
For Writing Project 2, I found more difficulty in the revision process; I believe
that was a result of using academic disciplines and a more difficult topic (in the sense that
it is harder to explain to an audience). I first reworked my topic sentences, so that they
connected back to the thesis and clearly stated what would be discussed in the paragraph.
I also changed my concluding sentences, so that they would sum up the main point of the
paragraph and connect back to the thesis, akin to my changes in WP1. Next, I created a

more central focal point for each paragraph. Moreover, I focused on one technique of the
discipline in each paragraph, described that technique, and explained why the technique
made the discipline more or less effective (compared to the other discipline) in relation to
my topic. In sum, I made the connection between the technique and the discipline more
obvious. My revisions were mainly on the how aspect of my paper: how is the
technique unique to the discipline; how is the argument of the discipline example made;
and how do those techniques make the discipline less effective? In addition, I pushed for
a greater connection between my evidence and my main argument. I worked on
explaining how each piece of evidence contributed to making the discipline more or less
effective. I also focused less on description and more on analysis. I concentrated on the
techniques of the arguments and how they contribute to the overall effectiveness of the
discipline/main point; I concentrated less on what the texts say and more on how they say
it. I feel that this writing project was a lot more challenging, as it forced me to consider
my revisions to a greater degree before I made them. However, I am proud of myself for
being able to figure out exactly what were the issues in my paper, using the feedback as a
basis, and how to best address those issues. I pushed myself to reach a level that I knew I
was capable of, as a writer. Overall, my revisions allowed me to reconsider my previous
work, after having some time away from it, and dig deeper into the prompt and become a
more effective and focused writer.

Sam Johnson