Reflection on Project 3

In this post, I will reflect on Project 3.

Overton, Stephanie. "Reflect." 08/23/2013 via Flickr. Attribution No-derivs 2.0 License. 

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

• I changed a lot from my draft to my final copy. I basically reconstructed my argument so that it established a better pro argument. I also built up my rhetorical strategies a lot. My draft needed a lot of work, so everything I added or changed made it stronger, and more substantial. My rough draft needed a lot of opinion to establish its stance, and I think I established that well. 

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

• I reconsidered my organization because I wanted it to flow better and also together, so I added sub-titles. This organized it into specific sections where I could keep a topic relevant rather than stretching it out over the whole piece of writing. I also reconsidered my thesis by making my argument more of a pro rather than a neutral by adding tons of opinion. 

3. What led to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

• These changes came from both my personal opinion on how bad my rough draft was, but also the peer review process. A large part of my revisions also came from a shift in purpose. My rough draft didn't honestly have an argument or direction, but I majorly changed that as I edited, and established a pro argument. 

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

• These changes make me a stronger author, because I am able to revise my work when I know I need it and not be stuck in my ways when it comes to writing. I'm open to change to improve my work, and that should be part of every author's set of skills. 

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

• The changes will better address the audience because the organization changes make the blog more accessible to them, while the change/addition in position makes it easier for them to understand the purpose and agree with it. All the changes made should make it easier for them to understand my writing and make it better for them to absorb.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

• I reconsidered sentence structure and style by making it shorter and more simple to fit the genre I was writing in. There is still a level of formality, but it is more informative and laid back rather super strict academic writing. The changes done for these purposes make it easier for my audience to read my piece of writing. 

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

• These changes will assist my audience in understanding my purpose by making it more accessible to them, and more comprehensible. If I had long, run-on sentences, no one would want to read it because it would be long and too complex. By keeping my sentences shorter, it is easier for them to absorb the information and my purpose comes across more solid.

8. Did you have to reconsider the particular conventions of the genre in which you are writing?

• I did not have to reconsider the particular conventions of the genre in which I am writing. I had a few images, just like regular TechCrunch articles contain, and many short paragraphs, which is another characteristic of TechCrunch articles. I am pretty well-versed in the blogging style, after publishing so many of them. I did end up adding a bit of space, but it was a minor change.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

• The reflection process helped me reevaluate what type of writer I am. I tend to make the rough draft really bad, and then make a ton of changes so that the final draft is completely revamped. Reflecting on this helps me see what I should and should not do for future pieces of writing, and helps me become aware in both peer review and self-analysis of writing in general.