Reflection on Project 3

Below are the answers to questions asked on page 520 of Writing Public Lives. This is my reflection on Project 3.

deSousa, Joe, "The Thinker" 06/30/2011 via flickr.com Public Domain Dedication

• What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

I really changed my entire style from my rough draft to my final draft. I picked a different website to emulate and along with that came a different style of writing. I had to focus on speaking my mind in an implicit way in my final draft while not falling into a research paper style which is associated with the style of my rough draft. Shorter paragraphs were also a change I had to make and I did this separating my evidence from my analysis. One paragraph would focus on the evidence I gathered to back myself up and my next paragraph would focus on my analysis.

• Point to global changes how did you reconsider your thesis or organization

I focused on a problem nuclear fusion faces and then proposed a solution to it. In my rough draft, I focused on the cause of nuclear fusions struggles and how a company in the private sector is avoiding all those struggles. This led to mixing of arguments. I focused on a solution for nuclear fusion in my final draft which powered my thesis.

• What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

A shift in purpose led to my changes. I saw my argument not fitting my style of writing and that it was becoming to convoluted to understand. I wanted to simplify so I changed what I was arguing.

• How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

These changes affected my credibility only slightly. I am well versed in the subject due to my research but I did cite the sources I drew directly from. I find my credibility to credible although I feel I could have used more direct quotes to back my opinions up.

• How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

The final product was a more direct approach compared to the long winded version my rough draft had. This way my audience jumped right into why nuclear fusion is important, how it hasn't been funded properly and where that money should come from.

• Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentences structure and style?

I used complex sentences to convey my complex ideas and used compound sentences to link ideas together that were important. I used sentence structure to convey my ideas and to fit within the conventions of my chosen genre.

• How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

They assist the audience because they get to the information more quickly and it helps communicate the complex ideas I am conveying to them. Using compound sentences links ideas that the audience should understand in tandem or affect one another. The different sentence styles draw the audiences attention to different points which is my intention.

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

I didn't have to reconsider any genres but I did have to insert titles and subtitles as well as tailor my paragraphs to fit the conventions of the website. Also, the conventions of my style didn't use a lot of pictures but graphs and large quotes so I relied on those to be the visuals of my argument.

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

It helps show me that I am very flexible when it comes to writing but still end up in that rut of finding evidence and then explaining that evidence. I need to branch out and learn how tie things together from all portions of the essay to make a cohesive and intelligible piece of writing.