Amid the course of the semester, I have recognized an adjustment in my writing, not only with the manner in which I write, but in who and what I consider while writing. I was accustomed to writing for myself, having a sole writing style that mostly fit my own personal needs. The course learning outcome “acknowledge you and others’ range of linguistic backgrounds as resources, and draw on those to develop rhetorical sensibility” is a crucial tool that you must think about in any form of rhetoric, whether it be through writing or vocally. This reminded me of the communication barrier that the scientists who had Henrietta Lacks’ cells faced with her family. This historical occurrence that we learned about and discussed as a class was key in our journey of writing, as it was the gateway to our informative review projects, where we shifted our audience, and ultimately our style of writing. The significance of adapting your writing and communication expertise is pivotal. This ensures that your message is accessible and inclusive, through consideration of how it is to be framed. This vastly pertains to peers, with another course learning outcome stating “develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.” Through peer reviewing, my peers and I critiqued and advised one another on ways to refine and build on draft work.

In my notes from the beginning of the semester, I defined genre as “kinds of writing”. An additional explanation for genre could be the composition that is chosen and formulated by the needs of the audience. Completing the multimodal project demonstrated how as a writer, you have to “explore effective writing across disciplinary contexts…” To better my writing, I had to analyze different writing options, and encountered difficulties while writing that I formerly hadn’t. Determining who it was that I wanted to target was an outcome of probing into different styles of science communication. This exploration enlightened on me how significant audience identification is in easing the overall writing process, as stated in “Negotiate your own writing goals and audience expectations…”

The course learning outcome “enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment” reflects the evaluations that we did on our work and made changes where they needed to happen. I have recognized a few issues in my writing regarding some of the rhetorical situations. In my narrative and informative review, I found it difficult to fit my work into the conventions of stance. Although it wasn’t to be stated directly, your audience should have been able to determine your stance in your scientific narrative, while in the informative review, there was not to be any statement regarding a stance. Exigence is another that I believe will still take some getting used to. Firstly, I frequently get it confused with purpose, as their definitions sound slightly similar. In addition, your exigence has to be a reasoning beside a class project being assigned. Despite not having full certainty, I understand that these rhetorical elements should be prime focuses for any writer.

Certainly, I do not have a concrete attainment of all the course learning outcomes. However, I’ve been able to display my comprehension of the ones that I have accomplished, and acknowledge their importance in writing. By closely analyzing the course learning outcomes, I have evaluated my work to explore the improvements that my writing has experienced. Likewise, I have mastered enough areas to strengthen my writing ability. All of these lessons will facilitate further improvement in my future writing.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license.