During the FIQWS Writing Composition Course, I have been assigned a multitude of writing assignments all centered around various Course Learning Outcomes. Ideally, as the course progressed, I would have gained a better understanding of and improved upon the different writing skill sets. My portfolio and self-assessment provides an in depth look at both the evolution of my writing concerning these techniques. Using excerpts from different essays and in-class activities, I will assess my grasp and application of the course outcomes; demonstrating specific goals I have achieved, while also acknowledge those I have not made enough progress on.

Throughout the semester, reading was an integral part of the FIQWS course and writing process. Both in and outside of class, we would often read the works of first year undergrads, worksheets exploring writing techniques, and excerpts from books or articles as a method of better understanding the concepts and applications of the different rhetorical terms and learning goals. In order to better understand purpose and usage of rhetorical terms within the various academic articles, developing close-reading strategies was crucial. In general, the system of close-reading I developed consisted of some of the following strategies: making note of the overarching argument or perceived dilemma, highlighting topic sentences and main ideas, along with any phrases and pieces of evidence crucial to the overarching argument, making small notes in the margins- sometimes summarizing large portions of highlighted text, drawing connections, identifying purpose, identifying transitions, etc.- drawing a star or an asterisk on portions of the text I could either use as evidence or as a reference, or portions of the text I considered most important to the purpose or main argument, circling important words or concepts, and so on. However, my close-reading strategies would vary based on what I was reading for.

For example, when reading “The Problem with Emotion” by Marc Pelessone in class, our primary focus was to identify the main idea and purpose of each paragraph. Apart from practicing some general reading strategies – e.g. highlighting, underlining, circling, asterisk(s)- I also made annotations on the sides identifying the main ideas and purposes. The following is an excerpt from my copy of the paper depicting my annotations:

For some reason, I find myself mostly moved by these images. Why? Judith Butler offers an explanation. In her essay “Torture and the Ethics of Photography,” Butler questions the effect “certain larger norms, themselves often racializing and civilizational, have on what is provisionally called ‘reality’” (Butler 74). Butler’s text suggests these photos connect with the norms of my reality; norms derived in large part by race and culture. Within the Breezy Point photos, there is a makeshift shrine erected to an obviously Christian saint. Two American flags hang on two of the now-empty foundations.  These images do speak to my own “larger norms,” specifically a Judeo-Christian ethic and a sense of national pride. Being that these are the “larger norms” of most Americans, the Sandy exhibit in general, and the Breezy Point photos in particular connect with the people of this nation. We are them. This exhibit expands our sense of community to include the victims of this tragedy. It is a key aspect in getting our country to step up and provide assistance*. The exhibit’s title, which characterizes it as the “drive to rebuild, renew, renovate, etc.”, is intended to fuel that drive. And the exhibit succeeds in large part. The images expand our nation’s sense of community with the hurricane victims. Our compassion inspires us to want to contribute the aid necessary to provide the longer-term assistance some of the affected will need. And yet a more critical view of the exhibit reveals a more complicated truth.

*The orange text are words I circled in my original copy.

Main Idea:

Larger norms connect people by emphasizing the sense of community. This creates our sense of compassion which makes us want to help the victims.

Purpose:

-delve into the mechanisms of our feelings of compassion towards others

– Brings up the question on whether we’d feel the desire to help victims if we didn’t have these connections facilitated by larger norms.

In terms of my drafting, my process has not undergone any major changes. When preparing to write a paper, I identify my topic, conduct preliminary research, gather notes and sources on a separate document, and collect any outstanding evidence that could be used in my paper. After gaining a better understanding of my topic. I construct a working thesis that is later modified as I continue my writing process, as well as possible topic sentences. Using the thesis, topic sentences, research, and evidence collected, I’d begin to write a draft. However, my drafting process could greatly be improved as it can get a bit chaotic and stressful; in other words, it could use some structure. While our professor had us type out a draft following the traditional outline format, I did not adhere to the assignment and instead wrote the outline my way. The traditional outline tackles the problems I run into when writing a draft; it provides a specific structure and breaks down the draft into guiding points (e.g. central claim, sub-claim, evidence, etc.) that help you write a cohesive paragraph. I could have greatly benefited from this format during my drafting process.

Moving on to collaboration, I feel as though I did not engage in the social aspects of writing as much as I could have. This was due to either me missing various classes or arriving late to others. Because of this, I missed multiple opportunities of giving and receiving constructive criticism which could’ve helped me improve my work, or the work of my peers. As a result, I have since come to understand the importance of the social aspects of writing, and how critical it is within the process of writing, editing, and revising.

Yet, when I was present for peer reviews, I made sure to be as elaborate as possible; pointing out aspects of the paper that were done well and providing as much constructive criticism as possible. This is exhibited throughout my peer review for fellow student on their Summary and Response essay based on Stuart Firestein’s introduction for his book “Ignorance: How it Drives Science.” The following is an excerpt from the peer review worksheet demonstrating a piece of positive feedback and a piece of constructive criticism:

“Your essay does a good job of identifying Firestein’s repetition of the word ignorance and the importance he places on it in reference to the science world. You also did a good job of expressing how Firestein distinguishes between the different meanings of the word ignorance.”

“Your paper doesn’t really seem to interpret the evidence it uses, it doesn’t really go into a brief analysis of the specific quotes used. Instead you just present the evidence for what you had previously stated. Maybe, at times, you should express how the quote you chose furthers your arguments about a certain text, or the authors purpose, style, etc.”

One example of me applying criticism occurred during the process of writing my RCA essay. At the start of this lengthy final assignment, we were asked to write a proposal and annotated bibliography including 5 sources. After submitting our assignment, we received comments from our professor via blackboard which we were highly encouraged to apply towards our draft. The following is an excerpt from one of my annotations followed by my professor’s comment:

“I could outline and compare what the text considers to be beneficial aspects of these chemicals to what it considers to be hazardous qualities. By doing so, I could refute the beneficial uses of fertilizers and pesticides by portraying how the effects of these chemicals are much more detrimental and concerning to the environment, soil, and human health -both in the short and long term- then the so-called benefits.”

“How does this relate to the question of climate change? Be sure that every paragraph addresses your central topic.”

After considering my professors commentary, I concluded that the paragraph in question would not fit the topic of my essay as it would not add to or further my discussion of the harmful practices of industrial agriculture and their consequences on the change in climate. Were it not for my professors commentary my essay would have included a paragraph that strayed from the central argument of the paper.

Moving on, another integral part of this course was learning how to locate and use sources -whether print or digital- within our writing. At sometime in the semester, the class learned how to use the library’s database to conduct preliminary research using one-search to find articles eBooks, and research references using keywords that pertained to our topic. We also learned how to find print sources, such as books, located within City College and those located within other CUNY schools. One-search proved to be especially helpful for me when looking for sources. As stated, prior to conducting research I’d come up with keywords relating to my topic in order to narrow down the number of possible sources making my research process much more concise and specific. I’d also take this same approach when conducting research via the internet. Another strategy I’d use for online research was breaking down the research question into smaller, and much more manageable, questions. An important thing to note is that, when conducting research via the internet, I was very selective on what sources to use and what sources to avoid. Examples of sources I avoided are Wikipedia pages, personal blogs, contributor websites, and so on. Examples of online sources I looked out for were databases, online journals, organization websites, and so on. Below is an example of a cited library source and a cited online source I located throughout the process of writing my RCA final which was centered around industrial agriculture’s contribution to climate change:

“Agriculture and Agricultural Land.” Encyclopedia of Global Warming. Edited by Steven I. Dutch, vol. 1, Salem Press, 2010, pp. 15-18.

Capra, Fritjof. “Industrial Agriculture, Agroecology, and Climate Change.” Ecoliteracy.org, Center for Ecoliteracy, 11 Feb. 2015, www.ecoliteracy.org/article/industrial-agriculture-agroecology-and-climate-change#.

Apart from locating sources I also had to make sure I understood and could summarize the main points, use the information provided in a manner of ways, detect any problems or bias I’d possibly run into with the source, evaluate credibility, and so on. When determining the usefulness of selected sources, I learned how to use the BEAM method. The BEAM method is a way of identifying whether your selected source is a background, exhibit, argument, or method source. In turn, identifying the type of source could give you insight on how to properly use it within your writing.

These skills can be exercised and exhibited through annotated bibliographies. Before this class, I did not know how to write a proper annotated bibliography. While there were aspects of writing an annotated bibliography that I already had a good grasp on- such as summarizing main points and assessing the use of the source- there were others for which I did not. In effect, the writing composition course has taught me how to properly write annotated bibliographies that show my understanding of the source, uses of the source(s) within my writing, and a brief evaluation of the source. Sticking to the library and internet sources I used above, below are their corresponding bibliographies:

“Agriculture and Agricultural Land.” Encyclopedia of Global Warming. Edited by Steven I. Dutch, vol. 1, Salem Press, 2010, pp. 15-18.

This source can be categorized as both B and E as it provides general information and gives specific evidence/ examples.

The Encyclopedia of Global Warming was written with the purpose of being a convenient source of information that answers questions on and addresses topics of both global warming and climate change. The section “Agriculture and Agricultural land” covers the direct and indirect impacts of agriculture on the change in climate, highlighting agricultural practices as significant Green House Gas emitters. Although some specific evidence is provided, there are also brief, general explanations on different aspects of my topic; in other words, this source does not go too in depth. Because this source does touch upon multiple aspects of my topic, I think it could be useful in helping me explain specific agricultural practices in a comprehensive manner. Apart from this, the source also brought my attention to ideas I had not previously thought to write about such as the contribution of livestock on farms to the large release of methane. Lastly, I could use this source as an exhibit source and cite some of the interesting evidence provided within the text.

Capra, Fritjof. “Industrial Agriculture, Agroecology, and Climate Change.” Ecoliteracy.org, Center for Ecoliteracy, 11 Feb. 2015, www.ecoliteracy.org/article/industrial-agriculture-agroecology-and-climate-change#.

This source can be categorized as a B source.

“Industrial Agriculture, Agroecology, and Climate Change” by Fritjof Capra discusses industrial agriculture’s link to climate change due to its high use of chemicals and its fossil fuel-based systems. The article establishes the origin and development of industrial agriculture, highlighting the 1960’s and the “Green Revolution” as two important periods of time for the switch to chemical farming. Further, the article discusses detrimental effects of monocultures and chemical farming on the environment, the soil, the crops themselves, human health, and so on. One “challenge” with this source is that I won’t be able to quote anything or much; instead, I would have to paraphrase.  I think this source in useful in a matter of ways. For example, I could use the information about the origins of industrial agriculture in my introduction as a way of informing the reader on how we got to using these practices in the present. I could also use the information on chemical fertilizers and pesticides in a paragraph devoted to the contribution of these frequently used chemicals to the change in our climate.

Further, I’d have to evaluate sources for their credibility, accuracy, and bias. When gathering sources for my RCA final, I did not find myself constantly questioning the credibility of my sources as a good portion of them came from either environmental organizations seeking changes to better the state of climate change, databases providing statistics, or an excerpt from a book or article. On the other hand, I did find myself question the accuracy on certain pieces of evidence. When searching for statistics on methane and nitrous oxide emissions, I was worried that many of the statistics I was coming across were outdated as they mostly ranged from the 1950s to 2006, a few were from 2008. Between these years and the present, methane and nitrous oxide emissions could’ve increased drastically considering that our population is much larger than it was before, calling for intensification of agricultural practices in order to increase yields. Therefore, I kept looking till I came across the most recent data I could find; this data was from 2016 and was provided by the EPA. While there may be some inaccuracy, I consider that the data would not have changed dramatically over the span of two years. In terms of bias, almost all of the sources I came across throughout the process of writing my final were against the intense farming practices promoted by the industrial agriculture system and spoke on their various effects on the climate. The very few sources I came across that were in favor of using such practices were websites of big companies benefitting from practices such as intense chemical fertilizer use.

A crucial component of using sources is citing. Whether its paraphrasing or pulling out direct quotes, it is always important to credit the sources used for ideas and phrases that are not your own. Knowing how to accurately cite sources is just as important, especially since different sources require different methods of citation. My understanding of different methods of citing has grown as a result of citation workshops within this course. Below I will incorporate sections of a citation worksheet I completed in class. The worksheet provides a series of pieces of evidence that are cited incorrectly. The goal of this worksheet was to show your capability of identify what’s wrong with the citation and provide the proper citation based on the way the evidence was incorporated into the text.

“Quote quote quote.” (13)

Correct version: “Quote quote quote.” (source)

“This type of quote is categorized as a quote standing alone in the paper. When citing these types of quotes, you don’t use the page number. Instead, you put down the source.”

Author argues, “Quote quote quote”.

Correct version: Author argues quote quote quote (13)

“Paraphrasing with attribution would’ve been the best method of incorporating this piece of evidence. When paraphrasing with attribution, you must include a page number.”

Kincaid, in her essay In History, writes…

Correct version: Kincaid, in her essay In History, writes…(13)

“This piece of evidence was not cited. Even though this is considered paraphrasing with attribution, a page number is still needed.”

These citation skills have thus translated into my writing. Below I will include various pieces of evidence and their corresponding citations pulled from my Summary and Response essay.

“In Stuart Firestein’s introduction to his book “Ignorance: How it Drives Science”, Firestein tackles a dilemma that tends to inflict the field of science: the “contradiction between how science is pursued versus how it is perceived” (Firestein, p. 2).”

“In order to give the audience a better understanding of this element and its purpose, Firestein describes ignorance as, “The undone part of science that gets us into the lab early and keeps us there late, the thing that ‘turns your crank,’ the very driving force of science, the exhilaration of the unknown” (4).”

“The first is the repetitive use of the word ignorance after it is introduced as a solution: “I should teach them ignorance” (4), “current state of their ignorance” (5), “case studies of ignorance” (6), “the ignorance that drives science” (6), and so on.”

Revising and editing are also important aspects of the writing process that were stressed in this class. Taking part in the social aspects of writing would’ve greatly helped my revision and editing process as I would’ve received helpful insights on my work. However, as I did not take advantage of peer review workshops as I should have, most of the time this process was purely left up to me. While I would reread my work various times- each time paying close attention to detail and in search of areas that could be condensed, modified, elaborated upon, etc.- there may have been aspects of my composition that needed revision or editing that were not apparent to me. Sometimes, due to attachment to your writing or being used to your own writing style, it can be difficult to single out areas in need of improvement. Because of this, its beneficial to have another pair of eyes read and review your essay. Therefore, I feel as though I did not fully achieve this Learning Course Outcome goal and should work to improve upon it.

While I have reflected on most of the course learning outcomes, the remaining few will be addressed in the pages to follow, coupled with specific compositions as examples. Throughout the FIQWS Writing Composition course I can definitely say that my writing has evolved in a positive manner. I feel as though I have achieved a good portion of the Course Learning Outcome goals in the work I have produced for the class. Yet, while there are skills I acquired or improved upon, there are others that still need work as they have not been achieved.