I entered UCI as an average writer who lacked any confidence whatsoever. The writing process was very confusing and frustrating for me, and I often deemed it as being a waste of my time. Through the Writing 39 series at UCI, I have been able to discover the misconceptions that I had about the writing process. Looking back upon my experience in Writing 39B and 39C, it is shocking to see how much I have learned and adapted my writing. In Writing 39B, I learned how writing not only serves as an effective method of explaining knowledge to others, but it also can be a method of understanding the world better. Our theme for the class was Fairy Tales, and I discovered that even things that may seem childish can be analyzed and explored rhetorically. I found that this class gave me confidence to express my thoughts because I no longer looked at writing as a pointless exercise. Despite the knowledge and confidence I gained in Writing 39B before this, I still felt like a fish out of water in regards to writing. Because Writing 39C was geared towards research as well, I was intimidated by the vast amounts of information that I would have to organize and produce a rhetorically effective work. In this class, I found that it was necessary to confront the bad habits in my writing that stuck with me through Writing 39B. The most egregious of these was my tendency to forget about the reader and their perspective of reading my work. In these situations, I would cram large amounts of information into a single sentence, essentially making the sentence a puzzle to decipher. Thankfully, I came into this class well aware of my issues as a writer, as I expressed in the first Discussion/Introduction.

In this Artifact from Discussion #1, I expressed my desires for the class and where I hoped to improve.

Click here to go to my full response for Discussion 1

Although I often found such sentences to be easy to read, I would forget that my classmates and teachers would be on the outside looking in and would not understand my points. To my surprise, peer reviews and teacher comments helped me improve my writing the most in this class. This class was online and over the summer, so I did not expect much interaction with the Professor or classmates, but hearing their input on my work through marginal comments and write-ups ended up providing the most effective means of fixing my writing. For example, in the image below, both Professor Collins and Maybelle expressed their concerns over a specific part of my HCP paper.

Because of their attention to detail, as well as their explanation of their understanding of my paper, I was able to focus on fixing the holes and inconsistencies in my paper.

Click here to go to the first draft of my HCP

Another one of my bad habits that I initially began Writing 39C with was my tendency to delay composition of my papers until I had thought out a vast portion of my paper. The perfectionist within me would be unsatisfied with less than stellar work; consequently, this type of thinking often left me paralyzed and unmotivated to even begin my work because I would not know what to write. I would always try to write a perfect paper on the first try so I could minimize the amount of time I spent on it. Writing 39C has forced me to learn how to write based on the predraft work that I (SHOULD HAVE) already completed and then revise these things later on. For example, in my first draft of my HCP, I had a basic idea of where I was taking my argument thanks to the Timeline that we had to complete. However, my introduction paragraph was merely blurting out information that I had found during my research that I thought had some relevance. 

This may not seem like a positive point that I learned from this class. For me, however, this represented the first step in appreciating the revision process. Upon revisiting this portion of my paper following peer reviews and Professor comments, I recognized the conglomeration of information that my introduction paragraph had. From there, I edited and organized this information so that I was able to conclude my introduction paragraph in a more coherent fashion while reserving the quotes and statistics for my body paragraphs.

Click here to go to the Peer Review Workshop Draft of my HCP

This new method of writing has allowed myself to analyze and flesh out various aspects of my work more effectively, while I also enjoyed the process more. Rather than seeing the writing process as a tedious and mind-wrenching affair, I can see it as a time to express my thoughts and communicate to my audience. This revelation has also allowed me to become more conscious of what I am saying as a writer and become more receptive to the input of others.

Another one of the problems that has often plagued me as a writer is either having too much to say or suddenly running out of ideas. I consider these one singular problem because I think that they both stem from my failure to evaluate my information before I start writing. As long as I felt that I had enough information and I had a general idea of where I wanted to go with my writing, I felt that I could start writing. I had already mentioned the Timeline that we were required to do before the HCP, which helped me produce a basic idea of my argument. Another assignment that helped me evaluate my topic and information was Discussion #3. In this assignment, we were required to submit a rough annotated bibliography as well as “provide a concise statement of your possible argument preceded by a brief and concise statement of the problem you discovered.” Then, we were asked to “provide a single guiding question that you would like to answer in the course of your research.” Because my topic at this time was the overcrowding in California prisons, these questions were quite hard to answer simply.

An excerpt from my response to Discussion #3

This type of pre-draft work helped me to learn how to evaluate the information that I have. Taking these steps helped me begin my writing on the Advocacy Project as well, because I was able to see what my final argument would be from the start. 

These strides that I made helped to make the writing process easier and more enjoyable for me. However, I still possessed issues within my words as well. One of these which I had to confront was the lack of specificity that I had in my writing. In the initial stages of HCP pre-writing, Professor Collins suggested that my topic of overcrowding in California prisons would be incredibly hard to complete. As I continued researching, I came across the problem of split sentencing, which was a solution to prison overcrowding. After I received positive feedback from Professor Collins, I realized that it was this type of specificity that we sought as academic writers.

Although her response was short, I finally realized the type of specificity that we seek as writers.

Rather than constantly seeking the largest common denominator (or common problem in this case), we can actually produce better writing by having a specific focus. From this point on, I always made sure to try and be as specific as possible, so that my readers would not feel as though I glossed over the topic and not learn anything. I hope that this lesson will follow me throughout the rest of my life and writing.

The composition process also helped me learn how best to include multi-modal elements in my writing. Before this class, I believed that multi-modal elements were simply pictures that somewhat complemented the writing. My naivety was fully on display in the Peer Workshop draft of my HCP, where I received some strong feedback from Professor Collins on my multi-modals. 

This collage of some of Professor Collins responses highlights how my use of multi-modals was ineffective.

Later, Professor Collins explained to me that multi-modals should be seen as "visual rhetoric" and communicate their own point in the scope of the writing. After taking her suggestion and looking back over some of the Coates articles, I made the connection. The pictures that I select represent parts of my argument that I wanted to highlight or give the reader something to think about further. Before I came to this realization, I had seen pull quotes as merely filler, because they just made part of the writing slightly larger. But, these quotes demonstrates aspects of a writer's argument that they want to highlight or cause the reader to focus on. In combination with the lesson I had learned about being specific, I realized that it was possible to bolster my argument while giving the reader a break from seeing merely words written down. ‘Visual Rhetoric’ was just as important to a writer’s argument as a powerful sentence.

By the time of my final HCP, my multi-modals had improved in quality and actually communicated a point.

Click here to go to my Final HCP

I think that one of the greatest realizations that I will take away from this class is my understanding of the burden on the author. Especially within a research paper, the author is the expert who serves as the source of the knowledge. Thus, the burden of effectively explaining and presenting the information to the reader is on the author. I have also learned that in order to do these things effectively, the author must present their information in an organized and clear manner. While this may seem obvious to some people, it was not something that I constantly paid attention to during my writing process before I came to this realization during the class. In the first draft of my Advocacy Project, my paragraphs were often dense and confusing.

Click here to go to the First Draft of my AP

As Professor Collins' comments point out, there is awkward syntax and wording all over this paragraph. It was my responsibility to make sure the things that I am saying make sense and effectively communicate my point. In the second draft of the AP, I revised that paragraph to effectively demonstrate clearly what alternative sentencing was and who supported it.

 Click here to go to the second draft of my AP

 In conclusion, I began my collegiate writing career as a confused and anxious writer. Through the Writing 39 Series, I have been able to realize all the misconceptions that I had before my experiences at UCI, as well as appreciate the artistic approaches and diversity in writing. I have learned the steps it takes to have effective prewriting, and I reaped the benefits that prewriting gave me. In the same way, I saw the positive outcomes from writing based on the knowledge that I have already built up. Rather than going for the perfect paper in one try, I appreciated the revision process. During this revision process, I took my peers and Professor's comments to heart in order to see how to make my papers better. Finally, I made a concerted and deliberate effort to present my papers in a clear manner. While it may sometimes be easier for me to just gloss over a topic, I have learned to pay attention to details and give strong and coherent explanations for the claims that I make. I am impressed at the growth I have experienced as a writer in the Writing 39 series at UCI, and I hope that I can continue to use this knowledge to strengthen my writing as I continue.