Reflective Introduction:

Hello, my name is Adriana Rocha Garcia. This is my Reflective Introduction, and inside this eportfolio you will find links towards my HCP, AP, AP presentation, old drafts, my initial class self assessment, and artifacts I used during the writing process throughout this quarter. In this reflective introduction I seek to discuss my composition process, my use of: multimodal communication, argumentation, revision, and my growth throughout the writing series course

.

Throughout my composition process I have learned a lot about myself, and my writing style. I initially wanted to correct all of my writing flaws like being more precise rather than writing down all my ideas. This, I later learned, was a strength rather than a flaw. In writing down everything that went through my head rather than limiting it in my first versions of the HCP(Link) and AP(Link)  I was able to expand on my initial ideas, and edit out the ideas which did not help out my arguments. I am not saying I was perfect or remotely close to this ideal because most of my growth in writing, I am certain, occured during the writing process of the Advocacy Project. Beginning this course I did not believe in writing being better over a length of a time period, I also didn’t believe in considering an opposition point as much as I thought I did.  I understood I had to acknowledge this opposing viewpoint, but not the arguments which I did not want affecting my paper too much. In the Advocacy Project I included arguments that could possibly destroy my argument such as the court case of Turner v. Williams(1904) (Link) which stated, for my argument, that undocumented immigrants held no rights under “the people” because they were not regarded in the Bill of Rights to be part of this exclusive group. In navigating information, and using court cases for my research based composition I learned to incorporate voice with argumentative writing in order to make my stance in the paper while addressing these oppositions clear, and stronger.

My research skills throughout the writing process in the advocacy project and the HCP have helped me understand, and view my organizational logic in different light, but both my logic and composition need help. I have improved in organization throughout this quarter, but I would like to have spent more time working on the Advocacy Project, and the HCP because the time dedicated to each was less than I would’ve liked; however, if I would’ve given each paper more time I could’ve explained certain arguments further such as the theoretical issue with acknowledging undocumented immigrants as “the people” rather than disregarding this group for now until it's too late, and their stance in our American historical ties. Ways in which I formulated, and reformulated research strategies were influenced more by my research findings rather than my purpose to find research. For example, my intention was never to write on the topic I argued for in the advocacy project of undocumented immigrants needing a voice, and an inclusion under the First Amendment under the phrase “the people.”

My intention was never to argue for undocumented immigrants oppression because of their limited freedom to use America’s First Amendment. However, this is what I ended up arguing for in both the advocacy project, and the HCP. My intention, however, had once been to show their importance in today’s society, and how it was important to acknowledge their presence in society because of laws targeted at this group, and how this undocumented or minority group responded to these issues because I did not know they were an excluded group from the First Amendment. My intention was diverted by a bigger problem that I had not understood before. I began to familiarize myself with names which held large meaning in the realm of Freedom of Speech such as Michael Kagan, Anthony Lewis, David K. Shipler, and Steven J. Heyman (Link). These names altered my arguments, and restructured my arguments, and research strategies helping me understand guiding questions to my paper. Such as: who is Freedom of Speech meant to limit? Is this issue with “the people” a constitutional issue? Lastly, how does current day society affect this issue? These were my guiding questions which led to my research(an outline can be seen in:(Link), but which also caused me to stall the writing process of my paper which I neglected more than I neglected the research portion of the papers. A portion of this research and brainstorming is also seen in the artifacts section of the ePortfolio. My process of writing rough drafts was, honestly, mediocre beginning this course. I focused too much on attempting to write academically rather than communicating ideas, and I wrote an average of two drafts for the HCP; whereas, for the AP I wrote about four or five drafts, and my editing gave me heartbreak, but was necessary to get rid of repetitive information. My problem was not with my effectiveness at the prewriting tasks, and finding information, it never was, but my problem was the thought of, “when should I stop researching, and still be able to address the importance of my topic while addressing opposing views effectively.”

Included in my artifacts, I have a section included for my HCP drafts, and my AP drafts with the outlines I used for information while writing the papers. In these artifacts you can view my prewriting thoughts, and brainstorming process which shows much of the controversy I encountered on whether to drift off in my paper to address political views, or this would make the paper more complicated. Therefore, my growth in writing with regards to composition was substantial seeing as I dedicated much of my time researching, my growth was also included with expressing my ideas while including rhetoric, acknowledging opposing views, and keeping a clear idea of my argument.

With regards to argumentation, rhetoric, and multi-modal communication I learned an interesting amount of stuff. I say “stuff” because I regard the idea of writing as consistent of “stuff” which is defined as “the basic constituents or characteristics of something.” Therefore, after the usage of rhetoric, argumentation, and multi-modality I have seen writing as a form of language and communication rather than an additional part of each other. To write a paper, I acknowledge, now, you must consider rhetoric, argumentation, and multi- modality to enhance your purpose. To not do this additional step is to ignore an important factor in the process of generating an argumentative paper. I’ve also learned that acknowledging a counter argument, and responding to it makes your paper stronger rather than backing yourself up in a corner because this counter argument only gains its importance by the constant presence in your mind while acknowledging it allows readers to see your understanding of the arguments importance, and lack of validity. I found myself using with the argument in my HCP where I addressed immigrants from China, and immigrants from Mexico where there circumstances were created by a historical consistency of economical exploitation addressing slavery in previous generations. The counter argument in this instance was: how are both these instances interconnected? Which I addressed by including their lack of rights under the first amendment under the term “the people.” I’ve also learned the process of creating multimodal compositions, further, enriches the text rather than distracting the reader towards an irrelevant image. During the process of both the HCP, and the AP I attempted to use evidence in multimodal ways such as using charts, pictures of the individuals who suffered to create pathos, and comics to show an artistic quality of expression on political arguments. In this ways, I realized the use of multimodality helped give my argument another form of validity by the use of charts, and multimodality.

In my revision process I held very strong emotions. It became one of those instances where you dread what’s coming, but once you revise the paper you’re thankful for the changes you created. Needless to say, I hated revisions, but looking back at my final papers: I loved revisions. In terms of writing the paper, not including research, I would say I spent around three days organizing my thoughts and communicating them in a paper. However, in terms of revision, I spent about one week revising a paper after I had thought I was done revising, and editing the paper. I obtained various points of views from friends, office hours, classmates, and my roommate. It was lovely. After the HCP revisions, my paper was only fifteen percent of what the original one included, and eighty percent new information which can be seen in the HCP drafts portion of this ePortfolio. For the Advocacy Project my paper was better: it remained forty percent of what my initial paper was which is also shown in the drafts portion of my Advocacy Project. However, I am grateful for the feedback because it allowed me to consider opposing points of view towards my arguments. This feedback also allowed me to add voice to my paper while making my points become more forceful than I had initially intended them to be, address the main point of the paper more clearly if those who read my paper where somewhat lost on its purpose which made me realize that I needed to clarify those points. This was seen with my HCP in the terms of the lack of first amendment usage, and in the AP this was seen in my second draft with the feedback I obtained in class showing my lack of regard towards opposing viewpoints which led to conduct more social research on the paper rather than legal research(Link) . In the way I accepted criticism at the time I believe I am becoming a sort of theoretical and moral critic with interpreting ideas in my papers which was shown by my interpretation of the first amendment creation, the interpretation of “the people” in various legal cases, and a historical consistency of denying the first amendment to groups who now hold unobjectionable first amendment rights such as woman and african americans. In giving my peers advice I realized there’s a question to be addressed in most of the issues of the first amendment including my papers issue on: does knowledge play a role in a person's interpretation of the law? In this way I attempted to address the social context of my paper to an audience of a more limited knowledge such as someone with a high school diploma rather than a judge or a law student.

I found that writing multiple drafts was beneficial for me because it allowed me express a point of view in different ways building up from previous drafts while still maintaining the same purpose in better wording. Such an example was my drafting of a three paragraph section of my Advocacy project where I used precision rather than repetition to showcase my argument (Link) . In other drafts I benefited from structural revisions, paragraph rewriting, and change of diction to benefit the flow of the paper. This can be seen with the change from my second(Link)  to third draft in the advocacy project; however, the real change with rewriting, and diction choice is seen from my third to fourth draft(Link & Link). Between the second and the third draft the problem had been lack of addressing argumentative ideas, so I tried working on using more evidence for my paper. For my third to fourth draft the problem had been with with structural revisions, and paragraph editing which made my goal for the paper a process on organization, and precision allowing a clear argument to be formulated.

Completing the lower division writing sequence I have grown as a writer. My researching skills have definitely improved substantially, and my organizational methods are existent now unlike beginning the writing series when I did not take organization or argumentation skills into account. My practices on writing have also changed by using less passive voice(hopefully), and taking into account an oppositional view which I would’ve ignored previously in order to not complicate my paper. I’d never heard of the word “rhetoric” before writing, but now I understand its purpose. This has helped me in other various classes such as my history class, and my criminology class because both are blue book based tests which require an understanding of conflicting views in order to argue for a statement of historical justice in society. For example, in my criminology midterm there was a question regarding the justice of affirmative action in which, because I was still in the mentality of writing, I wrote of the pros and cons of affirmative action which allowed my argument in support of affirmative action to be stronger while also considering my audience which was the TA’s grading my assignment. In this way, I believe the writing series has helped me in other classes; however, I cannot post a copy of this test for school security purposes. Therefore, the writing series,although I don’t see it fully yet, has helped me substantially in other courses and not just writing.