During my time in Writing 39B, I learned a lot about my strengths and weaknesses as a writer. The first assignment we completed in Writing 39C was a self assessment assignment. There I fleshed out the mechanics in which I felt confident in and the mechanics where I need improvement. I always knew that my main strength as a writer was my analytical way of thinking. I also knew my weaknesses lied in the organization of my paragraphs and staying on topic. However, the nature of Writing 39C was different and new criticisms of my writing arose that were never apparent to me. Thus, I had to adapt and internalize this criticism and continue to improve in new ways. Though I am not a perfect writer, I have made great strides in my capabilities as a writer and will only continue to go up from here. 

My Composition Process

           Throughout this course I had a very meticulous composition process with my essays. However, the supplementary assignments complemented this process and helped sharpen my writing mechanics. To compose my first project which was the HCP, I used the reading assignments from Better by Atu Gawande to give me inspiration on the topics that I could write about. Though there were many different themes, I chose to write about our healthcare system. After revising the scope and specificity of my topics and discussing with Lisa in office hours, I decided to write about healthcare efficiency in America. Though this was a topic that seemed subjective, I was able to research heavily and find methods in which this concept could be quantified. This gave me the green light from Lisa to continue writing about this topic and the research eventualy fell in place. However, to logically put together the vast amount of data was difficult so effective planning and brainstorming were key in making this into a cohesive essay. I used problem maps and prospectuses to help get all my ideas down. This helped organize my essay but also allowed me to pick and choose appropriate topics and analyses for this composition to be logical. I would then compose a draft and then refine it into a final draft for submission. This process was also the blueprint in composing my Adovcacy project. However, after receiving back my HCP, I received those new criticisms of my writing and I made it an point to improve on these mechanics while not neglecting what I did right in the HCP. Thus, by viewing the specific works in the composition process, my strides as a writer in my strengths and weaknesses can be seen through a gradual and dynamic process.

Writing Mechanics

I. Reinforcing and Improving My Strengths

A. Analysis

Before I took writing classes, one of my favorite hobbies was to read philosophy. Philosophy necessitates logic and syllogistic thinking. In this class it translated very well because it was a research based course. Thus, the data and sources that I used are objective facts and I just had to use logic to interpret them into a cohesive argument. For example in my HCP, there was a section on potential solutions that we had to prescribe for our problem. Thus, what I did was use academic sources to prove the prevelence of resource inefficiency and I used logic to connect the root of this problem to the amount of malpractice suits in America. I desconstructed the system to prove that the malpractice landscape is not conducive to our healthcare system efficiency. By simply looking at sources, this connection would not be evident but my logic and analysis is what connect these points and makes them clear. I used this skill in every aspect of my compositions which helped in strengthening my essays.  

Fig.1 This excerpt from my HCP is an example of my analytical thinking. The solution was based on data but it took logical thinking to arrive at the solution and proving its efficacy.

II. Improving my Writing 39B Weaknesses

A. Macro-organization

Before Writing 39B, I never took into account the organization of paragraphs and their topics in the overall essay. However, I realized that the order of the paragraphs matter because they determine the flow of the argument. Though my analysis was sound, it sometimes came too late or was out of place with no intermediate explanation. Thus, I began to structure my essay in a way that organized my argument into specific areas. For example in my HCP, I organized my composition by first beginning with the definition of healthcare efficiency. Then I deconstructured the metrics of efficiency and then every paragraph after that explained the cause of our deficiency in each metric. Then I proposed solutions and then a final conclusion. This organization makes sense but this type of thinking was only recently realized in Writing 39B. However, my compositions are examples of how I have improved in this area since my experiences in Writing 39B.

Figure 2: This was a basic outline of my HCP Project. Using specific groupings of my paragraphs, I was able to improve the macro-organization of my composition and improve the flow of my argument.

B. Paragraph Density

Due to highschool writing structure, I was very rigid in the 5 paragraph method in Writing 39B. However, I realized this strategy would not work as it made paragraphs too dense and complicated. The connection of analysis suffered because of the density of the paragraphs and my paragraphs appeared to go off topic. Thus, I broke out of this shell in later compositions and wrote essays with 10+ paragraphs making sure each one was focusing on a key topic. This made the overall argument flow a lot better and imrpoved the argument's clarity. Thus, this type of fragmentation can be seen in my Writing 39C compositions as seen in Figure 4.

Figure 3: This is an excerpt from my Rhetorical Analysis Essay in Writing 39B where the paragraph was talking about too many topics. Thus, it ended up being confusing and affecting the rest of my arguments in the composition.

Figure 4: This is an excerpt from my HCP and shows that the paragraphs are single topic and focused. This helped my overall argument to be clear and flow.

III. Improving New Weaknesses in Writing 39C

A. Precision and Clarity

When I would explain my analysis on any given topic, I would often be very vague with what I am referring to. This was a big issue because my topic was very dense and complicated thus precise language was necessary in making my analysis clear in what I was referring to. For example, in Figure 5 it shows an excerpt of my HCP and displays lack of precise language. When I use words like "they" and don't mention "defensive medicine" it makes the whole argument very vague and disconnected. However, in Figure 6, I am referring to the same topic in my Advocacy but the language is more precise. I use proper vocabulary and specific terms so the reader knows that "they" is referring to doctors. This seemed very petty to me before this course but seeing the difference in language use shows how important precise language is in improving the clarity of analysis.

Figure 5: This is an excerpt from my HCP where I display my use of vague language which makes my analysis of inefficient resources unclear.

Figure 6: This is an excerpt from my Advocacy project and shows how precise terminology can make the same argument clear and understandable to the reader.

B. Repetition

When writing about a complex topic, I have a tendency to be repetitive in my analysis because I want to ensure that the reader understands my thought process. However, this repetition is unnecessary and actually distracts the reader from the topic I am discussing. Sometimes the repetition occurs in a separate part of the paragraph and the reader tries to connect the relevancy of the repeated fact when there is no real connection. This occurred multiple times in my HCP due to my lack of revision. I improved upon this greatly in my Advocacy and my argument flowed better because it was more understandable and precise. However, I still fell victim to my repetition to a lesser degree on my Advocacy but my cognizance of this issue has allowed me to improve in this writing mechanic greatly.

Figure 7: This excerpt from my HCP shows a lot of repetition in explaining the prevelance of malpractice suits. This was unncessary and detracts from the analysis of this paragraph.

C. Micro-Organization

Before this course, I thought organization only meant macro-organization which is where you place your paragraphs and how the topics of the paragraphs flow within your essay. However, I was not aware of micro-organization which is where you place the sentences in individual paragraphs and how they flow within that paragraph. My problem with micro-organization mainly stems from my lack of revision. This is because when I first write essays, I focus mainly on getting the relevant information on paper rather than refining the flow of the paragraphs. Thus, information that should be at the beginning is placed at the end of the paragraph. This was a common problem in my HCP but because I did more revision in my Advocacy, my micro-organization greatly improved.  

Figure 8: This is an excerpt from my HCP which shows how the last sentence seems out of place. It should have been mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph but its improper placement confuses the flow of the paragraph. 

Figure 9: This paragraph is an example of refined micro-organization in my Advocacy. By ushering the problem first and then the solution, the logic of the individual paragraph flows nicely.

D. Organic Tone/Flow 

There are certain tones that are required of the compositions that we did in this course. Urgency and importance were the most important as we were trying to convince a reader that our problem demanded their immediate attention. However, I had trouble organically incorporating this tone into my work and would just blatantly state that it was urgent or important. This is not effective as I should not have to state this and it should be implied to any reader if the proper analyses are given. This gives more rhetorical and persuasive power to the paper if done organically. Thus, to fix this in my Advocacy, I realized that I needed to use my research to my advantage. I placed certain data such as bankruptcy rates and healthcare costs to incorporate pathos into my arguments and elicited the proper tones without having to say it explicitly. Thus, my Advocacy was more convincing because making the tones seem obvious to the reader is better than having to convince the reader of these tones which bring more credibility and skill to me as a writer.

E. Multimodality

I did not have much practice with multimodality in Writing 39B. Thus, my utilization of multimodal artifacts were not effective in my HCP. This was pointed out to me and the most lacking part was the ineffective captions. I just explained what the picture was displaying without giving any rhetorical power to it. However, I improved upon this in my Advocacy project where I emphasized these multimodal artifacts and used their rhetorical power to my advantage. I further improved upon this in my presentation of my Advocacy Project where it consisted of many multimodal artifacts which I also utilized more effectively. I realized that multimodal artifacts are very useful in conveying certain tones and rhetoric that cannot be conveyed with words.

Figure 10: This was an example of a multimodal artifact in my HCP. The caption has no rhetorical power and is simply explaining. The artifact is not utilized effectively.

Figure 11: This is a multimodal artifact from my Advocacy Project. This is the same artifact from my HCP but this caption has some tone and rhetorical power to it. Thus, it is more effective and complements my composition better. 

Post Course Thoughts and Takeaways 

            Through the metacognition of my writing skills, I have realized the dependence of each mechanic to improve the overall cohesiveness of an essay. I always thought that my analytical ability is independent of other mechanics of writing. I thought that clarity, organization and precision do not affect the quality of my analysis which is incorrect because all these mechanics improve the rhetorical power of analysis. All writing mechanics work in a symbiotic relationship which has never occurred to me as a writer. This key takeaway is important as I now know that I cannot undermine a single aspect of my writing as all are key in producing a cohesive essay. I also have realized that so many factors go into writing an essay and with the large landscape of possibilities of topics, it is impossible to master writing as an art. I can always improve an essay because writing is not a rigid art but is dynamic and relative to a certain topic. 

This course will be very helpful to me in the future as my future in biological research depends exactly on the type of compositions that I have written. Thus, the writing style that I have developed complement my future writing tasks well and my improvements as a writer can only go up from here as long as I do not stay complacent.