Learning Outcome 5 and 6

This paper that I chose also demonstrates how I successfully met MLA guidelines while citing sources and also making local revisions to errors I may have made. In regards to MLA guidelines, it is evident in my writing that when I implemented quotes, I always properly credited their authors after the quote. An example of this is where I put in a David Foster Wallace quote in my work:  “There are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.” (Wallace 510) Clearly it is seen that after the quote, I properly credited him with his last name and his page number in parentheses following the quote. Also, I used proper format in my bibliography as I used a handout that was given in class and followed the exact specifications for short stories under MLA guidelines. In regards to fixing local mistakes I may have made, I always made sure to fix any grammatical mistakes that my peers may have noticed that went unnoticed by myself. A specific example of this in my paper was at one time I used the word “don’t” when I should have said “not”. Clearly, this went unnoticed when I was reviewing, but one of my peers, Corryn, pointed it out to me and I made the correct revision. 

Learning Outcome 4

While reviewing my peers papers, I made sure to follow what Professor Miller recommended we do and focus more on big picture things rather than just local errors, although I still did recommend fixes to a couple local errors. In this way, I resembled Nancy Sommers’ ideas about what their essay as a whole needs rather than just small parts, and shows that I reflect learning outcome 4. A clear example is in my comments of Chloe Grantham’s paper. In my comments, I made several recommendations about the bigger picture of her paper. In the introduction of her paper, she talked about something that she really never touched upon ever again in her paper or even her thesis. Therefore, in my second comment, I suggested that she either change her paper to incorporate this idea more or to take that idea out completely because it didn’t relate to the rest of her paper. This lead into my third comment, where I explained that her thesis didn’t relate too much to the rest of her introduction, so she had to make some big-picture changes so it would make sense. She also used a quote by David Foster Wallace, yet she never really utilized it well to her argument. Thus, in my fourth comment, I suggested that she build upon this quote and explain what it means to her advantage in order to strengthen her argument. Yet, in my first comment, I did comment on a local error just because her first sentence didn’t make sense and I believe that the first sentence is crucial to the rest of the essay in any work of writing.

Learning Outcome 2

In my final draft of paper #3, I very frequently utilized outside sources to build upon my argument because my argument was literally about themes that were shown in all of the sources I used. The most common way that I implemented these outside sources into my work was directly referencing them, often using direct quotes from the source. I would set the quote up in proper context before putting it in, and after the quote I would always explain the significance of the quote to build upon my argument even better. If I had not explained the quotes, I wouldn’t be getting the full effect out of them and they would make the reader confused. A specific example in my paper where I did this implementation process was in the third paragraph of my paper where I talk about David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster”. In this paragraph, I use multiple quotes from Wallace, but the one that I think I implemented the best was where Wallace states that“there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.” Previous to this quote, I explained that Wallace leaves us with this last sentence on purpose because he wants to leave us something to think about. I then implemented the quote, and after explained my thoughts on the quote, all while allowing it to build on my argument to make my writing better. Summarizing, I believe in this paper I successfully and effectively implemented, set up, and explained quotes so they made sense in the context of the outside source and also in the context of my own writing.

Learning Outcome 1

My revision process for our final paper (Paper #3) was very in-depth not just through correcting my grammar, but also making sure that my ideas and connections between sources made sense. As the process of revision is explained by Nancy Sommers, she states that students tend to just change the words that they use rather than change and improve their overall argument, so they really don’t make their paper any better. She explains that “Experienced writers dexcribe their primary objective when revising as finding the form or shape of their argument.” My revision process on paper #3 mainly revolved around revising and building on my argument to ensure that I was as specific and supportive as I could be so my work would have significance. One way that I determined what needed to be changed was that I actually stepped back from my work after I wrote my first draft and came back to it later and reread everything so my mind would be fresh and I would be able to notice any mistakes or flaws in my argument. I also utilized the comments my peers gave me because their comments came obviously came from people who had not written the essay so they would see it a different way than I did. My process tells me that my “philosophy” of revision is reflective of what Sommers believes is the right way to revise. Although I did make grammatical changes, I primarily focused on building on and strengthening my argument.