What genre am I going to use for Project 1?
I am committing to using the Quick Reference Guide as my genre for the controversy post-mortem. I am using the guide for this project because it is such a science-based topic, and therefore is going to be difficult to explain. With the QRG, I will be able to break down the parts of the controversy into small chunks to make it easier to understand.
What conventions will I be using and how?
I am aiming to acknowledge most, if not all, of the conventions for the quick reference guide, including but not limited to: subheadings, a title, images, links with citations, white space, question and answer format, and a brief introduction.
To accomplish the purpose of this project, I plan to break down the concepts and ideas into brief, easily-understandable and easily-readable sections. I plan to use external links to assist in my explanations and to provide more varied perspectives, and images to portray things not easily said.
How am I feeling about Project 1?
I am feeling much better about Project 1 after I have begun researching. I was initially considering doing the video essay for the first project, but I am happy to have found that the QRG will fit my topic better. I am also very excited to endeavor deeper into the world of science and to research a topic that I know almost nothing about.
I anticipate time management to be a huge issue for me next week, as I have had one hell of a time getting my assignments done this week. I will need to plan my time better, and space out the work over more than one or two days.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Cluster of Stakeholders
In my cluster of stakeholders, I used Coggle to define the major three stakeholders in the controversy with the three main branches. Next, I defined their specific stakes, opinions and biases using additional branches.
My cluster can be found here.
My cluster can be found here.
Evaluation of General Sources
I am excruciatingly excited to start my extensive research into the supposed arsenic-utilizing GFAJ-1 extremophile bacterium controversy. The premise of the controversy post-mortem is highlighted in this blog post from Discovery Magazine and in this article from USA Today.
URLs?
The URLs of the sources are as follows:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria-a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/#.Vq10hFIfXu0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/02/01/arseniclife-peer-reviews-nasa/1883327/
Both URLs end in ".com", which means that the site is used by a business or a commercial enterprise. ".edu" means the domain is owned by an educational facility, ".org" is for non-commercial uses, ".gov" is governmentally owned, ".biz" by businesses, ".name" is used by individuals, ".info" are informational sites, and ".net" refers to networks.
In general, it is difficult to base the credibility of a source solely on its use of domains, but it is common for .org, .com, .edu and .info to be more credible than privately run sites.
Authors?
The author of the Discovery Magazine blog post is Ed Yong. By searching his name in Google, I was able to find that he is an award-winning science author with a myriad of impressive writing accomplishments.
The author of the USA Today article is Dan Vergano. I was able to find out about his educational and teaching histories through Google search.
Last Updated?
On Discovery Magazine, there is no "last updated" timestamp. Because of this, it is safe to assume that the information is not outdated from the time that it was posted.
The source contains many, many hyperlinks to outside sources including: related articles, the original publication, other blogs and posters discussing the topic, and many links to the authors and researchers involved in the study responding to the backlash. All of the links are working.
On the USA Today site, there is both the original posted date and the last updated date. Because of this, readers can be certain that the information is not outdated.
There are less links on this site than the first, but there are enough to provide readers with the necessary information. The links send us to similar articles, websites of institutions involved, and even a Youtube video. The links are all working; however, the Youtube video can no longer be played.
Purpose?
Both texts are trying to accomplish the same thing: to inform readers about the controversy revolved around the GFAJ-1 bacterium.
The first text utilizes a detailed timeline, links, and insider information to inform readers in the most holistic way possible. The post is largely informational, but the facts are presented in a manner that encourages readers to believe the most recent information.
The second text also serves to inform readers about the controversy. There is some bias in the article towards the new information, similarly to the blog post.
Graphics?
There are only two graphics in the Discovery Magazine blog post; one image of the geographical location of the bacterium, and a screenshot of a Twitter post. In my opinion, the graphics used are semi-irrelevant to the controversy as a whole and therefore do not serve a purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing.
USA Today's publication includes a time-lapsed video of the bacterium, an image of their location, and an image of the bacteria under a microscope. This source better utilizes their graphics, as they provide readers with relevant information not otherwise contained in the article.
Position on Subject?
Both sources understandably display moderate bias towards the newest released information. It appears that no one profits if readers believe the information portrayed, as they are disputing a scientific study with scientific reasoning and facts. It is extremely easy to verify the information in these sources with other sources.
Links?
As previously mentioned, both sources contain links to other, related sources. The links take us to credible sources, such as other online science magazines or other publications on the study.
URLs?
The URLs of the sources are as follows:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria-a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/#.Vq10hFIfXu0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/02/01/arseniclife-peer-reviews-nasa/1883327/
Both URLs end in ".com", which means that the site is used by a business or a commercial enterprise. ".edu" means the domain is owned by an educational facility, ".org" is for non-commercial uses, ".gov" is governmentally owned, ".biz" by businesses, ".name" is used by individuals, ".info" are informational sites, and ".net" refers to networks.
In general, it is difficult to base the credibility of a source solely on its use of domains, but it is common for .org, .com, .edu and .info to be more credible than privately run sites.
Authors?
The author of the Discovery Magazine blog post is Ed Yong. By searching his name in Google, I was able to find that he is an award-winning science author with a myriad of impressive writing accomplishments.
The author of the USA Today article is Dan Vergano. I was able to find out about his educational and teaching histories through Google search.
Last Updated?
On Discovery Magazine, there is no "last updated" timestamp. Because of this, it is safe to assume that the information is not outdated from the time that it was posted.
The source contains many, many hyperlinks to outside sources including: related articles, the original publication, other blogs and posters discussing the topic, and many links to the authors and researchers involved in the study responding to the backlash. All of the links are working.
On the USA Today site, there is both the original posted date and the last updated date. Because of this, readers can be certain that the information is not outdated.
There are less links on this site than the first, but there are enough to provide readers with the necessary information. The links send us to similar articles, websites of institutions involved, and even a Youtube video. The links are all working; however, the Youtube video can no longer be played.
Purpose?
Both texts are trying to accomplish the same thing: to inform readers about the controversy revolved around the GFAJ-1 bacterium.
The first text utilizes a detailed timeline, links, and insider information to inform readers in the most holistic way possible. The post is largely informational, but the facts are presented in a manner that encourages readers to believe the most recent information.
The second text also serves to inform readers about the controversy. There is some bias in the article towards the new information, similarly to the blog post.
Graphics?
There are only two graphics in the Discovery Magazine blog post; one image of the geographical location of the bacterium, and a screenshot of a Twitter post. In my opinion, the graphics used are semi-irrelevant to the controversy as a whole and therefore do not serve a purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing.
USA Today's publication includes a time-lapsed video of the bacterium, an image of their location, and an image of the bacteria under a microscope. This source better utilizes their graphics, as they provide readers with relevant information not otherwise contained in the article.
Position on Subject?
Both sources understandably display moderate bias towards the newest released information. It appears that no one profits if readers believe the information portrayed, as they are disputing a scientific study with scientific reasoning and facts. It is extremely easy to verify the information in these sources with other sources.
Links?
As previously mentioned, both sources contain links to other, related sources. The links take us to credible sources, such as other online science magazines or other publications on the study.
Reddit and What I Found There
I didn't think it was humanly possible for me to love Reddit anymore than I did already, but in exploring forums related to biology and health I discovered fantastic new sources of information, discussions, and news. I spent a lot of time on the biology forum on Reddit, which is where I will be drawing my responses from.
Generally, Reddit is a place for questions, discussions, reviews, complaints, music, links, articles, and many, many more resources. On the biology forum, most of the posts were external articles, open discussions, and specific questions. Similarly to the rest of Reddit, people share their ideas informally and the majority of posts spark debate from the community.
This post in particular struck my interest. As an undergrad biology student myself, I love to see someone I can relate to asking questions of the biology community on Reddit. Though the actual question itself is not as relevant, the responses and the discussion that ensues encompass the site's helpful and discussion-based environment. The way the responders and the original poster interact to problem solve is fascinating to me, and I am confident that Reddit possesses a wealth of information if used properly.
Secondly, I came across this article, linked from the biology forum. Again, I am not particularly interested in the specific topic of the article. What drew me in was the fact that Reddit, a community-based site, is a recipient of this kind of information.
To expound, errors in studies are not extremely common, especially in those that have been refined and confirmed as intensely as this one. In addition, I thoroughly enjoy when people are able to admit when they are wrong, especially in the science and health fields, as I believe that acknowledging errors in this context will lead to new, more correct information.
Overall, from experiencing Reddit, my views on people in the biology community did actually get altered. As previously mentioned, admitting you are wrong in the world of science is an admirable feat, and I would not expect that from the majority of humans. Also, I was glad to see that the forum was not entirely composed of professors and doctors, but also of students like myself seeking help or advice from those more knowledgeable than themselves.
 |
| Guo, David. "Reddit-logo". 1/30/2016 via Flickr. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. |
This post in particular struck my interest. As an undergrad biology student myself, I love to see someone I can relate to asking questions of the biology community on Reddit. Though the actual question itself is not as relevant, the responses and the discussion that ensues encompass the site's helpful and discussion-based environment. The way the responders and the original poster interact to problem solve is fascinating to me, and I am confident that Reddit possesses a wealth of information if used properly.
Secondly, I came across this article, linked from the biology forum. Again, I am not particularly interested in the specific topic of the article. What drew me in was the fact that Reddit, a community-based site, is a recipient of this kind of information.
To expound, errors in studies are not extremely common, especially in those that have been refined and confirmed as intensely as this one. In addition, I thoroughly enjoy when people are able to admit when they are wrong, especially in the science and health fields, as I believe that acknowledging errors in this context will lead to new, more correct information.
Overall, from experiencing Reddit, my views on people in the biology community did actually get altered. As previously mentioned, admitting you are wrong in the world of science is an admirable feat, and I would not expect that from the majority of humans. Also, I was glad to see that the forum was not entirely composed of professors and doctors, but also of students like myself seeking help or advice from those more knowledgeable than themselves.
Evaluation of News Magazine Stories
Both online magazines The Atlantic and The Week provide information about everything current and news worthy. In the cases of science and health, both sites provide enticing, debate-worthy topics, found here and here, respectively.
What are the debates?
The article on The Atlantic discusses the use of psychedelics, such as psilocybin or LSD, to aid in beating a nicotine addiction. Though most of the article is made up of direct quotes from outside sources, it is a good source for essential background information on the topic. The article references Daniel Miller's publication in Newsweek, in which he tells first-hand how he overcame his nicotine addiction after using LSD.
The study started at Johns Hopkins University, and has spread around the world since then. According to the article, even the BBC has written an article on the study.
On the other hand, The Week reports on an unproven study that poor eating habits by ancestors may affect later generations' variety of stomach bacteria. In short, if our grandparents didn't eat enough fiber, it is possible that we have less forms of helpful bacteria in our digestive system, which can lead to health problems down the road.
A similar study on mice was conducted out of Stanford University and was lead by Erica Sonnenburg, a senior research scientist at the university. The study confirmed that a non-fibrois diet in older generations can indeed pass poor bacterial genes onto offspring.
Who are the most sympathetic people in the articles?
In the first article, it is extremely easy to relate to and sympathize with Daniel Miller, as he is quoted telling his own story about his overcoming of addiction. His story, and the fact that it is authored by himself, allows for readers to feel closer to the issue of addiction and relate to his feelings of relief upon quitting.
In the second article, it was more difficult to assign levels of sympathy to each of the characters. For no other reason other than the fact that she lead the study, it was most easy to relate to Erica Sonnenburg. By initiating an experiment on a topic otherwise nearly untouched, it is apparent that she is passionate about the topic, and thus evokes a sense of admiration for her determination.
Who are the least sympathetic people?
In article one, the author, Chris Bodenner, is the least relatable person by process of elimination. As previously mentioned, the majority of the article is direct, paragraph-long excerpts from other sources, with brief comments and opinions from Bodenner sporadically throughout.
In article 2, professor Kelly Swanson is the least relatable. Again, this is solely based on the process of elimination. Everyone loves a good professor of animal and nutritional sciences, but one comment from Swanson just isn't enough to relate to him in any significant way.
What are the debates?
The article on The Atlantic discusses the use of psychedelics, such as psilocybin or LSD, to aid in beating a nicotine addiction. Though most of the article is made up of direct quotes from outside sources, it is a good source for essential background information on the topic. The article references Daniel Miller's publication in Newsweek, in which he tells first-hand how he overcame his nicotine addiction after using LSD.
The study started at Johns Hopkins University, and has spread around the world since then. According to the article, even the BBC has written an article on the study.
On the other hand, The Week reports on an unproven study that poor eating habits by ancestors may affect later generations' variety of stomach bacteria. In short, if our grandparents didn't eat enough fiber, it is possible that we have less forms of helpful bacteria in our digestive system, which can lead to health problems down the road.
A similar study on mice was conducted out of Stanford University and was lead by Erica Sonnenburg, a senior research scientist at the university. The study confirmed that a non-fibrois diet in older generations can indeed pass poor bacterial genes onto offspring.
Who are the most sympathetic people in the articles?
In the first article, it is extremely easy to relate to and sympathize with Daniel Miller, as he is quoted telling his own story about his overcoming of addiction. His story, and the fact that it is authored by himself, allows for readers to feel closer to the issue of addiction and relate to his feelings of relief upon quitting.
In the second article, it was more difficult to assign levels of sympathy to each of the characters. For no other reason other than the fact that she lead the study, it was most easy to relate to Erica Sonnenburg. By initiating an experiment on a topic otherwise nearly untouched, it is apparent that she is passionate about the topic, and thus evokes a sense of admiration for her determination.
Who are the least sympathetic people?
In article one, the author, Chris Bodenner, is the least relatable person by process of elimination. As previously mentioned, the majority of the article is direct, paragraph-long excerpts from other sources, with brief comments and opinions from Bodenner sporadically throughout.
In article 2, professor Kelly Swanson is the least relatable. Again, this is solely based on the process of elimination. Everyone loves a good professor of animal and nutritional sciences, but one comment from Swanson just isn't enough to relate to him in any significant way.
Twitter and What I Found There
In exploring Twitter and its extensive array of biology resources, I was surprised to find that I actually did learn something relevant, true, and interesting from social media. In addition, I added a few new accounts to my "following" list.
I almost immediately came across two pages that struck my interest: Biology Answers, and Bioscience News. Both pages are centered around biology, but they utilize different types of media to share their information.
For example, on Biology Answers, there are specific, typically college-level, biology questions with links to their answers. In this way, readers of the Twitter page can easily navigate through different topics and quickly find the topics they are searching for.
On the other hand, Bioscience News posts solely links to biology and research centered articles. In doing this, the feed appeals to those who want new information related to biology and research, or those who want a more credible source of information and fuller articles.
Personally, I really enjoyed browsing through the Bioscience News twitter, as I am an extreme science nerd. Two of my favorite articles that I came across can be found here and here.
I especially liked these articles because of my love for new developments and moving forward in the world of science. In both of these stories, new discoveries and methods for improving our quality of life are tested and discussed.
In terms of people's interactions with Twitter pages in general, it is pretty typical to see people making ignorant and/or irrelevant comments. On these pages, however, it is nearly impossible to find even a single comment. I predict that this has to do with the audience of Twitter in general, and the academic nature of the pages. It is likely that people who are using Twitter for a resource of biological studies and information are not using Twitter to leave their opinions on social media.
From this research, I did not gain any new impressions of the biological field; however, I did engage with Twitter in a way I had not before.
 |
| EnoW. "Twitter Logo Mini". 1/30/2016 via Commons.Wikimedia. Creative Commons CCO 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. |
For example, on Biology Answers, there are specific, typically college-level, biology questions with links to their answers. In this way, readers of the Twitter page can easily navigate through different topics and quickly find the topics they are searching for.
On the other hand, Bioscience News posts solely links to biology and research centered articles. In doing this, the feed appeals to those who want new information related to biology and research, or those who want a more credible source of information and fuller articles.
Personally, I really enjoyed browsing through the Bioscience News twitter, as I am an extreme science nerd. Two of my favorite articles that I came across can be found here and here.
I especially liked these articles because of my love for new developments and moving forward in the world of science. In both of these stories, new discoveries and methods for improving our quality of life are tested and discussed.
In terms of people's interactions with Twitter pages in general, it is pretty typical to see people making ignorant and/or irrelevant comments. On these pages, however, it is nearly impossible to find even a single comment. I predict that this has to do with the audience of Twitter in general, and the academic nature of the pages. It is likely that people who are using Twitter for a resource of biological studies and information are not using Twitter to leave their opinions on social media.
From this research, I did not gain any new impressions of the biological field; however, I did engage with Twitter in a way I had not before.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Evaluation of New York Times Stories
I have just explored the New York Times website and I came across two articles from the science and health sections. They are titled Rate of Birth Defect of Abdominal Wall Increasing, C.D.C. Says and High-Rise Living Linked to Lower Survival After Cardiac Arrest, respectively. In this post, I will highlight the important pieces of the stories.
Who are the central or important characters?
Though neither of the articles have a main character, there are people mentioned who have lead roles in the stories. For example, in the Rate of Birth Defect of Abdominal Wall Increasing, C.D.C. Says, Dr. Holly L Hedrick and Dr. Leslie A Lusk are referenced. Both are experts in the field of birth defects and surgery.
In the article High-Rise Living Linked to Lower Survival After Cardiac Arrest, author of the Canadian Medical Association Journal and doctoral candidate, Ian R. Drennan is referenced. It is apparent that he was interviewed for the purpose of this article, as he provides specific details and responses to the ideas mentioned.
What is the setting?
In the article regarding abdominal defects at birth, locations mentioned include: a maternity ward, the hospital, and the fourteen states that the study was conducted in. On the other hand, the article regarding lower cardiac arrest survival rates takes place in residential areas in and close to Toronto, Canada.
The setting of the story influences the characters by changing the context of the situation. For example, if the high rise story took place in the United States instead of Canada, author Ian R. Drennan would likely have not been a part of the study.
What about debates?
Because both of the articles were statistically based, there was no dissenting viewpoint portrayed. If the articles had not employed the use of statistics and data presented as facts, there likely would have been other sides to debate with. Luckily for the characters, they were just presenting information instead of arguing their points.
Who are the central or important characters?
Though neither of the articles have a main character, there are people mentioned who have lead roles in the stories. For example, in the Rate of Birth Defect of Abdominal Wall Increasing, C.D.C. Says, Dr. Holly L Hedrick and Dr. Leslie A Lusk are referenced. Both are experts in the field of birth defects and surgery.
In the article High-Rise Living Linked to Lower Survival After Cardiac Arrest, author of the Canadian Medical Association Journal and doctoral candidate, Ian R. Drennan is referenced. It is apparent that he was interviewed for the purpose of this article, as he provides specific details and responses to the ideas mentioned.
What is the setting?
In the article regarding abdominal defects at birth, locations mentioned include: a maternity ward, the hospital, and the fourteen states that the study was conducted in. On the other hand, the article regarding lower cardiac arrest survival rates takes place in residential areas in and close to Toronto, Canada.
The setting of the story influences the characters by changing the context of the situation. For example, if the high rise story took place in the United States instead of Canada, author Ian R. Drennan would likely have not been a part of the study.
What about debates?
Because both of the articles were statistically based, there was no dissenting viewpoint portrayed. If the articles had not employed the use of statistics and data presented as facts, there likely would have been other sides to debate with. Luckily for the characters, they were just presenting information instead of arguing their points.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Course Projects
Throughout this semester, my strength and wit will be challenged. I, with my closest english classmates by my side, will have to courageously battle through four grueling tasks. Will we make it out alive? Stay tuned.
What am I most confused or nervous about in regards to the four major projects?
In simple terms, I am most worried about the amount of time I am going to have to dedicate to these projects in comparison to the amount of time it would take me to write a traditional research paper. Overall, these projects require effort outside of the typical college essay, including interviews and extensive research into specific topics. Aside from the Reflective Self-Assessment, time will need to be divided amongst research and developing my work.
Similarly, I am not a fan of public speaking or the publication of my work, so having everything be shared online is moderately uncomfortable for me.
What am I most interested in or excited for?
Honestly, the idea of doing something out of the norm for academic purposes both scares me and excites me. I am ready and willing to go in depth into topics that interest me, but doing the extra work to make myself an expert on the topics may be difficult. Ultimately, I am most excited to be able to pick my topic based on my interests, and to be forced out of my comfort zone, especially to conduct interviews for the Rhetorical Investigation.
What elements of this course do I have to plan ahead for?
In all honesty, all of them. Mostly I need to focus on spending my time wisely and not waiting until the last day to start my projects. Recognizing that things in this course are typically longer assignments will be essential to my success.
How will my time management be challenged?
My time management will be challenged in terms of balancing all of my obligations so I can meet deadlines. For example, if I know I have practice on a Saturday night, I might start working on the weekly deadline Friday instead of being forced to wait until the day that it is due.
I will need to disperse my time fairly and effectively in order to stay on top of the bigger project deadlines. Also, I will need to plan my projects accordingly so that I have all of my pre-production planning complete before I have to start developing my work.
How has my past English coursework prepared me for this semester? What skills will I bring into the course with me?
In the past, I have not been particularly challenged by an english class. I have been able to easily meet deadlines and complete work that is above average. Because of this, and from other courses throughout my high school experience, I have developed certain skills that will help me throughout this course. These include:
- moderate time management
- ability to complete a lot of work in small amounts of time
- ability to focus on work
- interest in research/learning
Any questions?
The only thing I am unclear about is whether or not we will be publicly presenting our projects or just posting them publicly. Other than that I am crystal clear!
Edit: I read over Amelia's and Sienna's posts about Course Projects. Overall, I feel better now knowing that almost everyone in this class is in the same boat as me in terms of time management. It was reassuring to discover that I have a similar educational background to both Sienna and Amelia. With this new information, I feel more confident about completing these projects and I am excited to see what everyone else comes up with as well.
Edit: I read over Amelia's and Sienna's posts about Course Projects. Overall, I feel better now knowing that almost everyone in this class is in the same boat as me in terms of time management. It was reassuring to discover that I have a similar educational background to both Sienna and Amelia. With this new information, I feel more confident about completing these projects and I am excited to see what everyone else comes up with as well.
Investigating Genres
Video essays exist to portray sounds and visuals in ways that typical essays or audios can not. With the involvement of multiple senses, audiences will enjoy a more interactive and enticing learning experience.
 |
| Mehdals. "Audio Visual Sticker". 1/22/16 via DevianArt. Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. |
The purpose of video essays is to supply an audience with information that is not just auditory. Video essays allow the author creative freedom to use visual representations of their ideas. Similarly, they often involve references from other video clips or movies and employ the use of voice overs.
Often times video essays are used in academic scenarios or on multimedia websites, such as Youtube or Buzzfeed. Other uses of video essays include:
- College or job applications
- Online news resources
- Advertisements
- Online magazines
It is likely that the intended audience of video essays includes adolescents and young adults. In using the Internet as a way of circulating information, it is assumed that teens and young adults will come across video essays more commonly than older generations who are not as tech savvy.
Unique and distinguishing characteristics of video essays are:
- Use of visual information
- Can reference other video works
- Use voice overs to read essay aloud
Video essays can be defined as a manner of portraying information in similar format to a written essay, while employing the use of video clips, references to other works and voice overs.
Edit: After looking at Fernando's and Zach's blogs, I feel significantly better about the video essay and the podcast segment. Even though I wrote about the video essay as well, it was reassuring to see that Fernando had some of the same concerns and ideas about the project as I did. In addition, I was happy to find that Zach had written about the podcast segment; the other of my two biggest concerns for this course.
I think that it will still be a struggle for me to not write traditional essays for english class, but I feel better about taking on new and big projects.
Edit: After looking at Fernando's and Zach's blogs, I feel significantly better about the video essay and the podcast segment. Even though I wrote about the video essay as well, it was reassuring to see that Fernando had some of the same concerns and ideas about the project as I did. In addition, I was happy to find that Zach had written about the podcast segment; the other of my two biggest concerns for this course.
I think that it will still be a struggle for me to not write traditional essays for english class, but I feel better about taking on new and big projects.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
My Writing Process
In the limited days since I have first even considered myself a writer, I have assumed myself to be a professional run-on writer and a word-maker-upper. In all seriousness, I prefer to think of myself as an honest and thoughtful writer who is not afraid to question authority, to provoke creative and out-of-the-box thinking, and to put my own ideas into the world.
Overall, and especially recently, my writing process has consisted of three of the four proposed approaches. To say the least, I am a heavy planner. I am a heavy planner, however, in the sense that I spend more time than most developing an outline and an end goal, and editing my paper as I go. Ultimately, the best approach that describes my writing process is the sequential composer. I spend equal amounts planning and drafting, with less of an emphasis in revisions on a whole draft as opposed to revisions on paragraphs or chunks.
So far the sequential composer approach has seemed to work out the best for me. My typical process goes as follows:
 |
| Ruggieri, Meg. "Don't Choke: Avoiding Digital Word Vomit for your Brand" 3/11/2015 via Growthweaver. Public Domain License. |
So far the sequential composer approach has seemed to work out the best for me. My typical process goes as follows:
- I write my ideas out on paper, setting an end goal and writing a thesis simultaneously
- I organize my ideas into a detailed outline
- I finally shift my focus to delivery and mechanics as I write, small chunks at a time
On one hand, developing a plan sets me on the right track for the entire writing process. On the other hand, spending so much time on writing a detailed outline could be spent better if I were working on organizing my thoughts into a coherent draft and editing my first drafts later.
I do not think it would be beneficial for me to entirely switch my approach. Although, less time could be spent to initial detail, so I could benefit from migrating away from the heavy reviser approach and try to be a more well-rounded sequential composer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)