Outcome 1: Students will be able to read and use scholarly texts to support their writing goals

 

Prior to taking ENC 1101, I had written a plethora of papers in which I had to utilize textual support. I knew how to make sure that the support was clearly stated within my writing; for that is the easy part. However, I did recognize some improvement in the fluidity of my textual references. The course taught me how I don’t need to always address my support in the format of  “Such and such said” or anything else along the lines of that. It can be as simple as including a quote to complete your sentence and then citing the author at the end of the sentence, inside a parenthesis, before the period.

 

To expand on that, during this course I experienced for the first time reading assigned texts with the mindset of “okay, let me see what I could use for support in a discussion or major paper.” I used to merely read assigned texts for the sake of meeting class requirements. Now I know that it goes beyond that. Understanding, analyzing, and connecting to your sources is a crucial part of being a student writer. It’s better to have all your thoughts, beliefs, and ideas about your sources in your consciousness building up to an assignment in which you could potentially utilize them, rather than try to recap all of them while attempting to finish your writing assignment before the quickly approaching deadline. Furthermore, using them in a way that flows beautifully with your writing and solidifies your claims is the cherry on the cake.

 

Outcome 2: students will be able to describe and analyze writing processes in order to flexibly adapt them to support their goals

 

Rhetorical analysis, in my opinion, can either be on your side or try to destroy your brain. I'm making this claim based on extensive experience due to English Advanced Placement high school classes and on my experience with it in this course. The reason why I hold this position is this: every text is different and may surprise you either to your advantage or disadvantage. While some texts have ample, clear strategies you may dissect, others seem to lack said clarity. Due to this, regardless of your rhetorical analysis abilities, your performance may fluctuate. But again, this is merely my opinion.

 

I must point out, however, that this course gave me the resources to help potential states of uncertainty when analyzing a text. Although I already knew to keep an eye out for logos, ethos, and pathos, I didn't know what kairos and exigence were, and I overlooked the role that constraints play. As a result, I didn't know to look for them. Furthermore, I had no awareness of the incredible influence that they have on a text. Upon reading Grant-Davie's article on the main factors in a discourse, I realized that the latter concepts altogether heighten your chances of both finding what to analyze and executing said analysis efficiently. However, if faced with a text that doesn't show signs of the majority of the latter concepts, such as my personal admission paper that I analyzed for Major Paper 2, knowledge of the concepts won't serve you much good (taken that it limits how much you have to write on). I did, however, acquire a sense of confidence in my ability to tackle rhetorically analyzing a text, even when difficult. That is a big thing that this course has given me--confidence.

 

Outcome 3: students will learn to adapt to different writing contexts they need to address

​

Three primary writing contexts within this course were/are: major papers, discussion posts, and reading journals. Each one of them were to be approached differently and required varying levels of time and effort. Major papers required significant planning and revision, leading to the writing process consisting of days to weeks. Discussions and reading journals, however, didn't require a process of this lengthy and perfectionist process; although discussions require more of it than reading journals. I learned that each assignment served a different purpose and means of approachal:

​

• Reading journals helped me process class readings properly, which allowed me to grasp a firm understanding of the readings more than if I had merely read through for the sake of doing as told. As a result, I became more attentive when reading. These assignments also improved my summary and paraphrasing skills, which I struggled with prior to taking the course. The set word count for the summary section pushed me to differentiate between useful information and crucial information to know about a given text. Prior to the course, everything was crucial to know in my eyes. In the same realm, reading journals helped me not forget about past readings due to the section in which a given text and past readings must be related to each other. This helped to prove the interconnectedness that Porter claims that all texts have. Processing, understanding, and relating were most definitely the main functions of the reading journals.

• Discussion posts always had a direct relationship to the major papers, to varying degrees. This made them a sort of warm-up or practice. For me, they gave me ideas of how to approach the major papers. They also helped me begin to form the list of sources I was interested the most in using in the major papers, just as the reading journals do. Although similar to how major papers are to be approached, discussions still gave me more flexibility in terms of how I presented myself. This helped me focus more on my thoughts rather than the formality of my writing. 

• Major papers are what reading journals and discussion posts prepared me for. With the practiced critical thinking of the texts that stemmed from the journals and the practiced ability to apply concepts that stemmed from the discussions, the major papers were a matter of elaboration on my already pre-conceived ideas surrounding the prompts. This left room for me to focus on the delivery and effectiveness of my writing. 

​

Works Cited 

​

Grant-Davie, Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review, vo. 15,

no.2, 1997, pp. 264-279.

Porter, James E. "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community." Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, No. 1, 1986, pp.

34-47. 

​

 

​