Reflection on Project 3

Project 3 is now over! In the post below I have answered the nine questions as found on page 520 of Writing Public Lives as a reflection on this project.

Nilsson, Susanne. "When the water falls". May 17, 2014 via flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

• I switched my article from first person to third person to help with clarity. Along with that, I removed the elements of my draft that made it appear to be a con position argument and refocused it to be a refutation argument.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

• Rather than stating my opinion later in the article, like I did in my original draft, I moved it to my introductory paragraph. I also removed some of the information on global warming and focused more on geoengineering itself.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

• As it was pointed out to me, having my own opinion on the matter so late in the article made it so the purpose of it was unclear. My audience was unsure of what I was trying to discuss or why it mattered. By moving my opinion to the first paragraph my audience would know what to expect from the get-go. 

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author? 

• By changing my article to be in third person I have established more credibility to myself as an author. As pointed out by Chloe, scientific articles seem to be much more effective when they're written in third person, as they make you appear to be more knowledgeable.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

• Removing the personal pronouns and relaying everything in third person will lead to less confusion. Keeping in personal pronouns can cause the audience to become lost in a sea of confusing emotions and the purpose is lost. Also, removing the unnecessary information, such as the causes of global warming, will keep my audience engaged as they will have a clear understanding of what I am trying to discuss.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

• In my original draft I focused more on my opinions and what I thought. In my final draft I decided to remove the element of writing in first person and incorporated more action verbs into my project.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

• By incorporating more action verbs they will be able to see that geoengineering is an active issue that is having an impact on their lives. It is not an issue that is standing still and waiting in the distance. It is fully present and in their lives, making them more aware.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

• The conventions of the genre were simple and didn't need much work. The only thing that could have used some revision was the point of view I chose to write in, although any form would have been acceptable.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

• Once again I still have that tendency to ramble or go off on tangents. I try my hardest to work on this, but I just can't seem to break this habit. The points that I bring into my writings are usually strong, I need to work on incorporating them in a way that allows for a smooth flow. Perhaps I need to take breaks more frequently and reread what I've written to make sure that I've stayed on track.