Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Unger 1

Abbey Unger
Cecelia Musselman
ENGW 1111
4 October 2016
1356 Words
11 Goals, 3 Projects, 1 Semester

A high school English teachers nightmare: an academic essay with contractions, first
person perspective, and worst of all, no thesis statement. Ah, the horror! I entered college writing
with the notion that my nights would be plagued with technical, boring, assignments that
rehashed the SAT style writing I had been taught in high school, but this time around there
would be more advanced topics and harsher rubrics. Needless to say, Im extremely glad this
course was nothing like previous English classes. Instead, I was challenged in creativity, style,
defending arguments, and generally redefining the writing rules that have been ingrained in my
head since middle school. My growth as a writer throughout this semester has been the result of
working to meet the 11 learning goals set forth by Northeasterns English Department which
center around 4 major categories-- writing and content, source use and citation, peer response
and collaboration, and reflection and revision. Yet, it didnt feel like I was writing to fulfill a
requirement or earn a grade at all. Instead, these goals just fell into place throughout the course.
Writing is one of the most basic ways to communicate knowledge. In the Wikipedia
project, not only did I conduct in depth research on inventor and engineer Charles Adler Jr., but I
was challenged to convey this information in a way that fits the Wikipedia genre. Rather than
simply regurgitating information, I communicated it using direct, nonbiased language. Source
use was especially important in this project where reliability and multiple sources are expected.

Unger 2

While information on my topic was limited, I analyzed each available source to ensure it was
non-biased and was from a trustworthy organization, such as the summary of Charles Adler Jr. I
found published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Through these sources, I
was able to learn information pertinent to my major (engineering) and share this information for
public use in a genre-specific manner.
In stark contrast to Wikipedias neutral point of view, Project 1, the critique of Le Guins
Unquestioned Assumptions from her collection A Wave in the Mind, called for inquiry,
analyzation, and opinion. In my first draft of Project 1, I found myself generally agreeing with
and elaborating on Le Guins points rather than developing my own arguments. In basic 5
paragraph thesis fashion I wrote, Throughout her essay, Le Guin presents many valid arguments
about homophobia, sexism, and unfair representation in literature and society, and proceeded to
give examples from literature to justify these arguments. It wasnt until multiple critical revisions
of my work that I began truly analyzing the text and investigating my own lines of inquiry that
shied away from basic agreement or disagreement.
Discussion with and comments from peers and Professor Musselman provoked these new
ideas, such as Le Guins claim that A dangerous book will always be in danger from those it
threatens with the demand that they question their assumptions. The development and
articulation of my argument, Books are being removed from classrooms and libraries because
they challenge societal norms and call into question topicsreligion, sexuality, politics, etc.-that are often avoided for fear of making people with different opinions uncomfortable. By
failing to cater to the in-groups and raising controversial ideas, these books are considered
dangerous and are often removed from schools and libraries. is the inquiry that Im proudest
of from the collection of my work. By bringing in outside sources like the American Library

Unger 3

Associations list of banned books to analyze the definition of a dangerous book as well as
citing some of the books themselves, such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and The
Golden Compass by Phillip Pullman, I was able to build a strong, unique argument concerning
the censorship of ideas through book banning while offering insight into Le Guins points. While
it was difficult not to simply agree with or criticize Le Guin, this project was the first step
outside of my comfort zone that I took in college writing, but it wasnt the last.
In my Project 1 reflection I write, I rather enjoyed writing from this casual yet scholarly
point of view; by imagining my classmates as my audience it was easier to write in a way thats
like a comfortable discussionsomething Im not used to after writing solely from an academic
perspective. This concept of writing for a particular audience was one of the most challenging
aspects of this course. Ive definitely grown to consider the importance of audience expectations
and its applicability to different writing styles on a much deeper level as Ive progressed through
ENGW 1111.
This development is most prominent in Project 2, a researched review of a concert I
attended in October, which was prompted by a peer review from Jahaan Saini. She recommended
that my review would seem more personal and relatable to the audience if I included my own
opinions and experiences. Through use of vivid imagery and centering my general argument on
the stress relieving abilities of music, I attempted to write in a matter that was much less formal
than a basic academic essay and more suited toward my (usually stressed) college age audience.
Breaking this mold of the traditional academic 5 paragraph essay written solely for a
professors eyes was uncomfortable at first in both this project and the Le Guin piece. Yet, by the
middle of both assignments, I found myself thinking, Okay, what can I do thats unique? How
can I spice this up and prove my points while keeping my audience engaged? The answers

Unger 4

ranged from opening Project 1 with a personal anecdote instead of a basic (and admittedly
boring) introduction to incorporating pictures throughout Project 2 to further demonstrate my
argument concerning the energetic performance This Wild Life put on.
Ive always thought of writing as a solo project, but this course emphasized collaboration.
Project 3 was even designed as a group project which gave way to discussion of different ideas
between group members. When my group disagreed about the validity of a source, wording of a
sentence, or use of a picture, we had to explain and justify our reasoning. This conversation
aspect of writing was a contributing factor to some of the ideas prominent in my other works. In
regard to Project 1, my argument that Le Guin assumes, we, as readers, have had experiences
similar to those she mentions, sprang from a class discussion about why Le Guins
explanations of the first four unquestioned assumptions are terse with few real-life
illustrations.
Ive gained further experience in peer collaboration through providing and revising based
on peer reviews. When I first found out how integral peer review would be during the course, I
was a bit worried. I had never been comfortable having other people read and judge my
unpolished writing, but by the end of the semester, I welcomed peer reviews. Having a fresh pair
of eyes look for potential improvements that I never would have imagined myself has helped
progress my writing exponentially. Usually, Im too stubborn to make changes in my writing
when Im the only one reviewing it. However, having multiple revisions and suggestions from
peers has opened me up to new ideas and made me eager to continue improving my work as seen
in the Peer Review Showcase section of this portfolio. Additionally, providing peer review has
allowed me to learn how to critically analyze works and provide appropriate feedback.

Unger 5

One of my personal writing goals, according to my post on the courses Blackboard


Discussion page, was to be challenged as a writer and learn a multitude of writing styles and
skills that will be useful during my time here at Northeastern. Throughout the course of this
semester I was pushed outside my comfort zone in many aspects and developed greatly as a
writer. Im more comfortable bending the rules of traditional academic papers to suit my
audience and style needs, which will be very beneficial in the years to come. While I may not be
excited when assigned a new essay, I now have an arsenal of creative tools to approach a prompt
in an interesting way.

Unger 6

Works Cited
Le Guin, Urusla K. Unquestioned Assumptions. The Wave in the Mind. Boston: Shambhala,
Web. 13. Sept. 2016. Pp. 240-249.

2004.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to Kasandra Yee and Fatemah Hassanali for reading my essay and offering suggestions for
improvement. Also, thank you to Cecelia Musselman for not being one of those boring high school
English teachers but, instead, teaching an interesting course that both challenged and helped me
progress as a writer.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen