Writing is a mode of communication, a task of compiling thoughts and articulating them into words, all in the prospects of delivering a specific, intended message. In our world, one may argue that writing is an essential skill—an ability that allows one to, hopefully, effectively communicate with not only his or her peers but also individuals within society. Unfortunately, writing is no easy task. It is arduous and difficult. It is ongoing. Writing is a task in which one continually improves. In this regard, I am no exception to this statement; throughout my time in Writing 39C: Argument and Research, I too have improved my writing. The following reflection and eportfolio serves as a documentation of my progress. However, you may also gauge my standing as a writer before 39C in my Self Assessment.

 

 

The Composing Process

 

Throughout 39C, a process of continually pre-writing, drafting, and revising was prevalent. These seemingly menial tasks demanded time and lots of it too; however, I must admit, somewhat reluctantly too, I might add, they do serve an important purpose. In the process of researching and annotating sources, I learned that both annotating and understanding different types of sources are vastly different than actually writing and integrating them into a coherent piece, into a composition. 

I documented this struggle in my initial statement of prospective claims for Composition 1.

 

 

I struggled to connect the concept of absolutism, free speech, and the Internet together for Composition 1. I believe one part of the issue originated from too formulaic of annotations. I had originally done all my annotations according to the Anteater’s Guide to Writing & Rhetoric’s four sentence structure, as documented in the composing section of the eportfolio.

 

 

The guide specified using four sentences to document the author’s credentials and thesis, medium and genre, types of evidence, and lastly the audience and purpose. I quickly experienced difficulties. How did this sort of structure apply to sources like Supreme Court cases? Who was the author? Is there even a thesis? Do I use the Court opinion as the equivalent of a scholarly paper?

As a result, the course forced me alter my perspective of annotations. These annotations no longer represented merely time-consuming “busy work,” well they still kinda do, but more importantly, annotations now represent documentation mainly designed for me. They serve as a method to archive my understanding of a source, the relevant information around it, and perhaps another opportunity to brainstorm the ways in which this source will communicate with others. This new perspective takes essence in my finalized Composition 1 bibliography.

 

 

In my revised annotation, I employed a deeper examination to the details around New York Times v. Sullivan because the details closely correlated to the case's importance as "the root in which all other arguments of speech stem from," a case that "essentially created absolute political speech." Furthermore, despite being brief, the last sentence in my annotation denotes a quick mental exercise of my attempting to outline my paper through asking myself, "How does this source communicate with others? How will I use this source in my composition?" However, rethinking the process of creating annotations represents only one half of the problem; the second half concerned the actual process of drafting.

39C elucidated an important fact about my writing to me: I require the use of drafts to establish concrete connections of words, thoughts, and sources. As mentioned above, in Composition 1, I experienced difficulty in establishing a relationship between the Internet, absolutism, and the related scholarly opinions. In my first draft of Composition 1, I experimented with connecting a recent tragedy and its consequent reactions to the course's theme of the First Amendment. In other words, I attempted to mesh Professor David Guth's impassioned tweet in response to the Navy Yard shooting with absolutism, free speech, and the Internet. The first attempt met turbulence;  as Professor Queen noted in our meeting, my interpretation of there being doubt whether or not Guth's words constituted First Amendment protection was off. Guth's opinion clearly represented free speech. Thus, the draft need adjustments, further drafting to effectively synthesize my sources. Through two more additional drafts, draft 2 and draft 3, I eventually able to articulate a connection between the ideas:

 

Unfortunately, due to the constraints of image size on Canvas, I can only provide an brief excerpt into my articulation. To read the Composition in its entirety, click here. Nevertheless, the excerpt above represents several drafts of refinement until I was finally able to present absolutism, as related to the history of free speech, apply it to the current issue of Guth's tweet, and ultimately direct the readers toward the future—towards the topic of the Internet and regulating free speech upon the digital medium.

In truth, there is a third component in my eventual overcoming of struggling to synthesize absolutism and the Internet; however, perhaps this topic shall be reserved for the following section.

 

Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Multi-Modal Compositions

 

In the 10 weeks of 39C, I was assigned to write two multi-modal Compositions—two academic works that incorporated both words and, in my case, visuals to articulate a succinct, coherent message. These compositions have taught me several important lessons; the first lesson concerns the importance of framing questions. As I briefly hinted in the previous section, the importance of framing questions embodies the third component in overcoming my roadblock for Composition 1. In my first draft of Composition 1, my framing question had problems, leading to difficulty in connecting absolutism, the Internet, and different sources, like Professor Guth’s tweet. 

 

 

The most relevant problem concerned a misconception I had regarding Guth's tweet. I had previously thought that Guth's tweet was located in a gray area, in a domain where the speech was being questioned of deserving constitutional protection. However, it is actually clear that Guth's words do deserve constitutional protection as it is his opinion, his criticism of the National Rifle Association. Once Professor Queen pointed out this misconception, I then endeavored to address this issue. In the final draft, I believe I adequately revised the framing question.

 

 

Writing 39C taught me that the framing question plays a crucial role in outlining the narrative of one's essay. In the framing question above, I directed the audience towards the issue of speech and then towards speech on the Internet. If you read my final draft, you will notice how this framing question vastly facilitated the creation of a narrative. From professor Guth's tweet, I ventured to the history of free speech and absolutism by visiting important court cases, I then returned to Guth and the new issue of speech on the Internet, and lastly I transitioned into exploring the implications of free speech upon the Internet—the same very framework that the framing question laid out. Ultimately, in essence, the framing question also helped me in overcoming the roadblock I previously entailed in "The Composing Process," while also further reinforcing the importance of actually drafting to understand the relationships within one's research.

In addition to crafting sound framing questions, the process of writing two multi-modal compositions also taught me the importance in establish your ethos and credibility. Because Composition 1 dealt with the authoring of an academic blog, I wanted to discern several of my thoughts regarding free speech to the audience. However, my first execution lacked finesse. I had "gone out too fast, too hard," as Professor Queen likes to describe it; I hadn't established enough credibility to even attempt to steer the audience to the conclusion below.

 

 

Understanding this lesson greatly assisted me in Composition 2, in which one had to advocate for a solution to a complex problem. You may navigate to Composition 2 through the panel containing the eportfolio sections or click here. In composition 2, I kept my initial mistake of "going out too fast, too hard" in mind; instead of rushing to advocate for network neutrality, I took my time. In fact, I used basically three paragraphs to adequately describe the current debate. Keep in mind this is still only the debate; for a good first-half of my composition, I continued further to describe network neutrality as a policy, the current problem that it attempts to fix, and the various potential solutions already presented—not to mention the various scholarly commentary surrounding the debate. The measures I underwent, as stated above, were designed to both establish my credibility and to bring the audience up to speed, all in the prospects of being able to maintain an ethos as a strong advocate. Thus, in retrospect, I believe both Composition 1 and Composition 2 have made me conscious of the various rhetorical choices I may or may not make in writing. For composition 2, I was conscious of my decision to allot a significant portion of my essay to elaborating the surrounding situation. Likewise, I was again conscious in deciding to establish a strong ethos before advocating.

I know that this is probably starting to sound redundant but there's one final lesson to be learned through writing these two Compositions, a lesson learned through revising.

 

Revision

 

Composing multiple drafts is inevitable in 39C; the two primary assignments, Composition 1 and 2, are works that synthesize a momentous amount of information in upwards of a thousand words. That being said, the process of drafting has certainly benefited me but, make no mistake, the process of revision is equally as important, if not more. Take my Composition 2, for example. As I elaborated in the previous section, I led the audience through a very lengthy discussion of the debate surrounding network neutrality before advocating for the policy itself. However, in the first draft, I took a significantly different approach.

 

As you can see, I provided a thesis of sorts very early in this draft (paragraph two), essentially outlining my advocacy for the rest of the paper. From this approach, I learned that embracing such a strong position hurt me more than it actually helped. I experienced claustrophobia from this angle of approach; I was trapped—confined to writing within the boundaries my thesis had set out. But, in retrospect, it all worked out for the better. Having experimented earlier on in the composing process, I took this mistake and learned from it through revision. I revised the strong, emphatic approach in draft 1 to a more relaxed, slower paced narrative in draft 2, closer to the one found in the final draft. Regrettably, it is too difficult to provide an image that would succinctly summarize this revision so you will have to bear with just words and perhaps a brief excerpt. Instead of providing a thesis, I took advantage of the framing question:

 

 

 

I utilized the advantage that framing questions hold—the ability to present a structure for your paper, a narrative, without restricting the focus of the paper. Before being able to answer the question, I first had to guide the audience through various hurdles, as in providing elaborations of the origins of network neutrality, Google and Verizon's dual Internet, and the various scholarly commentary surrounding these topics, including Amanda Leese and Dana Bagwell. For this iteration (draft 2), the paper seemed to (almost) write itself! My ideas and sources were already examined and processed from my annotated bibliography and an initial, albeit less concrete, attempt at connecting them was made through my first draft. By addressing the framing question, the framework of the paper laid itself out. Thus, in this respect, the revising process elucidated to me that through drafting and revising, I am able to sort out argumentative perspectives and narrative approaches that may or may not work, ultimately enhancing my paper (hopefully).

 

Closing Comments

This reflection represents my final academic work as a student of Writing 39C: Argument and Research. This class has taught me many lessons, perhaps more than any other writing course I've ever taken. Most notable are the lessons included in composing and revising academic work—the lesson of framing questions, of utilizing annotations to personally synthesize your research, and of considering one's rhetorical decisions in writing demanding compositions. However, the lessons aren't just applicable to academic work; it's applicable to all sorts of works. It's applicable to communication as a whole. My journey in Writing 39C may end here but writing and communication will continue onward and I intend to do the same, to continually improve my writing, my communication skills.