Writing Assignment 1, Third draft

Option #1 How were you taught to revise? When you revise for school, do you tend to focus on micro issues, as the students in Sommers’ study did? Or do you focus on global issues of argument and audience, as the experienced writers in Sommers’ study did? How did you learn your revision techniques? Describe your writing process using Sommers' terms, and then analyze why you write the way you do. Use specific examples from both Sommers' research and your own experiences.

When I receive a writing assignment the very first thing I do is cringe. Then I sigh. Then I accept. After I’ve done these I get real and begin thinking about the assignment as a whole. Then I’ll start to break it down. I will take the assignment and begin to form an idea about what I want the paper to convey. For example, I had an International Relations assignment to write an analytical memo pretending it was addressed to the State Department. That was the only information I received. We were to come up with a question relating to a current international issue, mine was the Middle East. In the past I’ve had difficulty conceptualizing how a paper will work with minimum instruction but over time I’ve become better at seeing “the big picture”. I had to turn in a specific question/thesis to my professor for approval on my analytical memo and from that I could begin to write the assignment. My question was “Should the U.S. begin dialogue with Hamas in order to facilitate a reasonable stability with Israel?”

Once I have the main idea I physically write it down on paper. There is something beneficial to me about writing the idea down versus typing it into a word document. After I have my thesis I begin to do research to support it. As a rule, I always try to find at least 4 legitimate sources to support my argument. For my analytical memo I had to turn my sources in for approval also, to ensure there wasn’t any bleeding heart liberal bias (and I assume the same for the neocons slant out there). Having adequate unbiased support for the paper is essential to the writer’s credibility. Allowing enough time for research and clearly choosing one side of an argument is important. I often find that through research, I not only find support for my argument, but also learn new things that will enrich my paper by expanding my argument. I’m not sure if this translates into this writing assignment per se but this method bodes very well for past IR or Political Science papers I’ve had to do. An experienced writer in Sommers’ articles states: “My first draft is usually very scattered. In rewriting, I find the line of the argument. After the argument is resolved, I am much more interested in word choice than phrasing.” I differ from this in that I like to have my ducks in a row with regards to argument and already have the essential research to shape what I’m arguing in my first draft.

Following research, I put together an outline. Outlining was the bane of my existence back in the day, but it taught me that its not only a fantastic way to study but also works really well for writing. I take a half-day or so to marinate on the outline and then begin writing the draft. I write as much as I can initially. The text doesn’t always flow as it should in my first drafts but I like to get as much as I can written down. Maybe it’s psychological but I generally feel better about the draft if I’m close to the word count or page minimum set forth by the professor.

With regards to revision, I don’t clearly remember being taught a specific way to revise in any high school writing, but that was over 13 years ago. In my college experience thus far, I’ve always had to submit an initial draft for either peer or professor review and then advised on what needs to be revised. As far as my first draft writing process, I find myself constantly rewriting as I write, much like the experienced writers Sommer’s describes in her article. I re-read the text and make additions or deletions to my content. I’ve only recently begun to think about my audience being someone other than my professor, which lumps me into Sommers’ student writer category. As I’m writing this I have my previous English 1A professor in my mind stressing to the class the importance of verb time. It’s hard to imagine a different audience.

After I feel I have a decent first draft I walk away. By decent I mean the draft is close to the appropriate length and that it follows the outline I made. After some time I get back to my computer and the document. I like to print out a hard copy because I find that it’s easier to notice grammatical errors, whether the paper is organized and flows or if it is choppy and really just any weirdness that might be in the paper. Once my first review is done I take the notes I made and begin to revise.

Some of my second and oftentimes final revisions follow that of the student’s strategies, primarily rewording. I do not like seeing the same word repeat throughout the text. I do use a thesaurus if I cannot think of a different and appropriate word myself. I also adjust paragraphs if I feel they would fit better in a different section of the paper. Following this I reread the full paper. If I feel that it sounds natural and stays on track and the spelling and grammar are checked, I consider the paper complete!

From this assignment I see that I fit into Sommer’s student writing category. While I rewrite as I write, as some of the experienced writers do, I focus more on micro issues versus global issues, like audience. I do feel I stay on track with the argument I’m making, however, there are times when I could expand the argument further, by providing additional examples or doing more research. I can say that I’m aware of these issues and make a concerted effort to avoid them, but more often than not, I resort back to the trivial parts of the writing processes like rewording and avoiding lexical repetition. This I feel categorizes me in Sommers' definition of "student writers" as described in her article “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.”