Course Reading Reflection
From Alexie Sherman’s article on reading and writing to Stuart Greene’s article on research arguments, the various readings discussed during the course of RWS have covered various concepts related to the process of writing. Each one in its own way introduced me to ideas that helped me develop my own perception and overall form of writing.
Many of the readings described my experiences as a writer, allowing me to use that to further improve on my skills. For instance, Mike Rose’s article, “A Cognitive Analysis of Writer’s Block,” reflected my own struggles of approaching the writing process. Struggling with writer’s block for as long as I can remember, I found this article useful in helping me overcome it. Another reading that stood out in particular was Ann Penrose and Cheryl Geisler’s article, “Reading and Writing without Authority.” By comparing a college freshman to a doctoral student, it demonstrated how people of various backgrounds in education and experience approach reading and writing differently. I found myself associating with the college student, who like me, tended to follow strict rules of writing. This, however, taught me that at times this approach is actually restricting to overall flow and efficiency. With these readings, I realized many of the faults in my writing process and have managed to effectively overcome some of them.
While many provided information on developing writing, most of the readings directly correlated with the major assignments that had to be completed throughout the course. This enabled me to gain a better understanding of the direction in which to approach each essay. Alexie’s article, “Superman and Me” first introduced me to the concept of literacies, the idea that an individual’s background and experiences shape the way they read and write. This, along with Malcolm X’s personal experience with writing in “Learning to Read,” allowed me to analyze my own background in order to write my very own literacy narrative. Similarly, in writing my own discourse community ethnography I referred specifically to John Swales’ “The Concept of Discourse Community” and James Porter’s “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Swales’ article provided the six important characteristics that define a discourse community, while Porter’s describes the idea that individuals write according to the context or standards of the discourse community to which they belong. Moreover, Stuart Greene’s article, “The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Research Argument,” provided me with information that helped me research my own topic and create an effective research argument.
These readings were different than my initial expectations and actually exceeded them. At the start of RWS, I expected to find readings related to grammar and revising along with other things related to the writing process. I did not expect to learn about the various relationships in writing as I did, such as that of the discourse community. Overall, I believe the readings discussed throughout the duration of this course have served to benefit my overall understanding of the writing process and how it is influenced by not only my own experiences but by those around me.
Many of the readings described my experiences as a writer, allowing me to use that to further improve on my skills. For instance, Mike Rose’s article, “A Cognitive Analysis of Writer’s Block,” reflected my own struggles of approaching the writing process. Struggling with writer’s block for as long as I can remember, I found this article useful in helping me overcome it. Another reading that stood out in particular was Ann Penrose and Cheryl Geisler’s article, “Reading and Writing without Authority.” By comparing a college freshman to a doctoral student, it demonstrated how people of various backgrounds in education and experience approach reading and writing differently. I found myself associating with the college student, who like me, tended to follow strict rules of writing. This, however, taught me that at times this approach is actually restricting to overall flow and efficiency. With these readings, I realized many of the faults in my writing process and have managed to effectively overcome some of them.
While many provided information on developing writing, most of the readings directly correlated with the major assignments that had to be completed throughout the course. This enabled me to gain a better understanding of the direction in which to approach each essay. Alexie’s article, “Superman and Me” first introduced me to the concept of literacies, the idea that an individual’s background and experiences shape the way they read and write. This, along with Malcolm X’s personal experience with writing in “Learning to Read,” allowed me to analyze my own background in order to write my very own literacy narrative. Similarly, in writing my own discourse community ethnography I referred specifically to John Swales’ “The Concept of Discourse Community” and James Porter’s “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Swales’ article provided the six important characteristics that define a discourse community, while Porter’s describes the idea that individuals write according to the context or standards of the discourse community to which they belong. Moreover, Stuart Greene’s article, “The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Research Argument,” provided me with information that helped me research my own topic and create an effective research argument.
These readings were different than my initial expectations and actually exceeded them. At the start of RWS, I expected to find readings related to grammar and revising along with other things related to the writing process. I did not expect to learn about the various relationships in writing as I did, such as that of the discourse community. Overall, I believe the readings discussed throughout the duration of this course have served to benefit my overall understanding of the writing process and how it is influenced by not only my own experiences but by those around me.