Reflective – themildewmuncher7


I very much appreciate that this class embraces the concept of rewriting work to continuously buff out kinks and constantly make papers all around better. Normally, I’m not a total fan of this practice, as I consider myself a “one and done” type of person. However, when it comes to assignments and essays, fixing to get a better grade and find more satisfaction is always something I can get behind. Additionally, the feedback that is provided by Professor Hodges is always an asset, as it never fails to miss an error or potential site of improvement. The most notable example of this comes with my Visual Rewrite, which I have worked extensively on to make it the best it can be. This meant multiple comments of feedback back and forth, and multiple changes in the content. In the end though, I feel that I’ve been able to utilize the opportunities to rewrite to produce a very effective result.


Most of the assignments presented in class demanded that multiple sources be used in order to formulate an argument. With this, I learned that every source has its own viewpoint and needs to be treated as such. Nothing is truly neutral. In the Rebuttal Exercise, I had to analyze multiple sources and their opinions on ag-gag laws and effectively refute each one of them, forcing me to learn exactly what they’re saying. Furthermore, in my Proposal +5 and +10, I had to round up ten sources that aided me in my argument of points in my essay. Through research, I was able to determine which sources were effective, those were generally news articles, and also which ones were not.


Throughout my time in Comp II, I have worked hard to provide the best analyses possible on either the work of others or my own writing. In all rewrite assignments, whether they specifically be the causal, definition, or rebuttal papers, I have taken time to reread everything I have written and take the feedback provided into consideration to produce to most competent rewrite possible.

I knew what was expected of each assignment, and I tried my hardest to accomplish physically the vision that I had for each of my works. Every assignment was based on counterintuitivity, and thus that was the primary focus and goal of each paper. If the reader understands what I’m writing about, then mission success.


In order to produce an effective argument in my research paper, it was essential to locate evidence and support for my argument. But locating sources was only the first step of many to achieve the full value of Core IV. After finding them, it was necessary to analyze them in depth to see what they really meant. This can be seen in my summaries assignment clearly, where I was able to focus all my energy in doing this. And after analyzing the sources, it was up to me to expand on what I was given in order to produce opinions of my own and unique material.


Never, throughout any of my assignments, did I fail to give credit where due and plagiarize work. My work cited always includes adequate credit; this is true for all of my essays. This first became an “issue” in the Stone Money assignment, when there were multiple articles and outside sources in question. Whether it be Friedman’s essay or the multiple NPR broadcasts, all had to be properly cited in accordance with their usage in my work.

This entry was posted in A14: Reflective Statement, P/themildewmuncher7. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s