Blog 16: Reflecting on Writing 150

During Writing 150, I have learned a lot about how to polish my writing. Before this class, I struggled to connect my ideas and to have my writing flow. My writing often sounded choppy and was difficult to understand. Now, I can link my ideas with transitional phrases. I have also learned how to set up my ideas with clear and concise introductions. When I started this class, I often had many redundancies in my writing. I was afraid that readers would not understand what I was saying. With my transitions and a few structure changes, I grew more confident in my ability to write clearly. Now I do not feel like I must repeat myself to insure that I am understood.

One thing I think could improve the class is more in class revision of our papers. The peer review is helpful, but what I found most effective was reviewing our own papers. A couple of times you had us read one paragraph and then try to implement a transitional phrase or something else. I think many students struggle with revision, and this would help them learn to edit themselves.

Another addition I would make to the class would be to read examples of rhetorical analysis and research papers.  I had never done a rhetorical analysis before this class. I read the example in the supplemental guide, but this was the only example I had. I wondered whether I was copying this author’s style or whether I was using the normal conventions of rhetorical analysis.  By reading more examples, the students could see various styles and approaches to these papers and develop their own.

Response to Diane Rehm

I listened to the Diane Rehm podcast with Michael Gazzaniga. He is the author of the book Who’s in Charge: Free Will and the Science of Brain. Gazzaniga is also a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara. During the interview, they mostly discussed his book, which details his research and his views on how social interaction affects our control over our brain. In addition they discussed some of his other research particularly the division of the two hemispheres of the brain. Gazzaniga did well in explaining the science behind his research to his non-academic audience. Rehm also helped by asking him to explain various words or concepts that most people would not understand. I think Gazzaniga findings are interesting, but I think he misses the mark in his conclusion. Although his findings are credible, he stretches them too far to support his claims. He only says the human brain is hardwired but social interaction and responsibility alter our behavior. I believe that we all have innate beliefs from birth, but these are often overshadowed by our experiences in the world. Gazzaniga’s explanation does not show how people from the same environment can take their socialization in different ways. Another part of his interview that interested me was when he discussed the research with babies who are born with brain deformation. When this occurs, the brain evolves and finds alternate ways to carry out the functions that were compromised. If the changes happen later in life the brain has already developed and can not alter its structure to compensate for the malformation.