Detering 1

Metacognitive Reflection

Tyler Detering

Allison Bocchino

Writing 2

June 5, 2020
 Detering 2

Through taking the Writing 2 course, I have evolved as a writer significantly. I have

experienced growth in reading writing with a different mindset, improved on editing my own

writing, and become familiar with a style of writing I had never used before.

My thought process when reading has changed since I started this course. This can be

attributed in large part Karen Rosenberg’s “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly

Sources.” A great summative quote that encapsulates the overarching theme of this reading is

“As readers, our role is quite active.”1 A lot of the strategies discussed I already knew inherently.

However, having an easy to grasp reading that organizes good strategies was extremely useful. It

allowed me to organize important elements in my head a lot easier because I could visualize how

the reading did. From this reading, I was able to more easily apply core topics from Writing 2.

One of these is identifying key differences and similarities across disciplines and across genres.

These were the topics of the two writing projects done this quarter, and this specific reading

allowed me to clearly organize what I wanted to write about much faster. By going over

elements like audience, organization, conclusions, main ideas or question, I was able to apply

those concepts when reading the articles I chose. In turn, my writing improved as well. Having a

clearer idea of what elements I wanted to discuss before even starting to write the essay, I was

able to write a very clear thesis. From this better thesis, body paragraphs came more naturally

and created a better flow to my writing. Overall, becoming a better reader has had a direct impact

on my growth as a writer.

When revising the two biggest changes made to writing project 1 were changing articles

and adhering better to Chicago style guidelines. When getting feedback for my writing project 1,

both the articles I chose were not very strong, so both articles were changed. Surprisingly, most

1
Rosenberg, 212
 Detering 3

of my body paragraphs still worked with these new articles, so for most edits in the beginning of

the essay, it was tailoring the existing paragraphs to these new articles. In addition, every quote

was changed due to having new articles. Immediately the essay was improved. Having more

robust research articles provided stronger evidence quotes and better analysis. A side effect I

didn’t foresee was that my essay was now significantly shorter. By having better evidence, my

analysis was more concise. I added another body paragraph which was just the splitting of one

long paragraph in the original submission. This me to state my ideas in a less cluttered manner

and improved the organization of the essay. The second major revision was a group of small

revisions. I did not use Chicago style footnote citing in my first submission. I had to change

every evidence’s parenthetical citation to a footnote. I had never written in Chicago style before

and did not take the time to fully understand the aspects of the style. Now the paper is properly in

Chicago style.

For writing project 2, the major revisions include formatting the translation differently

and adding a paragraph to the citation. When revisiting my translation I realized I was missing

some key elements that the genre I was translating to possessed. I changed some font size and

bolding in line with common newspaper conventions to give a newspaper visual aesthetic. I also

added an image because all newspaper articles have some image. The image also adds

information for the reader because it clues you into the article’s contents faster than any sentence

or title can. In addition, I added a paragraph at the end discussing why researching the brain is

important. This is because without it, it was just a summary of the academic article. This adds

meaning to presenting this information to the public, which is the point of news in the first place.

What I like most about the portfolio was to implement a large amount of feedback

directly to the writing it was addressed. Often feedback is given on a paper, and then the next
 Detering 4

paper you write is not similar in any way except it is written in essay format. By going back and

editing these projects, I learned about my weaknesses and strengths as a writer and how to

improve upon them. I believe my greatest strength as a writer is still my mechanics. I felt that

this was my best skill going into this class and coming out I feel the same. However, my

weaknesses such as editing and analyzing were improved upon. The focus of this class was on

areas I feel my writing was the weakest. I feel that the most important part of any paper is

analyzing evidence that you provide. The better that skill gets, the better my essays will turn out.

Going forward I feel more confident as a writer because my weaknesses were improved upon a

great deal throughout this course. I feel that the most important part of any paper is analyzing

evidence that you provide. This is a skill I was able to use a lot in this class, but I always want to

improve on it. The better that skill gets, the better my essays will turn out.

Through the portfolio, I was able to demonstrate the most useful skills I will take away

from this course and apply in the future. The first is selecting good articles. I have a much better

grasp on what makes a good article now than when I first wrote writing project 1. In the future, it

will be extremely useful to select good sources on the first try and write a solid paper for my first

draft. This allows peer reviewers and teachers to give me better feedback. Instead of worrying

about the core integrity of my paper I will receive feedback on more high-level ideas and

improve the next level of my writing. In addition, I feel an extremely important skill I got to

exercise more than before was editing. In one of the class readings about editing and revision,

Giles states “To revise is to re-vision or re-see, to re-think these issues, but you have to create a

critical distance to be able to imagine your piece done another way. Reflection helps you create

that distance.”2 I had always had trouble creating that critical distance. However, through the

plethora of feedback I received, it was a spark for me to truly understand what that critical
2
Giles, 201
 Detering 5

distance is in my mind. This allowed me to make edits that I would have never thought of before

starting the course.

In conclusion, writing 2 has made me a better writer by allowing me to focus on the

weaknesses of my writing, force me to adapt to a new style to prepare me better for the future,

and improve the pre and post processes of writing, reading and revision.
 Detering 6

Bibliography

Giles, Sandra L. “Reflective Writing and the Revision Process: What Were You Thinking?”

Essay. In Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing1, 1:191–204. Parlor Press, 2010.

Rosenberg, Karen. “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources.” Writing Spaces:

Readings on Writing 2, 2011.