Nagesh 1

Aapthi Nagesh

Professor Bocchino

Writing 2

15 March 2021

Metacognitive Reflection

Since I began taking this course, I’ve noticed significant growth in both my writing and

reading skills. I admit that, initially, I did not expect to learn anything new from this course that I

had not already learned in high school. However, as the quarter progressed, my approach to

writing and reading has changed drastically. In high school, my peers and I were taught to write

our academic papers using a standard “TIQA” format. The “TIQA” format is minimal and not

nearly as in-depth as what we’ve learned in class. It only focuses on the topic sentence,

introduction, quote, and analysis. This may have been effective in high school, but it is far too

rigid to fit all the different genres of academic writing that I will be expected to write throughout

my college experience and in the future. This course also helped alter the way I read. Rather than

reading just for comprehension or skimming through a paper, I now read with the lens of a

writer. As a data science major, I initially came into this class with the assumption that it will not

be very useful for my future, but I quickly realized that these skills apply to every different field

imaginable. Because of Academic Writing 2, I have become a more flexible and knowledgeable

writer and reader.

Some of the most important lessons that I have learned throughout the quarter have to do

with reading critically. Early on in the course, we discussed how to read like a writer. According

to Mike Bunn, “When you Read Like a Writer (RLW) you work to identify some of the choices

the author made so that you can better understand how such choices might arise in your own
 Nagesh 2

writing.”​1​ By reading like a writer, we understand why the author made certain choices with their

content, style, or syntax. This knowledge is extremely helpful in determining whether or not to

include those choices in my own writing. I have noticed that my writing has become more

polished since I began reading critically, like a writer.

Another important takeaway from this course is the sheer amount of information I have

learned about writing itself. A huge focus of this course has been different discourse

communities, genres of writing, and the rhetoric associated with them. Our first writing

assignment was to discuss the differences between academic writing from two completely

different discourse communities. Our second writing project had us translating an academic

research paper into a non-academic genre. A difficult concept for me was understanding what

rhetoric actually is. Janet Boyd helped explain the concept by relating it to writing conventions.

She explained that “choosing how to express your meaning is every bit as important as the

message itself, which is really what rhetoric is.”​2​ This definition definitely helped me understand

rhetoric and how to properly use it in my writing.

Because of this course, I am better able to categorize my own writing style. I began the

course with a rigid, almost robotic way of writing, but as I learned more in the class, my writing

style has become more dynamic and adaptive. Instead of writing using a single format, I can now

effectively adapt my writing to fit different genres and styles. I think my style of writing is still

professional and academically sound, but it definitely is more creative than it used to be. One

thing that I still struggle with, however, is making sure my sentences are not too repetitive.

Hopefully, I am able to get better at this as I continue to take writing classes in college.

1
​Bunn, “How to Read Like a Writer,” 72
2
Boyd, “Murder! (Rhetorically speaking),” 87
 Nagesh 3

Revising my writing projects was not an easy process. Often, I wanted to edit my syntax

and call it a day, but as Sandra Giles explained, “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.”​3​ It was challenging to completely remove myself from the situation and rewrite

larger aspects of my writing projects. While revising both of my writing assignments for the

portfolio, I noticed specific issues that I tended to repeat in my writing. One of these issues was

my citations. I am very acquainted with MLA in-text citations because that is what we used the

most in high school. Learning Chicago-style footnotes was slightly tricky, and I had to fix that in

both of my WPs during revision.

For my WP1, I began by editing larger issues that were pointed out to me by my

professor and my peers. Professor Bocchino noticed that my first two body paragraphs

successfully summarized the arguments made by my academic articles, but failed to explain how

they directly relate to my thesis about the difference between the two disciplines. To fix this, I

developed the paragraphs further and added sentences that clearly bridged my argument in them

to the thesis statement. The paragraphs were initially very short and disjoined from the other

paragraphs and the thesis, so this revision helped make each point flow smoothly into the next.

Professor Bocchino’s comments also helped me realize that some of my phrasings were

confusing. In my revisions, I explained what I meant by the term “empirical” in my analysis. I

wanted it to be very clear that empirical data is observed or simulated data with clear-cut results.

This revision makes my paper more understandable and clear. The other major revisions that I

completed for WP1 were syntax and grammatical errors. I changed many of my sentences so

they were less repetitive to reduce redundancy. I also fixed minor grammatical errors throughout

my paper that my peers pointed out.

For WP2, the revision process was a bit more tricky. I used Professor Bocchino’s

feedback to rewrite large portions of my translation at first. It was pointed out that the translation

was a great summary, but didn’t have the right organization and wording as a newspaper article.

I edited the organization and wording to highlight the implications of the study I focused on

rather than the experimental process. I added more quotes and attempted to make the wording

sound more urgent than it previously was in order to convey the conventions of the newspaper

genre. After this, I began revising my reflection. The reflection was easier to revise in my

opinion. I used feedback from my peers to find grammatical errors, such as misplaced commas

and misspelled words. Professor Bocchino also helped me realize that the paper would benefit

from three specific newspaper articles that I used as a reference rather than just generic news

outlets. The addition of these specific examples led to the revision of my analysis as well, which

helped make my paragraph easier to comprehend and more thought-invoking. Just like with my

WP1, I found many instances of redundancy, so I went through my paper and edited sentences to

reduce repetition.

Throughout my revision process, I really got to see my own growth as a writer. My early

journal entries and project builders were very rigid and robotic to read. However, my writing

became smoother and more critical as I progressed through the course. I also learned how to read

in a more effective, analytical manner. Both of these skills will definitely help me throughout my

college career and future endeavors. Good writing and communication skills are extremely

important in every single field of study and discourse community. I know that the building

blocks that I have learned in this course will serve me well throughout my future.
 Nagesh 5

Bibliography

Boyd, J. (2011). Murder! (Rhetorically speaking). Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume

2, 87–101.Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Bunn, M. (2011). How to Read Like a Writer. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 2,

71–86. Anderson SC: Parlor Press.

Giles, S. L. (2010). Reflective Writing and the Revision Process: What Were You Thinking?.

Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1, 191–204. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.