Project 4 - "Portfolio" and Reflection

PROJECT 4

“Portfolio” and Reflection

Jason M. Wittler

A LOOKING IN VIEW

To: Professor Bottai and my fellow students:

Smith, Ryan Tyler. "old-MIT-classroom_Ryan-Tyler-Smith.jpg" 3/31/2014. via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic

Before this class I never would have used the word writer to describe any part of myself. After this class, I still wouldn’t...not yet. I hadn’t been in an English class since my first freshman year of college in 1989 prior to this one. The span between then and now was covered with a career in the military. My return to college has been a truly eye-opening experience and this class was no different. My service has entrenched me in a style of writing that doesn’t exist outside of the Armed Forces. I approached this class with a lot of hesitation, unsure about what to expect and how I’d respond. I am very happy to say that I got through it and learned more than I ever thought I would. After being pigeon-holed in a strict standard of writing for so long, it has been invaluable for me to learn the new styles, techniques, planning approaches, and ways of analyzing writing. During this course I have been given tools I will undoubtedly require for the remainder of my college career, and possibly beyond. Breaking out of old habits has been a tough road and I still don’t have them all behind me yet. There is always room to improve and grow.

Jason Wittler in MRAP. Saiyid Karam, Paktya, Afghanistan, 2010.
Picture taken by Richard Murphy.

Most of my experiences with writing have come from my 24 years of service with the U.S. Army. Due to many of the positions I held, I was required to create everything from operational orders and supply requests to school curriculum and training schedules. The Army has field manuals dedicated to explaining their style of writing and the process is extremely rigid, regimented, and inflexible. There is no room for emotion and sparkly adjectives. There is no creativity from the author, only a clear and concise passing of information aimed at the lowest common denominator, i.e., dumbest reader. For every question there is a who, what, where, when, why and how answer, written in a formatted layout, dictated by a manual process everyone knows inside and out. Breaking out of this mold has been extremely difficult for me. Attempting to undo 24 years of repetition and indoctrination has been a slow process. Fortunately, classes like this one are showing me alternatives and techniques that I can use.

The military is also where I established my process for doing anything. The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is a 7-step process used to work through any situation. It was so ingrained in me that I have found myself using it for vacations, house projects, and now, even school. Having this tool at my disposal has been both a curse and blessing. I am so comfortable with this process that I often times use it in lieu of other solutions that may be easier. It is difficult to try new approaches and planning methods. I found during this course that trying to use the approaches our textbooks lined out was cumbersome as I felt I should be doing it my way, the Army way. Learning new approaches to planning and new styles of writing has been an invaluable lesson. Incorporating them into the coursework that lies ahead can only help my cause and I actually look forward to tackling new challenges with my new found skills.

In our first blog we were asked to describe what type of writer we thought we were. Because of my past experiences, I wrote, “I don't think that my style of writing fits into just one category. My approach to writing seems to borrow elements from both the "Heavy Planner" and "Sequential Composer" types”. This is also how I approached our first project. By project 3, I was borrowing elements of all 4 types of writers, even Procrastinator. I don’t believe you can say you are one or the other all the time. Different projects will require different approaches as will your familiarity with with topic. I have definitely learned that trying only one approach doesn’t work. You have to constantly tailor something. Whether it’s your genre, audience, thesis, there is always something else that seems to need adjusting. You can be the consummate heavy planner but there will come a time when you are required to diverge from that path and use elements of the other types. The big take away, in my opinion, is that there are many methods and approaches available. Just because you have deemed your audience a certain way, doesn’t require you to write like that. Mixing elements in that may be atypical to one style could be the difference between gaining their attention and boring them to death.

I the next 2 years I am planning for extensive writing to be required. A lot of the law and management classes ahead of me have writing intensive curriculum and I have little doubt I will be revisiting our textbooks quite often. From our time in class, I’ve realized the necessity of being extremely familiar with the citation style of my major. I am still not 100% certain that CSE is the style of preference but I will find out. I am currently planning on completing both areas of emphasis in my major and imagine they will have different styles since one is a business focus, the other agriculture. I know I have muddled through the citation process in the past. The focus in this class opened my eyes to the proper way of using photos, quotes, and cited material. All of which I am sure I will require again in the near future.

Jason Wittler calling for air extraction.
Operation Bright Star'05
Near El Alamain, Egypt, 2005.
Photo taken by Daniel McKay.

I honestly don’t know what the future will require of me writing-wise past college. As I stated in Blog Post #52, my chosen industry, training horses, is more of a hands-on type of thing. I do see a need if I ever decide to go into business for myself. Fortunately, my wife is an English Lit major and a self-employed professional writer within the commercial and residential construction industry. I have been a part of her process of moving from freelance writer to marketing/media consultant and the amount of professional writing required is extensive. Though I don’t foresee anything in my future requiring near the amount she deals with, starting any type of business requires writing. Letters to clients, promotional advertising, business prospecting, all will require some level of expertise with a particular style of writing to various audiences. The lessons I’ve learned and the experiences I have gained from this class will not doubt be essential in one way or another throughout the rest of my professional career.

With a bag full of new techniques and experiences I feel much better equipped to deal with what’s ahead. Learning of new ways to approach my future writing requirements will make the process much easier and less painful I am sure. I still feel there is a lot of learning yet required before I can call myself a writer, but I have undoubtedly take the first steps along that path. I am capable of writing at a level far above what I thought was possible. I am reminded of a lesson from my early military career that said, “Anybody can talk, but to truly communicate you need three things. A sender, a receiver, and most importantly, understanding of the message”. Quite often I find people who think they are great communicators due to their ability to orate in public or draft beautifully crafted letters. That’s all well and good, but is the message getting received as intended? We as a class received a lot of the tools required to ensure that when we speak, write, blog, or email, the purpose of our message will be clearly understand by the audience. It may have just been an English class, but it gave us the ability to truly communicate.

Of course, last but not least, I have to include my own personal victory lap! I am not sure how I’m going to celebrate, but the answer is in this picture somewhere.

Wittler, Jason. "Victory Lap". 6/22/2015.

Blog Post #55 - Reflection on Open Letter Draft

Wiertz, Sebastien. "Drafting a blog post on a saturday morning" 4/9/2011
via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

For my peer reviews I looked at the following works:

• Brandon Goldenberg
• Mark Mellott

For the rest of this post, I will be answering some questions from my textbook explaining what I've learned about my draft from peer reviews.

• Who, specifically, is going to be reading this essay? Or who am I trying to reach with my argument? (My instructor, my classmates, members of my academic community, members of the local community, etc.)
• From out Project 4 assignment prompt we were told that our audience would be our peers in the writing class, as well as the instructor. We were instructed to talk directly to them in the letter, sharing our thoughts and feelings about this experience. My review comments suggest that I have succeeded in this aspect.
• What biases might my readers have? Am I respecting their opinions while also achieving my own purpose?
• As the letter is about me and my experiences, I would certainly hope there are no biases towards me. It is possible that my peers may have some bias due to them also going through the course if our experiences were to differ greatly. The potential for bias may also exist from the fact that they have been reading my writing in peer reviews so might expect a certain style/rhythm/tone, based on what I have previously produced. My review comments didn't specify any instances where I should a bias. I also did not get the impression that either of my reviewers had any bias.
• What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?
• We have certain things in common that bind us. We are all university students and we are all in the same class. Past experiences will certainly be different but the majority of us also come from the same culture and national heritage. So there will be some shared values and beliefs, but to fathom their individual preferences would be mind-boggling. As this letter is about myself, I would hope that their expectations are limited to how they perceive the assignment and the instructions that were given. After looking at the reviews I found that Brandon shared a respect for the military by thanking myself and others for our service. I received indications that my letter had met their expectations of how they understood the assignment.
• How much information do I need to give my audience? How much background information or context should I provide for them without insulting their expertise?
• Without restating the assignment prompt word for word, we were instructed to be open and honest about our personal experiences and visions of the future. I chose to relate my previous experiences to the difficulty I had in using the new methods and techniques we were taught. The story type feel of the letter was well-received and I got comments saying that. I also got the impression that I may have divulged more personal information than was expected but it flowed well and enhanced the overall tone of the writing. One suggestion I will be incorporating is ensuring I map out the lessons learned for better emphasis.
• What kind of language is suitable for this audience?
• We were instructed to be familiar but not informal. Due to the personal nature of the piece, I may have tended towards the more familiar side of this. According to the reviews though, this played well with audience. 
• What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout my draft?
• Basically I retold a personal story and kept the tone consistent throughout. There may be a couple instances of "slides" outside the norm, but they played well with the audience so there was no confusion. By looking at my reviews, I would say that I've accomplished everything I was tasked to do.

Blog Post #54 - Draft of Open Letter

InsEyedout. "Studio". 5/15/2009. via Flickr
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

To my illustrious peers:

Some quick notes on my draft. I have not added any of the captions/citations for the photos but they will be included prior to finalization. I attempted to included links and quotes as per the assignment prompt but if you feel it needs more, please let me know. As always, I am completely open to any and all suggestions. I would pay special attention to my punctuation as this has been my notorious weak sport throughout the course.

Link to Draft Project 4

Thank you,
Jason

Project 3 - Public Argument

DRAFT Project #3

Public Argument

Jason M. Wittler

Ralson, Liss. “Whip-(c)- Liss-Ralston” 2/21/2011 via PETA Asia-Pacific

No Known Copyright Restrictions

PERCEPTION vs. REALITY??

            Since 1854 there has been an ongoing debate over the use of riding crops in horse racing. Depending on which side of the fence you are standing, it’s called a crop, whip, stick, popper, noisemaker. Regardless of which connotation you prefer, the riding crop is a source of contention that has plagued the sport and will continue to do so until effective rules and regulations are put in place. For nearly 40 years horse racing topped the charts as the most popular sport in America. Rivaled only by baseball and boxing, horse racing captivated the American people and enjoyed widespread success. In the late 1960s a slow decline began that continues to this day. Though the use of a riding crop is not the only issue frustrating the sport, it is one of the most publicly perceived. There must be a study done that focuses on the use of the riding crop. Such a study will allow definitive answers that are necessary for any resolution in this debate. Furthermore, new standards for jockeys need to be incorporated. Through a simple step-by-step process the industry has the ability to limit the use of the crop ensuring all other available options are attempted first. Lastly, there needs to be true effect with the punishments for rules violation. Having the rules and regulations is not enough! With these changes the industry can start moving closer to culture beliefs and values our audience requires.

Public view of current changes

Boyer, Sam. "Ridden for the Ribbon: Thoughts on Racing"
Date unknown. via Pinterest. Labeled for reuse.

            In 2015 we have seen a push from within the industry to limit to the use of the riding crop. Many states have adopted new rules and regulations governing the use of the crop including California, Minnesota and New York. Local regulations have also sprung up at tracks in Maryland, Louisiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. There is indeed a movement moving in the right direction but public perception is slow to change. Quite often these new changes are seen as ploys of misdirection or wholly inadequate. Blogs and chat boards are still filled with naysayers and oppositionists and, unfortunately, getting past all opinions to the facts of the issue is a difficult task. To change public opinion there needs to be a concerted effort by the industry that strikes directly at the perceived unethical practices. By demonstrating our willingness to make real change and enforce that change we can once again gain the acceptance of our audience.           

Desperate need for in depth analysis

Through better understanding of the impact and reactions of riding crops we as an industry can begin to formulate long-term plans that ensure we are providing the safest and most humane treatment we can. Across all organizations there is a desire for the welfare and safety of the athletes. It is this singular topic that nearly everyone can agree upon but how we get there is gray and muddled. There has never been an unbiased study into the facts surrounding the use of a riding crop on a race horse. The industry relies upon time-worn theories and opinions of horseman that may very well be true but that will never be enough to alter public opinion. Very few people would doubt the necessity of a riding crop at the starting gate. Training helps to ensure a horse’s exit from the gate but the jockey is the one altering/adjusting that course. The riding crop is a tool that helps ensure the safety of the athletes and riders. This is not where the public and industry outcries come from. It is the last 400m of a race that everyone is looking at. It is also during this time of the race that we witness the vast majority of urging by jockeys that bring this issue to a head. Jockeys going to the whip with a gusto that is extremely visible to everyone watching. A study must be conducted that focuses on the issue of whether or not the use of a crop increases an athlete’s performance at the end of a race. Every horse is different and reacts differently to different stimuli. Just as in humans, no two athletes will react the same way or have the same intestinal fortitude to dig deeper for the last ounce of “umphf” they can muster. Does the whip offer encouragement at these times? Does the fight or flight instinct, which is the basis for the use of the crop, still exist in these genetically engineered animals? Is there a point when the whip does no good whatsoever and is just a jockey attempting to appear to be trying? If these questions can be answered with validated proof then better, more realistic, rules can be emplaced to ensure the welfare of contestants and the sport itself. The study also needs to done in concert with all concerned parties to ensure unbiased testing. There is no way to appease everyone but every attempt needs to be made to capture and address as many issues as possible.

It all starts with the riders

Unknown. "The racing industry's Jockey Coachi..." 2014.
via jets-uk.org. Attribution 2.0 Generic

            The experience level of the jockey also comes into question with this issue. Though there are instances of veteran jockeys, often times highly publicized, appearing to abuse the crop, it is often the newer jockeys that are being penalized for misuse. There appears to be a culture with the up-and-comers that by rigorously urging their mounts they will win. There is a need to educate these younger riders and change the culture for any real, lasting effect upon horse racing.Time will tell with the statistical analysis that will be done as to where the continued violations occur. The newer jockey in the less profiled races are not in the public eye and therefore do not gathering the audience like the big races with veteran jockeys. Regardless of the level of competition, education will be the key in bringing jockeys into a culture of better horsemanship rather than abuse of the whip. Jockeys need to increase their fitness levels. With better fitness the jockeys will be more capable of using themselves as a tool without the need to constantly go to the whip for correcting the horse. A progression of correction should be instilled in the jockeys that relies on better horsemanship rather than jumping immediately to the harshest of behavior modifiers. This will require the jockey to think ahead and ensure the horse is ready and able to react to their commands. Firstly, the horse needs to be balanced and in rhythm before any correction can be made. Then, the  jockey’s voice needs to be the first tool used. Next, the jockey can proceed to squeezing and kicking with their legs. This can be used for small corrections in direction and momentum. Changing hands is another technique that cues the horse that demand is about to place on them. Along with the hands, pushing emphasizes to the horse that it is indeed time to find the next gear. Next, waving or showing the stick. This technique captures the attention of the horse and brings focus back from wherever it has wondered. Lastly, if the jockey is in contention, the whip can be utilized within the parameters of the rules and regulations that govern the state. This progression moves through 7 steps prior to going to the whip. If none of the steps are effective in capturing the attention of the horse or changing behavior in the way the jockey is demanding than there is a training issue or personality issue that needs to be dealt with.

Make the rules better

Rector, Tori. "Justice Gavel"
10/24/2008. via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic

In the past, the penalty for a whipping violation was $200. This does little to discourage jockeys when they are looking at a $12,000 payday. Publishing a new rule set to appease public perception will not be enough to save the sport if it is not properly executed and policed. The installation of new rules is a great first step. If properly utilized and enforced, there could be long term benefits within the industry. Even with proper enforcement though, the penalties must be adequate to deter jockeys from violating them. Harness racing has been plagued with whipping issues despite fairly strict rules in regards to the whip. There is also a precedence of penalties being inadequate to deter violation. The advent of suspension in addition to monetary fines is one of the most effective tools. Multiple states are implementing this and results are starting to be seen. Hitting the violators where it hurts the most is harsh but it is effective and must continue.

Learning from others mistakes/successes

Learning from the mistakes of other industries is an invaluable tool in this instance. There is also the precedence and rules that other countries have enacted. Using tools that have already been tested and evaluated by others is a wise choice. Learning from their mistakes and building upon their successes only makes sense. Countries like Australia, England, France and Canada are dealing with much the same issue as we are here in America. In some cases the U.S. is currently doing more for the welfare of our athletes but there is always room for improvement. Taking a deeper look into Sweden’s racing industry, which has federally outlawed whipping of any kind, could provide insight into how the U.S. should proceed. In depth analysis of Australia’s fierce battle over the riding crop could ensure we do not make the same mistakes. It makes no sense trying to reinvent the wheel. Building on the lessons already learned can result in quicker, better, and more effective changes. But in the end, it falls back on public perception. If people view our industry as a barbaric spectacle bordering on animal cruelty how can we possibly hope to survive.

The road ahead

            Those in the industry think the public’s opinion of the ride crop is a misperception which may very well be true. But perception is reality and if they believe the crop is a tool of abuse, then it is. Other than the jockey themselves, the crop is the only tool for behavior modification during a race. Doing away with it completely is not an option for safety reasons so that leaves ensuring its use is viewed as humane and not abuse. The new rules go a long ways towards making the sport more publicly acceptable. How they are implemented and policed will continue that. Our industry has been on a precipes for some time now and doing nothing is obviously not the answer. If we want our industry to thrive and our way of life to continue then we must evolve to stay current with audience’s ethics and values. Without an audience, we will wither away into obscurity. The only way to avoid this downfall is to embrace and tackle the concerns they see within our sport.With further study, education, and increased awareness, the industry can further provide the public with the grandeur and spectacle that once made it the jewel of American sports and earned it the name, “The Sport of Kings”.

Froggerlaura. "With California Chrome and Victor Espinoza in the winners circle of the 2014 Preaknes Stakes"
5/17/2014 via wikipedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Blog Post #53 - Reflecting on My Writing Experiences

Ter Haar, Kate. "Isn't it funny how day by day nothing changes, but when we look backeverything's different?"
1/14/2013. via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

For this blog I will be providing some short but detailed responses to questions from our textbook.

1. Your assumptions and ideas about writing before taking your first-year composition courses.
1. Having spent 24 years in the U.S. Army, most of time dealing with operations and training, had me writing a particular way. The standards for military writing are strict and precise with no room for deviation or personal flair. I knew this wasn't the only approach but after being immersed in it for so long it becomes a tendency.
2. The most important lessons you have learned as both a reader and a writer as a result of taking your first-year composition courses.
1. As a writer, I've learned how I can communicate more effectively. Instead of just putting the words down, arranging them in such a way as to increase their impact. Also, looking outside my personal bubble for other avenues and paths to follow that still bring me to the destination I desired.
2. As a reader, learning from the approaches others are taking and incorporating those ideas into my personal style. I was fortunate to have peers in the course that approached writing much differently than I do. Reading their works and gathering ideas I can use later was invaluable.
3. The ways you brainstormed, narrowed down topics, and worked on thesis statements.
1. My original style was to include as much data as possible about my topic. I've found that by narrowing my focus and keying in on the more important aspects rather than the whole picture can be just as effective. An added bonus is that it doesn't require a 50-page paper to do it.
4. The peer-review process, including what you offered and what you received.
1. The process helped me think about my topics and how I was presenting them differently. My peers were able to see things I couldn't and provide insight into how I could better help them understand.
2. Reviewing others work gives you new ideas and ways to tackle a situation. Things I wouldn't have considered before, I have now seen and can use them in the future. Also, thinking critically about someone else's work makes you look at your own stuff with a sharper eye for detail.
5. Individual or small-group conferences with your instructor.
1. The feedback provided for both the individual blogs and projects was incredible. Being given feedback on the level of detail that I was given, ensured that those errors were corrected with future works. It was gave me ideas of how to incorporate different ways of getting to the same conclusion but often times, in a better way.
6. The discussions you had about your paper with people who were not in your class.
1. The only person not involved with my class to see my work was my wife. She is an English Lit major and currently owns here own business writing for the construction industry (blogs, newsletters, white papers, social media, press releases, etc.). Her style which is completely different than my own, lent her an objective eye that gave me good insight into how to improve my works. Also, I was able to provide her with proper citation, not the business stuff that is accepted.
7. How you approached the revision process for each essay.
1. With the first project I had little revision in the normal sense. I spent an inordinate amount of time building the piece and that process incorporated the revision process enroute. The second project found me scraping my revision process and doing more freewriting and then going back to revise based on peer review and my own review. The last project, a complete fiasco, was revised the most. I rewrote it 2 or 3 times prior to a peer reviewing it. I then went back and revised it again. Even after pulling it together with pictures, I went back and revised it again. I am still unhappy with the final product.
8. Your understanding of reading and writing in different genres.
1. I still think my understanding is a little weak but I know what I need to do to improve. I've become pigeon-holed into one genre and I need to break out of that. Even a specific audience can be presented with various genre of writing and still be effective. Analyzing my audience and then choosing how to write to them was a new approach and something I intended to get better at.
9. What you would do differently if you were to take your first-year composition courses again.
1. I would attempt to deviate from the norm more. There are many styles of writing that can effective and still provide enjoyable reading for the audience. Mixing things up more and trying new things regardless of the final grade would be a pretty cool experiment.
10. How college writing fits into your life now and how it will fit into your major and future career.
1. Many of my classes are writing intensive. As I move further into my major I don't see that changing but the style will be more scientific and clinical. For my future career, writing will not be a focus; however, if I were to start my own business that would open the door to all kinds of necessary writing.
11. What did you learn (from a specific writing assignment, from a specific experience, or from the semester as a whole)?
1. In both Project 2 and 3, the importance of analyzing your audience and deciding how best to present to them. Knowing how to effective communicate to a specific group will increase your credibility and open the door to your work even being considered.
12. Did the choices you made, or writing experiences you had, reinforce something you already knew about yourself or about writing?
1. I am not a writer. I am way too black and white in my thought process. I feel that there is a need to cater to your audience and entertain them in some way for writing to be effective. At this point, I don't have that ability. I can put facts on paper, relate details, and recount events, but I still lack the ability to make it interesting.
13. If you did not gain as much from a particular project as you had hoped, what are the possible reasons for that and what might you do differently the next time?
1. Project 3 was an absolute disaster for me. I chose an argument that there is no answer for. I found it extremely difficult to argue a topic without having any proof as to a viable solution. I think it could have been an interesting and lengthy research paper, but not a public argument. I should have chosen something that had clear lines delineating the sides and clear solutions from both.
14. Think about the course objectives listed on your syllabus as you consider your success in the class. What course objectives did you meet? What objectives are you still working on?
1. I believe I was successful in the rhetorical aspects. Analyzing text, using strategies to consider the purpose, audience, and context.
2. I believe I was successful in practicing research, revising strategies, reading, and using the conventions of scholarly research and analysis.
3. I believe I was successful at providing useful analysis of my peers work.
4. The area I am still working on is creating multiple, meaningful revisions of writing. Though I understand the process I have found my revisions are often a restatement rather than a new idea or way of looking at the idea. Being more effective with revisions is a goal I still hope to achieve.

Blog Post #52 - Revisiting My Writing Process

Brown, Elliott. "Minterne Gardens-sign-Thank you for visiting". 4/30/2012
via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

In my first blog post on this subject, I considered myself a mix of heavy planner and sequential composer. I still feel that is correct but I would now include a healthy does of heavy reviser. This course has introduced me to revisiting my work many more times during the process than I ever have before. Looking at my writing from a more critical aspect has shown me that my initial thoughts need to be revised to current more impact. Thinking about how to say something is just as important as saying it. To be considered a credible source the writer must create a sense of purpose that never deviates. I fear that my earlier writing attempts flowed entirely too much and the meaning I intended was probably never understood. It was perhaps more enjoyable to read but if the purpose is to get my point across I doubt I spent enough time to do both.

I like where I have come to in this whole process. Mixing the various styles and taking from each the things I need to accomplish my goals. Learning how to incorporate more aspects than just completely the assignment takes time and effort but will undoubtedly pay dividends. Time is the biggest enemy to this. To create a product to the standards I am now aware of doesn't allow for waiting till the last minute and throwing something together. I know what I am capable of producing and should always strive for that mark of excellence.

Looking ahead, these lessons will be invaluable with the rest of time at the UofA. Though looking for employment after graduation isn't a concern in my case, having the ability to write properly in my particular field with only help in building credibility with my peers. There isn't a big requirement for writing when training horses but there are aspects of the industry that do require it. I feel much better about my chances for making an impact if the need should arise.

Blog Post #51 - Reflection on Project 3

Hall, Keith. "Horse in the mist". 9/3/2005. via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic

Reflecting on My Revision Process

• What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
• My first revision was nearly a complete rewrite. I had a very difficult time with saying what I meant to say. The second revision was focused on making my points and topics stand out better and show more of my stance on the issue. The third and fourth revisions dealt mostly with punctuation and individual word changes to make things more poignant in certain places. The last revision was incorporating more of my personal feelings in the conclusion.
• Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
• Globally speaking, I never really reconsidered my thesis or organization. If this was for real and I had the mountains of data prepared that would be necessary to properly state my case, I would completely revisit how I was presenting to my audience. Because of the specific nature of the data, I would need to play with ways of presenting it that made sense. I imagine it would look something like a video lecture but that's not definite.
• What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
• As I stated prior, the audience has been a fixed point throughout. I seriously considered shifting my purpose a couple of times. More to make it easier on myself than anything. My topic has no resolution and therefore it's very hard to argue. Even with further study and investigation a resolution may not be found. Shifting the purpose may be the only logical conclusion if there isn't a data proven final verdict.
• How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
• Since I can't prove a single aspect of my topic I probably sound like just another complainer. Due to the length of time this issue has been in existence I highly doubt I am the first person to present what I've presented. There is no shortage of people trying to end horse racing as a sport. And though I'm not in that category, skeptics could still initially view me as such and reject me outright.
• How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
• The changes I have made should endear me more to the audience. Just being grammatically correct goes a long way. My current position will give me a bit of credence with the audience due to the prestigious nature of the RTIP. Combined, they may be enough for somebody to actually take the time and read the entire paper.
• Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
• My audience is extremely knowledgeable on the subject so I didn't mind being more technical with some of my terms. I also include a lot of detail hoping to alter misconceptions with a group that thinks they all ready know it all. I did shorten specific sentences for emphasis and even threw in some punctuation to help with that.
• How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
• Due to the expertise of the audience, I feel that providing more detail will assist with them thinking asymmetrically. This issue cannot be approached from one side or the other but must be looked at from a different view. As an audience with preconceived notions, they will think a certain way and not be open to other views that appear conflicting to their own. In this particular issue, 1 + 2 do not equal 3 and I have to get the audience past what's right in front of them to a place they are uncomfortable with going.
• Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
• Actually quite often. I believe to maximize affect I would need to give my audience a more clinical, scientific approach. My current draft is factual but when dealing with an emotional issue that often is not enough to persuade or sway the audience. A scientific approach would be extremely unemotional and could perhaps detach the emotion of the audience and allow a deeper focus. However, for this draft, I did not take that approach.
• Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
• I am not a touchy, feely type of writer. My process is simply identifying the facts, presenting local conclusions, and providing details of various aspects to possible solutions. My personalty works well within these confines so that is the style I write in. Emotion clouds judgement and so I attempt to remove it whenever possible to help my audience focus on the issue.