In addition to your revised draft of the researched argument, I ask that you compose and publish a writer’s letter to our course blog — one in which you reflect on the revision process by tangibly identifying how you redrafted your paper, drawing on the insights of your RefAnnBib entries, peer review, course content, large-group discussion, and/or office hours meetings.
I hope to leave this prompt relatively open on the condition that you make a concerted effort to name, articulate, and unpack the precise ways in which you’ve revised your paper. Still, I encourage you to make a plan for yourself going forward, identifying where in your paper you have room for improvement and how you might plan to address those points of growth in another round of revisions.
In terms of your revisions and/or future points of growth, ask yourself, did you OR will you—
- underscore the exigence or purpose of your paper?
- begin to answer a question about the possible futures of your topic?
- integrate analytical positions with outside information in ways that frame your argument in the manner of a narrative arc?
- tie the argumentative focus of your body paragraphs to your thesis?
- organize your paragraphs in ways that demonstrate sequential logic?
- build your argument based on the combination of analysis and source materials?
- craft coherence between and among your paragraphs?
- support your analysis with source material from your RefAnnBib and/or elsewhere?
- integrate and frame direct quotes from external source material?
- synthesize multiple analytical claims into broader arguments?
- roadmap your argument for readers in your introduction?
- signpost readers to the sequential logic of your argument? (e.g. topic sentences, bridge sentences, transition terms and phrases)
- draft your sentence-level prose with clarity, care, and style?
- make effective use of a documentation style, including in-text citations, headers, and a works cited page?