Perhaps the most important part of reflecting on your writing is to spend time critically reading your own writing.

With the work you did on the previous page in mind (i.e., goals), take some time to read through your previous writing, namely:

• QSRs 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Literacy Narrative 1
• Literacy Narrative Revision
• Rhetorical Analysis Draft 1
• Rhetorical Analysis Draft 2
• Research-Driven Writing Project Draft 1
• Writing from other classes

You an also consider Reading Annotations and Process Documents, as these were essential supplementary writing that assisted the larger writing assignments you completed.

As you read through your writing, consider tips for reading annotations from 9/1 and from the Reading Annotation Guidelines to think about how to make effective notes when reading that get more toward the “how” and “why” of things you read rather than just “what” you read.

In the case of reading your own writing to reflect on what you learned, you are looking for how you are doing things in your writing (e.g., at level of argument, organization, sentence, word choice, etc.) as well as why (e.g., to have reader linger on something, to provide a counterargument, etc.).

Consider, too, comments you got from your Writing Group and from me!

You may not have time to read thoroughly now, but by the time you submit your ELD, you would have read through everything you wrote very thoroughly.

In a comment below, tell me about one thing you noticed that confirmed one of the goals you commented on the previous page of the module and one thing that maybe was a little surprising that you did not mention on the last page of the module.

After commenting below, click the button to continue the module.

Early in the term, in the Midterm Learning Narrative, and in subsequent Learning Modules, you have been asked to think about what your goals are for the next assignment, for writing in future classes, and for writing in general (e.g., personal writing).

It is important to consider what you value about writing rather than cumulatively trying to do it all. In other words, think hard about what you want out of writing, what you prioritize most.

In that spirit, review the following:

• previous moments where you set or thought through goals (e.g., previous Learning Modules, Process Documents, Midterm Learning Narrative)
• the 5 course goals on syllabus
• the subgoals for each unit on the syllabus

In a comment below, choose at least 1 goal from each of the above bullet points and comment below with a note on each of these 3 goals and why you value that goal.

After commenting below, click the button to continue the module.

It is hard to learn without stopping to think about the notion that you are learning. That is what this last, rather small, unit is focused on. We are taking time to just think and sit with what we have done this semester.

We reflect to think about what we did and why we did it so as to develop a sophisticated system for responding to future situations where we apply what we learn.

In the context of our class, we are going to think about what we did and why we did it so as to develop a sophisticated system for responding to future situations where we write.

You’ll be asked to do this by completing the Experiential-Learning Document, which is a reflective writing assignment that asks you to stop and think about your goals, the goals of the course, the goals of the unit, and your previous reflective writing (the Midterm Learning Narrative). Then, after thinking about that, we think about what writing you did and how that writing helps to exemplify the goals you had, the course goals, and the goals you now have going forward.

On Blackboard in Course Documents>Assignment Prompts>Major Writing Projects, download the prompt for the Experiential-Learning Document. Read it through and let me know in a comment below if you have any questions about the assignment.

After commenting below, click the button to continue the module.

In this Learning Module, we:

• looked over different aspects of the three macro-structures (introductions, methods, analysis, conclusions) to compare how they were similar and different.
• got practice synthesizing multiple voices in our research writing.
• got practice with doing reference list entries and learned more about formatting reference lists.
• filled in responses to the check-in survey

For class on 11/19, and beyond, we will:

• turn in your research-driven writing project by 11:59pm on Thursday, 11/19
• On 11/24, you will submit a QSR in response to the Qasim reading, but I will go over that more in class on 11/19

We got like 3 weeks to go…hard to believe!

I wanted to do one more check-in survey just to see how things are going. Fill out this survey before moving on.

After filling out the survey, click on the button below to continue:

The Qasim piece uses MLA documentation style and we see that, too, in the works cited page.

Like we talked about in class on 11/12 as well as in Learning Module 7, learning a documentation style is just learning how to look up information for how to format something according to conventions of the documentation style.

While not nearly as important as doing the synthesis work on the last page, readers will come to expect you to follow conventions of a documentation style for in-text citations (e.g., putting the citation in correct spot in sentence) and for the reference list (e.g., formatting a reference entry item in right spot and in right format in reference list).

Formatting the Page

You’ll notice that there is a sort of indent after first line of each entry in Qasim’s works cited page. In Google Docs or Microsoft Word, the easiest way to do that is to use the ruler function. See picture below to see what it looks like in Google Docs:

In this image above, the blue marks are what to pay attention to.  The triangle on the bottom need to be moved to the half-inch mark to represent a five-space indent. You get that set up, and all your reference list after that will follow the format text after first line of an entry being indented five spaces.

There are other formatting things to consider with reference list formatting. Depending on the documentation style, you can find the rules at the UW-Madison website on documentation style conventions.

Formatting the Entries

In the reference list by Qasim (or, in MLA terms, the works cited page), there are two different kinds of sources that you will likely use in your research writing, as well (you might also use a few others that are important, like reports published by organizations–like the white paper example!–which will require looking up how to cite:

• academic journal articles
• newspaper/website articles

Looking over Qasim’s works cited page, you should get a sense of the differences between formatting a works cited entry in MLA. Translating these entries into another documentation style will also help you get acquainted with this format.

You will do one of two things in a comment below:

If you prefer to get practice with Chicago, CSE, or IEEE, choose one of the works cited entries from Qasim’s essay and translate it into your preferred documentation style among Chicago, CSE, or IEEE.

If you are using APA or MLA for your research-driven writing project, choose one of the works cited entries from Qasim’s essay and translate into APA.

IMPORTANT: Do not reuse a source that someone else already used! There are 13 entries, so this works out perfectly for the number of people we have in class. Choose something that someone else has not used yet!

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.

One of the most difficult (and arguably most important) elements of academic writing is integrating your voice with the ideas of other scholars and writers because:

• it asks you to have a firm understanding of other ideas from scholars and writers using your abilities as a critical reader
• it asks you to know how to use that understanding and connect it to a larger argument or narrative you are making as a critical reader and writer
• it asks you to organize such synthesis in a logical fashion, which requires connecting not only other ideas to your own ideas, but those other ideas among all of the scholars and writers you cite
• it asks you to adapt stylistically to other voices. That is, you have to use conventions of paraphrase and quoting to meld another writing style to your own to make readable writing

This is difficult, but really helps you as a reader, writer, and learner! If you can do these things well, it means you can enter into complex discussions about a topic and move those discussions forward. That is a really valuable thing to know how to do personally (e.g., as a consumer of news and politics to make political decisions, thinking about medical decisions, weighing disputes among family and friends) and professionally (e.g., writing reports, evaluating possible scenarios for different decisions).

After reading the Qasim research-driven writing project in our textbook, I hope you noticed some moments where Qasim effectively integrates different perspectives and voices together well and that you can use that article as a model for your own writing for your research-driven writing project.

I’m going to isolate one excerpt from the reading on page 242. I’m going to paste the excerpt as a whole at first and then a second version with my annotations.

The United States is not alone in its dependence on immigrants for economic prosperity, and can learn lessons from the consequences of strict immigration policies abroad. Jason Furman, Harvard professor of economic policy and former chairman of Barack Obama’s economic advisors, believes Japan’s harsh stance on immigration has caused its economic instability, concluding that “immigration makes a strong contribution to economic growth” (Furman). For many nations, immigration has become a necessity due to lower birthrates and rising age of the population with lower percentages of workers to take their place. As Furman reports, Japan’s working population has been shrinking due to its rising average age, hindering the growth of their economy. Lest we think this can’t happen in America, Daniel Griswold points out that, without immigration, our labor force would begin to shrink soon, and he contends that immigrants revitalize areas of the country where populations have declined (“Immigrants Have Enriched American Culture”)

Here is the same paragraph with my annotations for what is going on in terms of synthesis of multiple voices with the writer’s own voice.

The United States is not alone in its dependence on immigrants for economic prosperity, and can learn lessons from the consequences of strict immigration policies abroad. [previous sentence sets up argument of paragraph and sources’ relevance to argument]. Jason Furman, Harvard professor of economic policy and former chairman of Barack Obama’s economic advisors [INTRODUCES SOURCE], believes Japan’s harsh stance on immigration has caused its economic instability [paraphrase about case of Japan before setting up direct quote about applicable lesson of Japan], concluding [signal word that identifies main argument of piece] that “immigration makes a strong contribution to economic growth” (Furman). For many nations, immigration has become a necessity due to lower birthrates and rising age of the population with lower percentages of workers to take their place. [previous sentence sums up connection between immigration’s impact on economic instability and economic growth in nation]  As Furman reports, Japan’s working population has been shrinking due to its rising average age, hindering the growth of their economy [goes back to source to look at that relationship to Japan]. Lest we think this can’t happen in America, [transition toward relevance for U.S. as way to introduce new source] Daniel Griswold points out that, without immigration, our labor force would begin to shrink soon, and he contends that immigrants revitalize areas of the country where populations have declined (“Immigrants Have Enriched American Culture”). [paraphrase to make parallel to Japan case study complete]

In a below comment, paste something you have already written to revise or something you want to try to write now that uses 2 sources, together, to make a larger point about your research topic. Use the above analysis of the excerpt from the Qasim research-driven writing project on immigration as a way to help you think through how you can do it. If you don’t already have something you can lift from your in-progress draft, just try to do it based on the sources from your Research Question Process Document and your Reflective Annotated Bibliography and give it a quick shot in 3-6 sentences. This is just a rough draft, so don’t stress too much. Try some things out based on your reading of Qasim here.

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.

The way any specific academic discipline analyzes something will look different (just as their methods might look different). But, depending on the macro-structure, there can be different kinds of ways of organizing how analysis is presented to readers.

So, how is analysis organized in each macro-structure? What do you see as far as how sections are constructed? How sentences are formed? The word choice? What is different and what is similar? Again, some of this might be discipline-specific, but some of it is related to values of making knowledge that is coordinated with the organizing principles of different macro-structures.

Skim the following and name the most notable similarities and differences of these articles that you notice in response to the above questions in about 150-200 words:

• Pages 9 to top of 18 (on the article in top right of page, NOT the PDF page number) of Thesis-Driven paper “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric).
• “Findings” section (i.e., Results) on bottom of page 600 to page 608 of IMRD paper “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
• Bottom of page 2 to page 6 (look at PDF page number) of Problem-solution paper “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.

Conclusions are notoriously difficult to write. One nice thing about macro-structures (or any attention you might pay to genre conventions more generally) is they can help give you some direction for how to think about structuring your conclusion.

Each of the three macro-structures for academic articles have fairly different approaches to concluding, which reflects values of the sorts of disciplines and purposes for each macro-structure.

What do you notice in each of our three examples? How does each concluding section begin? How does the first paragraph start? What do you notice across paragraphs? What does each paragraph do? What is the tone of the section? The overall purpose of the section? What do you notice about sentences? How are they structured? What about word choice? How does the concluding section end? Do you notice any interesting organizational differences? What about layout? Are there subsections or lists? What is notable about those?

In about 150-200, think about the differences and similarities among the three conclusions of each article in response to some of these questions above. Here are the places to look:

• Pages 18-20 of “The age of ressentiment” section of thesis-driven paper: “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric)
• Pages 608-611 of Discussion section of IMRD paper: “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
• Page 7 of Problem-solution paper: “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.

A method is how someone does something. It is a spelled out procedure for how to do carry out a task. Researchers often, but not always, describe their methods. Some macro-structures do this more than others. IMRD structures always require an explanation of a method.

Thesis-driven and problem-solution structures sometimes have space to explain methods, but they don’t always do so explicitly. That is, you kind of have to look for it. For thesis-driven papers, these are usually in the humanities. The methods of the humanities typically use concepts or “lenses” (think back to our Rhetorical Analysis unit!) to interpret texts. These are sometimes described.

In problem-solution papers, it depends. Problem-solution papers are especially malleable because they aren’t always formed in the genre of the academic journal article, but rather in genres that are analogous to the genre of the journal article (e.g., grant proposal, report, white paper). Depending on the purpose of the genre (e.g., report vs. white paper), there is a greater or lesser need to describe methods.

Go back to the three example texts from the last page:

• Thesis-driven: “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric)
• IMRD: “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
• Problem-solution: “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).

Think about the following questions: Does each of the articles describe the methods in which they will conduct an analysis? If so, what is the method? Where is it at? How is it written? What differences in word choice, sentence structure, or organization do you notice between them?

Why describe a method? Why describe it in the way it is described in each of the places of each article (if they have a place where they describe a method used)?

What does it do? How does it do it (look at each sentence)? What does this say about the function of talking about methods in a thesis-driven macro-structure, a IMRD macro-structure, and a problem-solution macro-structure?

In a comment below, locate areas of each paper where you think methods are described and compare the organization of those paragraphs, the sentence structure, the tone, etc. What do you notice? What does each paragraph do? How does it do that? And, finally, do these differences (or similarities) say something about how these structures call for different kinds of functions in describing methods? Consider some of these questions in a response of about 150-200 words.

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.