This class completely changed my way of thinking about writing. In the past, I have been inclined to lead readers to agree with my opinions through logic. I have never looked at my writing from the standpoint of a reader. The biggest consequence of this is that the article is seriously unconvincing. I have been stating what I believe to be the facts, but the ground is very weak. When I read my article from an outsider’s perspective in this class, a brand new door seems to be opening for me.

    We have three Assignments in total this semester. The first article is Literacy Narrative. It is primarily a description of the connection between oneself and the community of one’s choice. The second is Textual Analysis. It allows us to analyze an article to support or oppose a problem. The third is argues a Position. We need to take a stand on the issue and convince others to support us through research.

    It wasn’t until I wrote this self-reflection that I realized I had made a serious mistake. This class is based on three Assignments on the same community-based theme. I’m sorry I don’t remember that setting at all. Fortunately, the theme I chose has always been consistent with my real thoughts, so the three compositions can still reach an agreement on the theme of community.

    For Literacy Narrative articles, it is actually not an easy thing to write. I am not a person with a particular story, and I am not a person who can make up stories. The community of choice is too broad to find a thing worth mentioning. Therefore, I chose to describe the influence of history learning on my personality and thinking mode in a way similar to a timeline. However, this is not a good thing for an attractive story because it involves too much space. I can’t explain them in detail in the limited number of words, and I can’t write so many words in more space.

    “Do you know where your ancestors lived? This is a headache. Most people don’t know where their ancestors came from. In fact, if you have experienced the ancient customs, then you may have a glimpse of your ancestors.” ——– This is the introduction in the original version.

    “This opening is compelling, but a little too disconnected from what follows. Flesh it out a bit more. I can imagine the connection, but consider your audience and make it clearer.”——–Feedback

    “Do you know how ancestors communicated before they had an official accent? It’s a big challenge to talk with people who grow up in other countries and take English as a second language, because you may not understand their English pronunciation clearly. This also is a problem between people live in same country. I used to think why do people in two close regions speak the same language, but the language they said sounds like totally different two languages. In fact, if I could know more about historical population migration, it might not bother me for so long. Population migration is an important reason for producing dialects. Immigrants from different regions have different accents, and they may affect the overall accent of the region after many years. I have spent a lot of time looking for relevant content and examples in books. Those actions for finding truth from history largely made me fascinated by history.”——– This is a modified version.

    Although the grammar is still poor, you can see that this paragraph has changed a lot. One is to modify the point cut of the problem. This is to better adapt to the ideas of more people. On the other hand, space has been increased. This is to guide the reader more smoothly into the topic. A large part of the reason for such a big change is that I re-read my article from the perspective of readers. This enables me to better sort out the structure of the article and adjust the input of various parts to make the article more efficient.

    For textual Analysis articles, I also made a lot of mistakes while writing this article. The main one is that I rely too much on my own opinions and ignore the opinions of the information source. This is because I did not understand the difference between Textual Analysis and Arguing a Position at that time. Later, after writing arguing a Position, I came to realize that the core difference between them lies in that the central idea of the article comes from different places. I’ve only provided a modified version here. The revised version is not available because the revised version is not satisfactory. However, in future writing, I can learn from this experience to complete a better article

    “In environmental protection, wind power is first and foremost a clean energy compared with other energy sources. Wind power does not pollute the air like fossil fuels, causing human health problems and economic losses. Wind is also an infinite source of energy. It exists in every corner of the earth’s surface.”——– This is a statement from the draft, it’s all personal opinion and the source doesn’t provide that. In the final version, I fixed some problems, but the overall content of the article still tended to be my personal opinion rather than the opinion of the information source.

In the last is arguing a Position article, where I still have a problem that my perspective and readers’ perspective span too much. I’ve added a lot of explanations to make them easier to understand and plug in.

    “Society as a whole has never been so centralized that criminals cannot imagine what they can get from that. (From what?) This stems from government surveillance, which concentrates everyone’s information in one small agency. (Data collection? What agency?) People in their right mind don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket, because that basket might fall to the ground for some unknown reason. You will have nothing. (Okay that’s a clear example, but the set up is opaque.) The importance of risk allocation is self-evident. Such a concentration of data, whether leaked by insiders or stolen by hackers, would be an unimaginable catastrophe. (There are a lot of ideas here that you’re not explaining clearly enough. Set up the main idea after your first sentence and then put the rest of this in a logical sequence that leads the reader. They’re not in your head, but this is. Make it clear.)”——–This the old text from draft. The main point of the problem is readers could not catch my points. My ideas are leap and lack of excess.

    “Society information as a whole has never been so centralized that criminals cannot imagine what they can get from the system. If criminals try to steal this information, centralized information will undoubtedly provide them with convenience. This stems from government surveillance, which concentrates everyone’s information in many authorized communications company. People in their right mind don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket, because that basket might fall to the ground for some unknown reason. They will lose most of them. These companies are like baskets, and people’s information is like eggs in a basket. They could have access to private information right away, but they risk massive leaks to aggregate it. They collect private information that people don’t want to provide even if they don’t need it before. This puts us all at risk. The importance of risk allocation is self-evident. Such a concentration of data, whether leaked by insiders or stolen by hackers, would be an unimaginable catastrophe. Malicious people use this information to attack us and steal our property.”——–This is the final draft with more detailed explain.

    After all, I have learned a lot in this semester. This semester is really too short to regret, but my writing level has also made great progress. Three papers have led me in a new direction. This can be an exciting gift for the rest of your life. Thank you for your guidance and company in this semester. Thank you!