Welcome to my self assessment! On this page, I will give insight into my growth as a writer from what I’ve learned as part of my FIQWS.

The goals of the FIQWS program were, much to my surprise, similar yet very different to my high school English classes. Both programs set out to teach students how to write different types of papers (argumentative essays, conversational essays, etc.), effective drafting and revision strategies, and proper MLA citation guidelines. FIQWS, unlike my high school English class, introduced completely new topics, such as how to write collaboratively, and how to use library resources to write a research paper. While it would be a lie to say that I had never written a research paper before (since I took college sociology in high school), the idea of writing a research paper based off the college library’s digital databases as opposed to books available in my high school library was entirely new. I can now say that I am able to pull sources from both, using proper citation (as a result of what I learned in high school, in FIQWS, and maybe just a little bit of manual citation using EasyBib…).

My research paper can be viewed here.

In my Introductory Essay (view here), I expressed my concern at the new essay types. Conversational and Exploratory essays were an entirely new concept to me. Up to that point, I had only learned to do argumentative essays and research papers. It was an experience learning these new types of essays, particularly conversational essays. Conversational essays, in essence, are papers that bring together multiple different authors’ stances with one’s own. In many ways, the concept is similar to an argumentative essay, in that information is pulled from an author in order to guide a paper and affirm one’s stance. The conversational essay (view here) proved an exercise in my writing skills, as the conclusion I made in the prior sentence was found during my writing process. Up to that point, I did not really understand what to do, but figured it out along the way on my own.

Despite the best efforts of my professor to try and integrate collaborative writing and peer review into my writing process,  I found it difficult to warm up to the idea and lacked motivation to truly take advantage of the process. Based on the reactions of my peers during the process, I believe that this is the case for them as well. I can definitely say that I did not take full advantage of that class, and I chalk that down to a lack of motivation as I discovered the class is not what I thought it was going to be. I can, however, see the merits of peer review. During our first review, my assigned peer noted that in my writing there are certain mistakes in my writing repeated over and over, such as run-on sentences. In addition, the peer review process was able to show areas that need revision that I had missed in my review process prior to submitting assignments.

My professor also tried to introduce new methods of drafting and revision to my papers. By using three drafts based off of an annotated bibliography of the sources that will be used in the paper, a writer will hopefully be able to improve their writing. During the exploratory/first draft, a writer will explore the concepts they use in their paper and evaluate their worth to answering the question posed. The writer will then undergo a process of radical revision, which involves rewriting the paper drastically in order to accomplish that goal. The fruits of radical revision are formed into the formal/second draft, which is then evaluated again and tweaked in minor ways to produce the final paper. I did not incorporate many of these strategies (I will explain later on), though I did radically revise my research paper (view here) between my first and second drafts.

I had found in the review of my first draft of my research paper that what I had submitted not only did not answer the research question I had proposed in my introduction, but also did not introduce the counter-argument. Such a vital mistake is unacceptable in my writing. Thus, I rewrote the majority of my paper, re-positioned paragraphs, and fixed issues both minor and major throughout the existing paragraphs. The changes made as a result of my implementations not only helped me to further understand the material, but allowed me to slightly adjust my research question to better reflect what I believed my audience needed to understand.

My draft after that did not have any major revision, except for minor grammatical and positional fixes. This is because I use my own method of revision, which involves revising as I go along and comparing it to what I have already written in my head. I am able to type extremely quickly and multi-task while doing so (such as reading a paper while typing, or thinking about my next move while I type to set up for that). Because of this, I am able to revise on the fly and find a short review period post-completion necessary for my own satisfaction. I know this is not what my course has taught me, but it has proven majorly successful to my writing style and I feel it best not to challenge what has worked for me for years.

A major issue in writing in ensuring that sources are credible, whether the source is in print or online. When online, it is much easier to tell whether a source is credible, though research into a print source’s author or organization will give answers as well. Major news organizations often sensationalize, which makes it difficult to ascertain the credibility of an article, particularly when writing for the sciences. In my case, during my research paper (view here), I established a set of criteria that allowed me to decide whether I would use a source.

Because Atlantic hurricane research and reporting is under the jurisdiction of the United States, all non governmental sources (articles, news outlets, etc) must use data that has been pulled from governmental organizations or models proposed by climate scientists working under the various weather organizations of the US (NWS, NOAA, NHC, etc.). By establishing these guidelines for myself, finding truthful and non-sensationalized information was easy. American weather services began taking more data from hurricanes in the early 1980s, and have gradually added more and more data as time moved on. Therefore, the newer the data, the better, and most of my sources use hurricane data from the 2000s and 2010s. The data pulled is accurate, timely, and lacks bias, and made it much easier for me to write my paper. Journal citations were done using DOI information, governmental data was turned into website or blog citations (even if it lacked an author, as seen with my weather.gov source), and news outlets used standard MLA website guidelines.

Besides research, the FIQWS program puts emphasis on rhetorical writing. This includes terms such as purpose, audience, interpretive problem, research question, etc. Knowledge of rhetorical writing terms is essential to analytical writing. This was particularly important in my conversational essay (view here), where knowledge of an author’s argument and their conveyance of the argument is critical. Any author must first establish the status quo, or the popular belief of the audience they try to address that will be proven wrong. An author must introduce the purpose for addressing the audience as well as the importance of what they have to say. In a paper, an author will face opposition to what they have to say, so they must anticipate this opposition and address the positives and negatives of a counter-argument. With this in mind, the author will be able to create an effective argument or conversation with their audience. My conversational essay is able to address my beliefs on the methodologies of science and who it benefits most by attacking the status quo and introducing the opinions of scientists and a non-scientist, addressing multiple audiences. Thus, I am able to use points from all arguments to argue my point.

Overall, I believe that FIQWS 10011: The Science of Homeland Security, has made me a better writer. It has allowed me to understand the small details of writing that a reader would not notice they are effected by. It has introduced new concepts, such as radical revision and collaborative writing, that I may or may not use in the future. I am content that I took the course and am curious to see how it will be built upon in my future at City College.