Things Were Taught and Stuff was Learned

This writing course was very different from the writing courses I have taken in the past. I did learn a good amount of information and more about my writing style in particular. First off, I learned what rhetoric truly is and the parts of rhetoric. Previous to this course, the only recollection I had of rhetoric was a rhetorical question. Specifically with the parts of rhetoric, I was able to review logos, pathos and ethos—all of which I previously learned. However I was unfamiliar with kairos and exigence, with only having heard both words used rarely. Reading essays in the Praxis, such as the case against Strauss-Kahn, helped me examine kairos and exigence directly and understand both terms better using an example. I also analyzed This Is Water by David Foster Wallace, and examined the piece or audience, author, purpose, exigence, kairos, logos, pathos and ethos.

            I think the piece of writing that I enjoyed reading the most was “For the Sake of Enjoyment” by Cindy Phan in The 33^rd. The piece was an enjoyment for me because I could easily relate to it, as the author was also a college student in my same position. I also liked that the story was a true one, to get more of a grasp of what could happen when a student interacts with a professor. From this piece I learned that it is often difficult for students like me to find interest in writing and we all rarely know what exactly to write about. However, the author taught me that I could easily find inspiration in things I have previously read and have wrote about. Also, she taught me, as basic as it sounds, that I could always approach my professor if I were to need help with a paper or if I struggle to find inspiration in writing one.

            From my own writing done in this course and with the help of my professor, I have realized that I tend to frequently write in passive voice. Though it seems strange, I assume it is because I have been formatted to not write in first person and as an unbiased third party. In many of my sciences and engineering courses, first person results in a deduction of points. So I had to adapt to writing in a clear active voice. Writing in passive voice always caused me to exceed the word limit as well. When I changed all of my writing, I realized I was under the word limit and could write more analyses. Moreover, from reading others’ writing I was able to experience different writing styles. For instance, one student was very strong in his ability to have clear transitions between different ideas and topics throughout the same paper. For instance, he begins on paragraph describing “In high school I manage to be a shop instructor..." then transitioning to the next with "Once I finally got to Drexel it was all very strange..." and then the last with "Now it is the end of the term..." (Proctor). He clearly establishes a timeline and follows it, which allows the reader to imagine him/herself going through the same timeline. I tend to lack in that ability because I have to many different ideas going on at the same time and I result in pure rambling. So from my fellow student, I learned how to clearly write out each idea and analysis and how to transition to the next.

              I would definitely say that my writing has changed somewhat after the past ten weeks of attending this course. I try even harder to avoid passive voice and write in more concise sentences that “get to the point”. Moreover, I try to have other peer edit my papers to get various feedback. For instance, if another student, like Theodore Proctor, who is talented at establishing a clear timeline reads my paper, he can assist me in establishing my own.