Throughout the course of this semester, I have been challenged to convey myself through my writing. I have seen myself develop a new understanding and appreciation for writing and grow as a writer, through this new understanding. Specifically, I now stand having accomplished the course learning objectives, which is demonstrated in my work throughout the semester. All of my works this semester demonstrate course learning objectives 1, 2, and 4, (acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources, and draw on those resources to develop rhetorical sensibility; enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment; and develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes, respectively), as we were required to engage in the peer editing process. A good example of this is my New York Times article analysis, as my first draft was greatly improved upon after getting feedback from my peers. Furthermore, I feel as though I addressed the course learning outcomes of strengthening my source use practices, and formulating and articulating a stance through and in my writing. Both are exemplified in my annotated bibliography and my literature review, respectively. One course outcome that i don’t think I improved upon is practicing using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to my writing projects, as this was a skill I built in the past.

One of the realizations that I had about writing is that we write so that other people can read our work and learn from what we have to say. I used to think that writing is just a way that people communicate with each other, similar to talking. But in reality, the way we write is very different from how we talk, and so are the reasons. Writing cements ideas and spreads information to people who may not have learned it otherwise. It is a form of expression, and can be considered an art, and Writing for the Sciences helped me to better understand one aspect of it—scientific writing.

My science writing improved a lot since the semester began, and one reason is because I was made to share my work with others for them to give me feedback. I found that my peers would often pick up things that I wouldn’t, so I would be able to improve upon my word choice and the content of my literary compositions. An example of this is in my NY Times article analysis. In the first draft of my paper, i wrote “She organizes her article in such a way that the problem is explained, research is presented, and possible solutions are also presented.” I received feedback from a classmate that this wording was too simple, and to actively describe the choices made by the author. Thus, I changed the sentence to read “In order to effectively communicate her main point, Reynolds begins by summarizing the main article in her first paragraph and expanding on it in the following paragraphs. After giving the summary, Reynolds gives key background information about the issue researched, and finally goes in depth into the research, outlining the procedure of the researchers. Finally, she discusses the implications of the research and even talks about conflicting studies and information, showing that she is not biased in her goal of educating the audience.” I liked my new sentence a lot more than what i had written earlier, and I may not have changed it if I didn’t receive the feedback that i got. Feedback like this was also very useful to me in my general audience paper, where I talked about quantum physics. I had a friend read over my assignment to make sure everything was well-explained and it was easy to understand. I included the examples of quantum tunneling and quantum spin because of my friend’s recommendation, so that the complexity of the quantum realm could be better understood. Overall, This process became a part of my routine for writing in general, as I started sharing my writing with friends to edit for other classes. Thus, I completed the objectives of enhancing strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment, and developing and engaging in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes all because we shared our work.

Furthermore, with the lab report assignment, the first learning outcome about acknowledging mine and others’ ranges of linguistic differences as resources, and drawing on those resources was addressed well. The way that my group divided the work was based on our abilities, so we were able to efficiently work to complete the assignment and submit a solid paper.

The other learning outcomes that I felt I addressed were strengthening my source use and formulating and articulating a stance through and in my writing. The annotated bibliography assignment and literature review went hand in hand together and helped me to achieve these outcomes. The annotated bibliography really forced me to learn how to properly cite in the CSE name-year method. It’s clear that in the first assignment, I had no idea how the citation was done, as I just plugged the information into a citation machine and hoped that it gave me the correct citation. It was wrong, as every first letter in the title was capitalized in the New York Times assignment. In the annotated bibliography, however, I had no need for a citation machine, as I applied what was taught in class, creating 4 citations that followed the rules. The literature review then made me take all the information compiled in my annotated bibliography, including conflicting evidence, and use it to form a conclusion on the topic of phone use and brain cancer incidence and show how the proof supports it. In my New York Times Assignment’s first draft, I was told that I didn’t take a stance on the whether or not the author completed her intended purpose, and I realized that taking a stance was something I needed to work on. By the end of the literature review, I gave proof for what I had concluded and gave an explanation as to why the opposite view was fault, clearly showing me taking a stance. I said, “Experimental data from studies (Liu et al. 2015 and Takebayashi et al. 2008) and even statistical evidence (Inskip et al. 2010; Lönn et. al 2005; Vocht 2016) contradict the one study by Lehrer et al. (2011) that says that there should be caution with phone use, as there is a high correlation between the two; people should not be scared of developing brain tumors from phone use.”  I wasn’t scared to write my opinion, as I had learned from the class that writing is about expressing your thoughts, and as long as you give proper evidence, your view is correct.

Lastly, I feel as though there wasn’t any way for me to improve upon my use of the internet and databases to obtain information. From 5th grade, we have been made to use databases and have learned proper internet use to find reliable sources of information. I continued the use of my skills in the annotated bibliography and literature review, as seen by the citations made in them. I used scholar.google as well as tried using gale through the library access to find information on phone use and brain cancer incidence, and I found everything that I needed using scholar.google. This semester did reinforce this habit, which I am grateful for.

Overall, I am happy with how I progressed as a writer because of Writing for the Sciences. I will need the skills learned throughout medical school and beyond, so I am well prepared to accomplish great things in the future, including publishing more works in scientific journals and possibly writing on topics that interest me.