Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

Based on the in-class discussion on Thursday, May 10, what can you SHOW from your reflection letters that demonstrates your skill development and process of understanding writing as metacommunication? Another way to ask the same (or at least a similar) question is: what are the metacommunicative elements that you successfully display in your writing?

What do you understand now about writing-as-metacommunication that you did not know before, or that you now comprehend more deeply and thoroughly?

Recall that the discussion in-class is stimulated and informed by the quotes we discussed: from Thomas Fox and Paulo Freire. Steph, good-hearted soul that I am ( !), helped you out by weeding through some of the Google references on metacommunication.  ;-)

(Comments made to my weblog will still earn you extra credit.)

Final Reflection Letter-John Burns

I am surprised to realize that my prediction for this class was not correct. This is essentially my first writing course, and I was convinced it would not teach all that much about writing well. I have too much else going on in my life to learn from my courses. I find that I learn just about everything I can on my own. This course, however, did actively teach me many things. I was taught in a manner which I could not only understand, but also use immediately. I would learn something in class, and be able to use that knowledge to change something about the way I write. This was especially true for rewrites, as I could take what I had leaned, and promptly improve my work and my grade. As I thumb through the class magazine and the click through course wiki, I see my writing is almost held on a pedestal. Usually my work is criticized and covered in ink with a B or C written on the last page, but in these two public collections, my work is untainted and actually looks like it deserves respect. This make me feel good, because I know that anyone who comes across my work will be able to say something different than what I have ever heard before. Before this class, when I finished an essay, I would say “I hope this is alright”. I would inevitably get the paper back and see that it was “alright”. Now my work is not put on a scale, it is read as writing actually should be read, for information, not formation. My work in the class magazine and on the course wiki is now seen as something to respond to with thoughts about my topic, and not the way I write. The course magazine and course wiki tell me only that this is a typical college class with opinionated students. I only see students work when looking at the magazine and wiki, and I believe that that is all others will see. We would always try to have a message in our work, but somehow those messages are not all that powerful. The messages in our papers are read as thoughts and ideas, not so much as opinions with which to really engage. I think my work on the wiki comes off about the same as it does in the class magazine. Both will be read by people looking to read something different, not to learn or be amazed. I do feel, however, that the class magazine and course wiki are helpful, but more for its contributing members than its readers. I learn to write in a specific way because I know where my work will end up. For example, I chose to write my unit 3 paper on a somewhat controversial and large scale topic. I knew that this would be shared between much more than my teacher and myself, and I made accommodations for that fact. My unit 3 paper, “How You Can Clean Up the World”, is a work of much importance to me. It shows not only how much I have learned, but how much I already know. When I wrote before this class, I was always writing to show knowledge of writing, of which I had little. This essay was a chance to write about something I know a lot about, and that showed through in the fluency and quality of the essay. I was then able to take what I have learned in this class about writing and fit into the essay. In this brief quote, I combine my knowledge of economics with a “writing knowledge” of appeal to emotion; Chances are you have seen images of people dying because their nation has little economic influence. Why do some nations have stronger economies than others? Why are some nations getting richer while others seem to get poorer? The answer is simple, In a global market economy, like the one this world is in, businesses always set up shop where they will have the greatest chance to succeed. Without one of those “knowledges” I would have little success in writing any paper, it is simply necessary to know what you are talking about and how you want to talk about it. That is the essence of good writing, ideas and appeal must fit together properly or all will be lost, or never get anywhere, as with the essays I wrote before taking this course.

John? 23:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Final Reflection - Adam Shekleton

The end of the year is now upon everybody. All of our work is submitted and up on the wiki and in the magazine. In reflecting upon each of these, I found that there were things that were unique to each of them, but also things that made them one in the same. The wiki, I found, had an easier time of actually getting products into it. That team did not have to worry about a certain page limit or how the papers had to be physically presented. Because of this, they were able to incorporate everybody’s paper for each of the units. This was the magazine’s disadvantage, but it could also very well have been its advantage. That team may have had to pick and choose which papers went into it, but it is because of this that the finished product is one that is probably of more quality strictly in terms of the writing that is in it. Both of them, however, do an excellent job of portraying how the class has progressed and evolved over the past semester. These are just physical things, though. The underlying issue in both of them is how they each metacommunicate about the class, as a whole. As it turns out, this entire class was about our individual identity.

However, metacommunication was a huge part of what this whole course was about. I found that it was much easier to see the progression that was being made both individually and as a class when this concept was explained. However, I do agree with Steph’s introduction to her metacommunicative responses. I think that the class would have probably run more smoothly if we were to have started with metacommunication and then gone on from there. This way the class could see how they were progressing in the present as opposed to looking back and having to pull out how they progressed as is happening now. Live and learn as the saying goes. In this case it does not just apply to the students in the class but also to Steph as an educator, which is not a bad thing at all.

More specifically, the magazine and wiki teams took responsibility for showing the class the learning that took place. The layout of the units was imperative to the progression that I made and also that the class made. To be honest, this concept did not actually hit me until just now when I was looking through the magazine. The entire class, as it turns out, was about our personal growth in identity. The very first thing that we did, as a class, was watch the movie The Jacket. In this we saw how somebody else formed their own identity through a series of events. From this we were supposed to see what goes into coming to terms with one’s own identity and write a paper about our own and how we perceive it. We then reflected upon what we considered to be our identity in our reflection letters, giving us a different perspective on what we had written. The second unit dealt with seeing another’s struggle with identity and relating it to our own life. This was the transition from simply thinking of ourselves as individuals to interacting with another and, therefore, becoming more confident in our own identity because there was something else to relate to. The third paper was a very important one in that we were supposed to form an opinion about something that somebody else had done wrong and explain why we felt that way. This is the stage where we became completely independent. We could not have possibly done this paper if we were not confident in our own identity. This paper was meant to show us just that: in order to be a helpful and interactive member of society and form opinions about something somebody else is doing, we need to be confident in ourselves. The pinnacle of all of this turned out to be our fourth paper in which we were to form a belief about personality, identity, and the society in general. In this we were to take our own identity and look deeper inside it to find out what exactly what beliefs we had about society.

Because of this progression, I felt that the wiki did a better job of portraying my metacommunicative goals even though I was not aware of them during the time in which I was writing the papers. The magazine does a great job of showing how the class progressed because it shows only the best works that contribute to its standpoint on the issue. The wiki, however, serves me better as an individual because all of my work is posted, and I can easily see what I was going through during each stage. The magazine does a better job of serving the standpoint/opinion of the whole class, but, on a personal level, I think that the wiki does a much better job.

Because of the way this is organized, I feel that my writing is portrayed differently in print as opposed to online. In accordance with everything that I have been saying, the magazine presents a snapshot of me as a writer. Yes, it serves the purpose of proving what the class’ feeling was on the matter of identity and personal growth, but it does not show mine because mine varied slightly. Having my writing in the magazine implies that I agree with absolutely everything that is being said from that standpoint. Having all of my writing online, with everybody else’s, implies that I agree with most of the opinions that are being stated, but also that I have my own opinions that are more easily shown in this situation. This is because all of my writing is there so that others can see the kind of progression that I am making as an individual instead of everybody as one. (It’s odd that now I’m actually agreeing with the wiki at the end because I was against it for the entire semester.)

The magazine made some minor edits to what appears to be everybody’s writing compared to what is posted on the wiki. The only thing that was extremely evident was the title of my piece. I had originally called it “Interacting With Kothari” simply because that was what the assignment was to do. I did not take it to the next level of looking deeper into what I metacommunicated through my writing (as goes the story for the entire semester). Because of this, the name of my work was called “Learning From Loss”. I think that this makes a lot of sense based upon the information that I presented within the paper. I also think that this title is a more accurate representation of what was meant by the paper, as a whole. I do agree with the title that was arranged, but I do not agree with the fact that this was done without my permission. In this sense I do feel that it detracted from my sense of authorship. Even though no major changes were made within the work, any change made should be run by the author to make sure that it doesn’t obscure the paper’s meaning to make it fit the opinion of the class as opposed to what is meant by the individual.

Reflecting on everything now, it is very clear to see the progression that we were supposed to make as individuals. The class, as a whole, was there simply as a tool to be used as a foundation for us to build upon and see how others were dealing with the same situations. I suppose this concept of grasping our own identity is exactly what the wiki and magazine metacommunicated about the class as well as about me.

My reflection letters did not show what I have just realized. I took everything at point blank. I looked at this class as something that was trying to simply improve my writing and not me, as a person. I did not make that connection until after my unit three paper, and I did not make the even larger connection to identity and personal growth until just now.

My first reflection letter was actually the exact opposite of this. I was completely focused on the aspect of writing. My second line was, “College writing is very different than anything that I did in high school” (p.1, pgph.1, ln.2). In reflecting upon this, I see that it was a very naïve statement to make because I didn’t look at it as something that was supposed to make me a better person. In a sense I was correct in that the writing that I did in high school was not meant to make me a better person but was simply for academia. However, I know that this is not what I meant when I first made this statement. It was more or less a complaint at the start.

In my second reflection letter there were some evident changes and improvements, but, in general, it was still focused on the concept of writing as opposed to personal growth. In my paragraph I say, “I will probably submit it once more just to see if I can get the A on it” (p.1, pgph.1, ln.4-5). I am obviously still stuck in the stage of grades and giving the teacher what they want at this point. However, there is some evidence of a breakthrough when I begin in my fourth paragraph. I make the connection that, “I think I might be in a better place for figuring out ‘who I am’ as opposed to where I was after the last paper” (p.2, pgph.2, ln.3-4). I also speak of how the past few classes, at that point, had been about Steph trying to get across to us that she was trying improve us not just as writers but also as people.

My unit three reflection was very different from the previous two. There was only one paragraph that was completely dedicated to the writing. The rest pertained to the class and what I had learned and how I had grown because of it. I say in my third paragraph, “Like I said, this is not just about writing” (p.1, pgph.3, ln.1-2) It is at this point that I am able to completely see that there is a deeper (metacommunicative) meaning behind all that we have done in the class. I am able to see that it is about growth, but I have also obviously not made the connection, yet, as to how. That does not happen until this paper.

Perhaps this is why metacommunication should be what the semester is started with. As I said earlier, the connection that is only potentially made at the end of the semester can definitely be made at the beginning. Progress can be made that is not only evident to the teacher but also to the student if it were to be run this way. This also would make the class more interesting, I think. There were several times during the semester where I was sick of the class not because of the way it was taught or what we were doing but because I did not see the larger meaning behind everything that was happening. Now that I have finally figured that out, the reasoning behind everything that was done is very evident. I feel that I would have enjoyed everything much more if I had known this from the very beginning. I did make progress, and I can see that now, but it is very difficult to look back on what has been done and comment about improvement and the connections being made as opposed to being aware of them as the class is moving ahead. Overall, however, I think that this class accomplished its task of improving my grasp of my identity and how to apply it to society more than anything I have experienced in any other kind of setting.

Atshekleton 13:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Annerrs' Final Reflection

- James W. Carey.

Before this class, I had never considered thought to be “public and social.” Thought is private because it originates from the mind; thought is a product of mental activity. However, once thought is shared by means of communication, thought becomes “public and social.”

Writing is a part and process of communication. I have learned that if I do not write with an audience and a claim in mind then my thoughts will not be accurately read.

This brings us into the start of the semester. For the first unit, students of College Writing are to write a personal identity narrative. I wrote about how my personality is influenced by my past, which consists of my friends, family, and life at school. Because no individual begins as an expert, I did not do as well as I thought I had done. In my first reflection letter, I wrote to myself, “your paper… didn’t really make a clear and concise connection with ‘identity.’ …It was unclear as to what the focus of your paper was based on and how it as all linked together” (“Dear Anna”). I knew I had to work on not losing my audience through confusion. However, the good thing about my identity narrative was my use of pathos. “Throughout the paper, it was apparent that you made it a point to connect with your audience through emotional appeal” (“Dear Anna”). After both pros and cons that I gained from writing the first unit, where would I go on from there?

After writing my first unit, I knew I had to move onto my second unit with my audience in mind. I integrated my ideas with Geeta Kothari’s “If You Are What You Eat, Then What Am I?” I was careful not to lose my audience through quick transitions yet I did not narrow in on the focus of my paper. In my second reflection letter, I wrote, “So perhaps when you had realized [what the claim was], (or rather, when Steph blatantly pointed it out in your draft), you re-wrote your whole paper according to that claim (“Ma Deuxieme Reflexion Lettre”). My final draft to that second unit was not a piece of cake, but I managed.

By the third unit, I knew what I had to do. I wrote a letter to consumers of the diamond industry, specifically, individuals who were in relationships, attempting to stop the circulation of conflict diamonds. As painstaking as it was, I wrote re-write after re-write. The final product was an achievement. Did I have a claim? Yes! Did I have a targeted audience? Yes! Did my thoughts come across effectively? I definitely think so. Throughout the paper, I think I used logos, pathos, and egos. Logos is for the factual evidence that I incorporated into my writing. Pathos is for the emotion that I tried to capture and pitch to my audience. Egos is for the credibility of my authorship because I developed a strong voice in the paper. Using all the rhetorical strategies and the mechanics that I have been taught throughout this semester, I accomplished an A paper.

Whether it is writing for the class magazine or for the class Wiki, writing is a reflection of the individual. Because of that idea, I write on the Wiki no more differently than I would write on paper. On both venues, as a class, we are still writing to communicate to an audience.

As this semester comes to a close, I am proud to say that I have achieved. I have achieved skills that enable me to communicate to an audience by effective means. I know the formula, I will use it and build on it to further develop my writing.

Because I am writing this letter for you to read, at this very moment, I am enabling my thoughts to be public. My thoughts are different on paper. In print, my thoughts are concrete; my thoughts become real. When I write a paper now, I have to consider what I am writing about, to whom I am writing, and how I can effectively get my thoughts and ideas across.

Annerrs 17:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Bibliography

Carey, James W. “A Cultural Approach to Communication.” Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Nguyen, Anna. “Dear Anna.” Anna’s Unit I Reflection Letter. 29 March 2007. 15 May 2007 <http://www.umasswiki.com/wiki/User:Annerrs/Anna%27s_Unit_I_Reflection_Letter>.
---. “Ma Deuxieme Reflexion Lettre.” Unit Three Reflection Letters. 15 May 2007. 16 May 2007 <http://www.umasswiki.com/wiki/Class:Section_71_-_ENG_112_-_Spring_2007/Unit_Three_Reflection_Letters#Annerrs:_Writing_With_Growth>.