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

Final Reflection Letter

Dear Adam,

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 01:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)