Dear Valentina,

Ten weeks ago, when I was asked to define writing, I was stumped. “Writing is just

putting words down on a page,” was the first thought that came to my mind. Without fully

understanding the reasons behind the choices I made for past writing assignments, I could not

think of writing as anything more than the action to construct prose. As I created writing projects

1 and 2, I developed a new understanding of writing. While reflecting on the definition of writing

and the choices I made in writing projects 1 and 2, I decided to revise the pieces, focusing on the

rhetorical situation and style. Through the revision process, I discovered how a defined

perspective on writing has an influence on the writing and revision processes.

To begin, it is crucial to explain what I learned about the writing process from creating

and revising the writing projects. During the writing process, I became aware of the difference

between first order and second order thinking. In previous writing assignments, I always

received comments from peers that the structure of my sentences was confusing. The repetition

of these comments led to my belief that I had a crippling weakness in writing cohesively.

However, reading Elbow’s piece on second order and first order thinking helped me put this

issue into perspective. Elbow explains that “First-order thinking is intuitive and creative and

doesn’t strive for conscious direction or control” (Elbow, 1986, p. 55), ultimately describing the

structure of thinking while creating a first draft. This idea helped me understand that letting

yourself “word vomit” all of your thoughts onto the page is crucial in developing the

foundational arguments for a response to a prompt. The revision process is an example of second

order thinking where, “thinking is conscious, directed, [and] controlled” (Elbow, 1986, p. 55).

Thus, after laying the foundation for a paper in the first draft, revisions can be made using

second order thinking. From this, I realized that the comments about confusing sentence
structure served to imply I had not used second order thinking whilst creating a rough draft. This

framework of thinking in rough and final drafts helped me understand how the rough draft

process is essential in creating an effective final draft.

In revising writing projects 1 and 2, I made conscious edits that focused on the rhetorical

situations. Before this course, I was not aware that every piece was speaking to a target audience

in response to a specific situation. The article by Boyd helped me understand that the rhetorical

situation is a response to “a given situation, one that is determined by the expectations of your

audience, implied or acknowledged” (Boyd, 2011, p. 100). Thus, in reviewing the writing project

drafts, I realized some elements I included were not fit to the setting or audience of the piece. In

writing project 1, the jargon and organization of the piece did not represent a typical group text. I

made edits to make the language informal and the texts shorter in length. For example, I changed

“high-levels” to “lots” to adhere to the expectations of the genre. If a single text was longer than

three sentences, I broke the information down into smaller messages, using multiple texts from

one author to convey the information. In writing project 2, I realized that the definitions of

academic jargon in the short story were not adequately explained to the audience. Thus, I

included images to describe the muropeptide and where it traveled in the mouse to serve as an

additional definition for the students. To account for the change, I included edits in the plot to

continue the flow of information and an additional paragraph in the reflective essay to explain

this choice. Through these revisions, I came to realize how significant the rhetorical situation is

in reflecting on the overall effectiveness of one’s writing.

After ensuring that the writing projects correctly corresponded to the rhetorical situation,

I focused on the stylistic elements of the pieces. For both pieces, I edited the sentences to be

more concise. Willams & Nadel explain the principles of writing concisely, pointing out that
“Readers think you write concisely when you use only enough words to say what you mean”

(Williams & Nadel, 1989, p. 132). This statement put into perspective the amount of unnecessary

words and phrases I had used in the writing project drafts. In writing project 1, I cut out filler

words and replaced phrases like “in order to” with “to”. I also included more emojis to express

one’s response to a text in the most concise manner. In writing project 2, I edited sentences in the

reflective essay to include the subject first, followed by the verb. I used the principles presented

by Williams & Nadel and attempted to keep the sentences around twenty words long. From this

process, I learned an effective method to locate and revise confusing sentences.

Continuing revisions in terms of style, I focused on creating new introductions and

conclusions. A misconception I had before completing this course was that introductions should

follow a pyramid structure. In class, I learned that an effective introduction focuses on one

aspect, leading the reader to the thesis statement. The conclusion acts to piece together the

information that was presented. In revising writing project 1 and the reflective essay of writing

project 2, I edited the introductions and conclusions to fit these requirements. With a structure to

construct an introduction and conclusion, the information in the piece can flow with purpose.

Overall, I enjoyed working with different genres and incorporating creativity in ways I

was not able to in past writing-focused courses. Through this unique writing process, I grew to

understand writing as a response to a situation, where the prose speaks to a target audience using

the conventions of a chosen genre. I plan to use this definition in future classes as a guide for

writing and revision processes. Understanding the elements of writing will allow me to reflect

upon the effectiveness of a piece and revise based on these essential concepts of writing.

Sincerely,

Julia Miyamoto
 Works Cited

Boyd, J. (2011). Murder! (Rhetorically speaking). Writing spaces: Readings on writing,

2, 87-101.

Elbow, P. (1986). Embracing contraries: Explorations in learning and teaching. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Williams, J., & Nadel, I. (1989). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.