I would like any feedback on the content, structure and organization of the paper so far. Please let me know if anything about the arguments are unclear or if any points are under-developed.Thanks for your patience and help!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g7mOXl2eUUzzoMVQ12EvtB3l5y2GMGpmZC0U_8IzMoQ/edit?usp=sharing
Monday, July 20, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Annotated Biography in APA Style
American Psychological Association Style
Cryanoski, D., Reardon, S. (22 April 2015)
"Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos".
Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
Sample, Ian. (23 April 2015)
"Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first". Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/23/scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-in-controversial-world-first
Michal Gropp, Pavel Itsykson, Orna Singer, Tamir Ben-Hur, Etti Reinhartz, Eithan Galun and Benjamin E. Reubinoff (18 November 2002).
"Stable Genetic Modification of Human Embryonic Stem Cells by Lentiviral Vectors".
Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v7/n2/full/mt200342a.html
Puping Liang,
Yanwen Xu,
Xiya Zhang,
Chenhui Ding,
Rui Huang,
Zhen Zhang,
Jie Lv,
Xiaowei Xie,
Yuxi Chen,
Yujing Li,
Ying Sun,
Yaofu Bai,
Zhou Songyang,
Wenbin Ma,
Canquan Zhou,
Junjiu Huang
(18 April 2015)
Cryanoski, D., Reardon, S. (22 April 2015)
"Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos".
Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
Sample, Ian. (23 April 2015)
"Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first". Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/23/scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-in-controversial-world-first
Michal Gropp, Pavel Itsykson, Orna Singer, Tamir Ben-Hur, Etti Reinhartz, Eithan Galun and Benjamin E. Reubinoff (18 November 2002).
"Stable Genetic Modification of Human Embryonic Stem Cells by Lentiviral Vectors".
Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v7/n2/full/mt200342a.html
"CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes" Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5
Hanlon, Michael (5 May 2001)
"World's First GM Babies born" Retrieved from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html
Saulter, Stephanie (6 May 2014)
"Trusting the Future? Ethics of Human Genetic Modification"
Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/45392-ethics-of-altering-human-genetics.html
Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/45392-ethics-of-altering-human-genetics.html
Ideology in My Controversey
Who is involved?
In the conflict of genetic modification of human embryos, there are both supporters and opponents on board the decades long odyssey into the gray area of progress. Scientists and those with no scientific background alike continue to weigh in on the movement towards greater scientific involvement in human destiny. The issue of genetic engineering divides people very passionately because for both parties involved it is understood that the fate of a human life is at stake. While only a handful of individuals have the scientific knowledge to judge the discipline's potential, the outcome effects all of humanity.
Who are some of the major speakers/writers?
Some of the major writers involved in the conflict are the scientific journals themselves. Nature magazine recently refused to publish a paper written by a scientific team based in China that conducted human embryo modification on rejected fetuses from a nearby clinic. Editors form Nature cited that the topic of embryonic modification was too controversial. Protein & Cell, the journal that published the paper, cited that no viable fetuses were actually harmed, and thus the study conducted was not unethical.
What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power is involved?
For both opponents and proponents of genetic modification, there is a diverse group of individuals involved. Scientists and geneticists are a large majority of both the opponent and proponent sides. The issue of genetic modification also typically divides political parties, with Democrats generally for it, and Republicans generally against (there are of course some exceptions). Finally, another significant portion of those involved are writers, citizens, and largely, families. Families are very much impacted by the argument - for some, genetic modification is the only way to safely have children, but for others, three-parent children are a challenge the traditional familial structure.
What does each group value?All parties value human life and together acknowledge that a human life is at stake and thus the consequences of the issue could be potentially staggering. Those who support genetic modification value the power of science and technology and their role in human health. They support using modification as a way to prevent debilitating illness and increase the longevity and quality of life. Some opponents of genetic modification value their spiritual beliefs that humans should not interfere with what they consider the work of God. Others value traditional familiar structure and a natural birth cycle. Others value science and progress, but fear that faulty or misguided science could wreak more harm than good on humanity.
Is there a power differential?
In the case of genetic engineering, power is generally equally distributed between opponents and proponents, who both comprise of scientists, politicians, and everyday citizens.
Is there any acknowledged common ground?For both parties involved, it is understood that the gravity of the decisions made now will affect future generations to come. For both groups, individuals agree that each experiment and each paper progresses us closer and closer to the inevitable question - where will we draw the line? For both opponents and proponents, it is agreed that a new code of ethics needs to be constructed, and that a new charter must be drawn for science and morality will proceed from here on out.
Is there any unacknowledged common ground?
At times, the two parties forget that another common goal is to prevent and ultimately end human suffering. The proponents of genetic modification believe that engineering and screening is the best way to prevent illness before it even occurs. The opponents of modification are not against longer lives and healthier children - but some believe the dangers of modification outweigh the potential benefits.
Do the various groups listen to each other?
Due to the uneven ideological ground on which the two parties sometimes operate, it can be difficult to reach an understanding. Those who oppose and those who support on scientific grounds tend to listen to each other better - the fundamental basis for the arguments are more or less the same. Communication between those who are scientific supporters and those who are religious opponents is often very poor - the basis for the arguments are very different and the two groups do not necessarily prioritize the same values.
In the conflict of genetic modification of human embryos, there are both supporters and opponents on board the decades long odyssey into the gray area of progress. Scientists and those with no scientific background alike continue to weigh in on the movement towards greater scientific involvement in human destiny. The issue of genetic engineering divides people very passionately because for both parties involved it is understood that the fate of a human life is at stake. While only a handful of individuals have the scientific knowledge to judge the discipline's potential, the outcome effects all of humanity.
Who are some of the major speakers/writers?
Some of the major writers involved in the conflict are the scientific journals themselves. Nature magazine recently refused to publish a paper written by a scientific team based in China that conducted human embryo modification on rejected fetuses from a nearby clinic. Editors form Nature cited that the topic of embryonic modification was too controversial. Protein & Cell, the journal that published the paper, cited that no viable fetuses were actually harmed, and thus the study conducted was not unethical.
What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power is involved?
For both opponents and proponents of genetic modification, there is a diverse group of individuals involved. Scientists and geneticists are a large majority of both the opponent and proponent sides. The issue of genetic modification also typically divides political parties, with Democrats generally for it, and Republicans generally against (there are of course some exceptions). Finally, another significant portion of those involved are writers, citizens, and largely, families. Families are very much impacted by the argument - for some, genetic modification is the only way to safely have children, but for others, three-parent children are a challenge the traditional familial structure.
What does each group value?All parties value human life and together acknowledge that a human life is at stake and thus the consequences of the issue could be potentially staggering. Those who support genetic modification value the power of science and technology and their role in human health. They support using modification as a way to prevent debilitating illness and increase the longevity and quality of life. Some opponents of genetic modification value their spiritual beliefs that humans should not interfere with what they consider the work of God. Others value traditional familiar structure and a natural birth cycle. Others value science and progress, but fear that faulty or misguided science could wreak more harm than good on humanity.
Is there a power differential?
In the case of genetic engineering, power is generally equally distributed between opponents and proponents, who both comprise of scientists, politicians, and everyday citizens.
Is there any acknowledged common ground?For both parties involved, it is understood that the gravity of the decisions made now will affect future generations to come. For both groups, individuals agree that each experiment and each paper progresses us closer and closer to the inevitable question - where will we draw the line? For both opponents and proponents, it is agreed that a new code of ethics needs to be constructed, and that a new charter must be drawn for science and morality will proceed from here on out.
Is there any unacknowledged common ground?
At times, the two parties forget that another common goal is to prevent and ultimately end human suffering. The proponents of genetic modification believe that engineering and screening is the best way to prevent illness before it even occurs. The opponents of modification are not against longer lives and healthier children - but some believe the dangers of modification outweigh the potential benefits.
Do the various groups listen to each other?
Due to the uneven ideological ground on which the two parties sometimes operate, it can be difficult to reach an understanding. Those who oppose and those who support on scientific grounds tend to listen to each other better - the fundamental basis for the arguments are more or less the same. Communication between those who are scientific supporters and those who are religious opponents is often very poor - the basis for the arguments are very different and the two groups do not necessarily prioritize the same values.
Evaluation of Social Media Sources
"World's First GM Babies born" Daily Mail Account via Storify
- Credibility - The author is affiliated with with the Daily Mail, which is a news site dedicated to reporting in the U.S., U.K. and Australia. Michael Hanlon is science journalist and a brief search does reveal that he has had years of journalism experience.
- Location - Michael Hanlon is based in the U.K., not in America, in which the topic takes place, but it is not as if he is far removed from the situation or sources on the topic.
- Network - The Guardian, a well-known news site based in the U.K., has called Michael Hanlon a "top science writer".
- Content - The claims made in the piece can be corroborated from another article found in the New York Times.
- Contextual updates - Hanlon has not previously reported on the genetic modification of human embryos, but he often writes about other scientific topics.
- Age - The account is two years old, so it is fairly recent but not too young.
- Reliability - The Daily Mail and Michael Hanlon appear to be reliable based on the credibility of the content and the author.
"Trusting the Future? Ethics of Human Genetic Modification" LiveScience via Storify
- Credibility - Stephanie Saulter, the author, is a well known novelist and writer. A brief search reveals that she is a popular writer and blogger, with almost 1,000 followers.
- Location - Saulter is based in the U.K., not America where the bulk of the topic takes place, but she is not writing from a radically different cultural perspective so this does not seem to be a factor.
- Network - Saulter is followed mostly by readers and does not appear to have a professional network.
- Content - Content can also be corroborated by an article in the New York Times (see above)
- Contextual updates - Saulter does not appear to have other posts on this particular topic, but as a science fiction writer, has interest in similar topics.
- Age - The account is two years old, again, fairly recent but not too recent.
- Reliability - The author does not have a scientific background and thus this article would not be a source for determining the scientific accuracy or validity of the study. However, this is an excellent opinions piece that highlights the cultural perception of the topic at hand.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Evaluation of Scholarly Sources
"Stable Genetic Modification of Human Embryonic Stem Cells by Lenti-viral Vectors" Nature
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to report on the research, methodology and results of the particular study involving genetic modification of a human embryo. This is a scholarly journal, and and the authors are communicating the results of their experiment in order to exchange their intellectual property with the scientific community. Part of publishing is offering up work to your peers in order to gain feedback - it is a good way to evaluate your work and determine if your conclusions are valid based on the information that is presented.
Publishing:
The article was published in Nature, a highly reputable journal of science, biology and engineering. This contributes to the credibility of the article, and the peer review of scholarly journals indicates that other renowned scientist in the field agree and approve of the findings presented in the piece. The article was published in February of 2003, so the article is fairly recent, but not within the last ten years, so it would not be ideal as a stand-alone source.
Source:
Sources mentioned in the paper all reference other academic journals, such as Science, which demonstrates the thoroughness of the research and also the reliability of the paper itself, because it seems to have a solid foundation.
Author:
The authors are of high repute. The lead author, Dr. Michal Gropp is a geneticist and researcher at the Institute of Gene Therapy at the Hadassah Medical Center. A brief search reveals the good reputation of the scientists.
Audience:
The audience are other scientists in the field - based on the terminology, the intended readers are peers of the scientific community.
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to report on the research, methodology and results of the particular study involving genetic modification of a human embryo. This is a scholarly journal, and and the authors are communicating the results of their experiment in order to exchange their intellectual property with the scientific community. Part of publishing is offering up work to your peers in order to gain feedback - it is a good way to evaluate your work and determine if your conclusions are valid based on the information that is presented.
Publishing:
The article was published in Nature, a highly reputable journal of science, biology and engineering. This contributes to the credibility of the article, and the peer review of scholarly journals indicates that other renowned scientist in the field agree and approve of the findings presented in the piece. The article was published in February of 2003, so the article is fairly recent, but not within the last ten years, so it would not be ideal as a stand-alone source.
Source:
Sources mentioned in the paper all reference other academic journals, such as Science, which demonstrates the thoroughness of the research and also the reliability of the paper itself, because it seems to have a solid foundation.
Author:
The authors are of high repute. The lead author, Dr. Michal Gropp is a geneticist and researcher at the Institute of Gene Therapy at the Hadassah Medical Center. A brief search reveals the good reputation of the scientists.
Audience:
The audience are other scientists in the field - based on the terminology, the intended readers are peers of the scientific community.
"CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes" Protein & Cell
Purpose:
The purpose of the article was again to communicate the results of the experiment and describe the methodology of the experiment. The purpose of a scholarly journal is to offer up research and findings to a community of your peers and subject your work to professional scrutiny - the paper attempts to present a correlation between findings and conclusions, as well as support the conclusions and methodology with prior knowledge.
Publishing:
The paper was published by Protein & Cell, a highly notable scholarly journal that focuses on genetic and DNA research. It was published on 1 April 2015, so the paper is very recent and would thus make an excellent source. Interestingly enough, the paper was rejected from Nature and other journals because the topic of embryonic research is still very taboo, despite the highly ethical manner in which the experiment was conducted.
Source:
The paper cites other academic journals, and so it can be determined that the paper has a strong foundation for the topic at hand. Sources indicate that the paper was well researched.
Author:
The authors are all highly reputable and are scientists at a prestigious university, which publishes many papers of its kind in a year.
Audience:
Based on the terminology and the presentation of the data, the intended audience is made up of peers in the scientific community.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Evaluation of General Sources
"Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos" Cryanoski, David and Reardon, Sara Nature
URL:
The URL is a ".com", which might normally indicate that the site is either for profit or owned independently from a government agency or a university. However, Nature is a highly respected science journal and its content is peer-reviewed - in this case, the site is not unreliable by virtue of its ".com" domain.
Author:The authors names are clearly displayed and contain links to each of their respective biographies. Following the links reveals that each author has a background in the topic at hand - Reardon has a Masters degree in molecular biology and Cryanoski is a journalist specializing in stem cell research.
Last Updated:
The article was last updated on 22 April 2015, so the article is fairly recent. There is no link for the information about the article update.
Purpose: The purpose is clearly informative and does not stray from the main objective of conveying information about a new technique. The article in no way attempts to persuade the audience of anything in the paper.
Graphics:
The graphics are professional and contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic at hand. The graphics include high resolution pictures which are not distracting and do not detract from the information in the piece.
Position on Subject:
The authors are clearly impartial and do not try to persuade the audience of a specific viewpoint. Both sides of the debate are equally covered and no obvious bit of information seems to be omitted, underdeveloped or excluded.
Links:
Authors provide extensive links and a complete list of references. All links are relevant, and no links are broken or damaged.
"Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first"
Sample, Ian The Guardian
URL:The URL is a ".com", which is not as reliable as a ".gov" or a ".edu" domain. The domain indicates that the affiliated author/company could be either for profit, or not affiliated with a reliable source such as a government agency or a university. However, the Guardian is generally considered a fairly reputable website - it is certainly a popular source but not necessarily unqualified.
Author:
Ian Sample is the author and his name is displayed at the beginning of the paper and is easy to find. His name is linked to his personal biography, which indicates that he is the Science Editor, has a PhD in bio-mechanics and previously worked at the Institute of Physics in Queens, thus supporting that he is a reputable source for an article on genetics research.
Last Updated:
The article was last updated on 23 April 2015, thus it is fairly recent. The link provided works, and directs the reader to a more detailed report on when the article was updated.
Purpose: Informative - the article seemed to deliver the news in a precise and professional manner. The delivery does not seem to contain and propaganda or lobbying.
Graphics:
Overall, the graphics were professional and supported the point of the paper - the photos were high resolution and were relevant to the topic at hand.
Position on Subject:
The article was very impartial and focused on dutifully relaying facts. There was no tone of persuasion to the piece at all. Since the Guardian is a news-based site, there were no product or services advertised and thus it can be assumed that the author did not stand to gain any money from the piece.
Links:
The article did contain links to related article and all links were in working order. The article cited reputable journals. No links were damaged or broken, and the information was relevant.
My Discipline: Biomedical Engineering
The Students
The students in the biomedical engineering department at the University of Arizona gain a full and comprehensive knowledge of biology, medicine and engineering. Students start with a fundamental platform of chemistry, advanced calculus, physics, and anatomy. After the first two years of basics, students proceed to choosing a desired track, bio-mechanics, bio-materials, and bio-sensors. In the bio-mechanics track, students learn how to build, create, and operate diagnostic equipment and gain an introduction to maintaining machines involved in medicine, such as MRI scanners and CT scanners. In the bio-materials track, students learn about the biological foundation for the field - cells and tissue. Students learn about utilizing medical technology to analyze cell or bacterial growth, and use mathematical models to model this growth. In the bio-sensors track, students learn primarily about micro-sensors and nanotechnology and how these tiny electronic devices can be used to see what is invisible to the naked eye.The Field
The field of biomedical engineering is exceptionally diverse and the students in the discipline often pursue a wide variety of fields. Some professionals use cellular models for epidemiological applications and can use online programs to calculate biological threats for organizations such as the CDC. Others use diagnostic equipment to detect cellular irregularities, such as tumors, in order to diagnose cancer or other maladies. Some biomedical engineers use a background in robotics to construct prosthetic devices for amputees. And then there are engineers who develop modest pieces of equipment that are now taken for granted, such as crutches or stethoscopes.
The Passion
To me, biomedical engineering is the integration of technology and biology, the blending of man and machine, the marriage of magic and medicine. What drew me to the field was a love for science and a desire to help others. Since my freshman year in high school, I have been interested in studying cancer - everything about the illness fascinates me and I have always followed news of cancer very avidly. I love the field of medical research because I believe in the power of science, technology and humanity to cure sickness and ultimately end human suffering.
The People
At the forefront of the field if one of University of Arizona's own Dr. Marvin Slepian, the co-founder of U of A based company, SynCardia. Dr. Slepian, a cardiologist and biomedical engineer, helped to create the Total Artificial Heart, which is the only approved device to operate as a synthetic heart for patients awaiting transplant. The mission was to lengthen the duration for which a patient could survive while awaiting a transplant - the device increased the general life expectancy of patients awaiting transplants from a few weeks to almost a year. SynCardia, the Tucson-based company is also a prominent company in the field of biomedical engineering, and continues to make great strides in the field of cardiology, particularly with the Total Artificial Heart - the next stride is to make the heart bio-degradable.
The Literature
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Learning Reflection
I have learned through the calendar activity that I will have to be a strict time manager. One huge time commitment that I currently have is my job. Working in the bakery can compose of 25-40 hours a week - I work mostly evenings, so my plan is to allocate my morning hours to school work. I also plan to try to get ahead on my days off, and put in extra work when I can so I am not struggling to complete classwork. I will also set aside time to work at peaceful locations, such as the library or a coffee shop, so that I can work in a relatively distraction-free environment. I have also entered in all the course deadlines into my online calendar, so I can keep up with homework. I'm really looking forward to this class!
My Thoughts on Public Comments
On the Public Comments Section
- The comments below expressed a fairly diverse spectrum of fears and anxieties. While some users expressed no anxiety, discrediting Trump as a foolish or outlandish, others expressed frustration or anxiety at the accusation that all immigrants are criminals - one commentator in particular expressed his disgust at Trump's remarks because he himself was the son of an illegal immigrant. He expressed fear that others would agree with Trump and characterize immigrants as lazy or violent. Others agreed with Trump, and also feared that illegal aliens are a potential threat to Americans and the economy. They expressed fears of illegal aliens committing murder, such as the incident in San Francisco. Others feared that hiring immigrants is a type of job outsourcing and could potentially undermine the economy.
- Some commentators shared the belief that Donald Trump was trying to do what is most beneficial for the country. They share the belief that illegal immigrants can characterized as one whole, homogeneous group, with a largely negative stereotype. On the opponent side, the passion-fueled arguments are driven by patriotism and a fear of violent crimes, while the logic-driven arguments center around the issue of the economy. The comments that disagreed with Trump also can be categorized as passion-fueled and logic-fueled. The passion-fueled arguments tended to attack Trump personally and accused him of being a fool or even a crook. The logic-driven arguments also tended to discredit Trump but also provide evidence as to why the statements about immigrants were overgeneralized or untrue.
- The person that seemed to have the most credibility was user Al'n because this argument was logical, articulate, coherent and ultimately well-reasoned. Part of the credibility was due to the fact that he did not attack Trump, swear or use poor language. Another small but noticeable feature of this post was that he used proper spelling, grammar and punctuation. For me personally, this always makes a piece of writing seem more credible, and makes the writer seem more intelligent, and thus I feel more persuaded to read on, even if I do not agree with the opinion itself. I am often turned off by commentators who use unnecessary capitalization because it comes across as heavy handed and punctuation errors make the post simply annoying to read. By using proper conventions, Al'n's post seemed well thought out, and thus, the most credible.
- The user that seemed the least credible was user Anonymous. While many users used poor conventions (which as I mentioned above, can discredit a writer), Anonymous' post was completely off topic and had no explicable bearing on the topic at hand. The phrase "talking just to hear myself talk" comes to mind. While I too hate the cruel sport of dog-fighting, I do not agree with the crass generalization that all Mexican people somehow share the "cultural" desire to fight dogs. As a person of Hispanic descent. I know this to be untrue. This and the off-topic nature of the post really discredits the author for me.
Reflection:
I learned a lot from other's posts. One user, Nicole Nelson, mentioned how usernames are another piece of information that the author gives to establish credibility - she points out the difference between "Gina Genochio" and "BongBong", and how the professional nature of your username can add to your perceived authority, which is something that I had not yet considered.
Another user, Eric Hannah, pointed out how some users reverted to stereotypes instead of using facts as evidence. I thought this was also really important to revealing whose opinion is well researched and whose is not.
Mi Casa es Su Casa
In the wake of recent controversial statements on immigration made by presidential hopeful Donald Trump, many Americans are asking ... should the gate be open or closed? Opponents to immigration reform fear that an influx of immigrants from Mexico and other countries could unbalance the already precarious state of the American economy ... and possibly result in an increase of violent crimes, such as the Pier 14 shooting in San Francisco.
However, proponents of the movement believe that allowing immigrants a pathway towards citizenship will increase the amount of talent, especially in STEM fields, and will thus be positive for the economy. Many businesses have also expressed support for immigration reform, stating that a significant portion of company talent comes from other sides of the borders and indeed overseas.
As a border state in the southwest, Arizona is one of the states at the forefront of the immigration debate. Certain Arizona lawmakers believe that illegal immigrants will cause problems for both the local economy and its citizens. But by limiting citizenship, companies and universities are also limited to the pool of talent confined by these borders.
America is said to be the Land of the Free - but the question remains, who gets to enjoy this legendary freedom? Are the fences keeping out criminals ... or engineers, doctors and innovators?
To read more about the immigration controversy, read "The U.S. Immigration Debate" by the Council on Foreign Relations.
However, proponents of the movement believe that allowing immigrants a pathway towards citizenship will increase the amount of talent, especially in STEM fields, and will thus be positive for the economy. Many businesses have also expressed support for immigration reform, stating that a significant portion of company talent comes from other sides of the borders and indeed overseas.
As a border state in the southwest, Arizona is one of the states at the forefront of the immigration debate. Certain Arizona lawmakers believe that illegal immigrants will cause problems for both the local economy and its citizens. But by limiting citizenship, companies and universities are also limited to the pool of talent confined by these borders.
America is said to be the Land of the Free - but the question remains, who gets to enjoy this legendary freedom? Are the fences keeping out criminals ... or engineers, doctors and innovators?
To read more about the immigration controversy, read "The U.S. Immigration Debate" by the Council on Foreign Relations.
 |
| Renwick, Danielle and Lee, Brianna. "The U.S. Immigration Debate" |
What's the real immigration problem? Leave your comments below ...
My Writing Process
 |
| Coffman, Drew "Writer's Block" |
1. As a writer
- I tend to be a Heavy Reviser
- I normally write several rough drafts of the paper - I don't plan and draw concept maps as much as I write everything that comes to mind and then cut/trim later
- I usually hate everything I write the first time, and sometimes I get discouraged in the middle of the process
- Usually my best inspiration comes after several failed attempts and conferences with other writers.
- I spend a lot of time and energy revising - but I am often proud of my end result.
2. My other techniques
- I don't really revert from the above technique. I really rely on rough drafts to complete my writing process.
3. Strengths and Weaknesses
- Strength: Unhindered writing process
- Strength: Does not discard any potentially strong ideas too early in the process
- Weakness: Revision process is long and sometimes frustrating
- Weakness: Rough drafts are often incomplete and well, rough.
4. Other Approaches
I would like to try incorporating some more planning in my process without becoming too encumbered with trying to be perfect on the first draft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)