Everlasting Knowledge
To whomever it may concern,
Before going into the FIQWS class I was told that it was extremely difficult and stressing. I was nervous to go into a class that even the smartest of my peers were afraid of. Normally, if I heard that a class was as hard as everyone said FIQWS was going to be I would have chosen a different class. However, it was either taking FIQWS and going to the college three times a week or only going to the college on fridays. I had successfully gone through challenging classes so I decided to take the class.
My mindset starting the class wasn’t as positive as I wish it would have been. The first two assignments were not as challenging as I imagined them to be. I think the reason behind it is because I was writing about me. A topic that I know very well and sincerely care about. The expository essay was the hardest essay for me. I think the main reason for it is because I was confused about a few things like in-text citations. I had trouble knowing what to do when the information you need is not provided. For the critical argument essay I was able to choose my topic, so I choose to write about the representation of minorities. I think I did well on that essay because I was passionate about what I was saying.
One of the objectives of the course was to learn about “a variety of genres and rhetorical situations. I feel that I have accomplished this because I know what genre and rhetorical situations are. In the class I learned that there are two main genres: fiction and nonfiction. Under these two categories fall many other sub genres. For example, a biography, informative piece, and autobiography are all subgenres of nonfiction. Some of the subgenres that fall under fiction are: science fiction, historical fiction, and fantasy.
In class we also learned about different ways of persuading a person. We learned the terms, ethos, logos, and pathos. I had known about these terms from a previous class, so I was confident and comfortable with the material. These terms were extremely useful for when I wanted to convince someone to agree with me. More times than others I used ethos as my strategy. I do this because I feel that if you her and advice from someone you trust or from an authority figure you are more prone to listen to that person. I think that pathos is the most difficult strategy to use because you don’t know what type of person your reader is. They might not get sentimental about the same things that others do. Logos isn’t as tricky but it has it’s complications. As the writer you are trying to convince the reader that your side of the argument is more logistical. However, what’s logic to some is not logic to others.
One of the things I really struggled with was the concept of in-text citation. I had difficulty remembering when to use the in-text citation. I would sometimes paraphrase the writer’s words using my own words. For a while I didn’t know that I was supposed to cite for that. Even when I did know what to do, I had trouble figuring out what to do if a piece of information was missing. Most times a source doesn’t state how the author of the piece is, or there won’t be any page numbers. I had difficulty trying to figure out what to do in those cases so I would either just put the name of the text, if there wasn’t an author or I would just put the author’s name if there was no page numbers. I eventually was able to make a successful in-text citation. Thankfully, the source I used for the in-text citation had the page numbers and the author’s name.
Throughout the entirety of the class, me and my peers reviewed each other’s work and gave feedback. Many times these peer reviews were extremely useful. I think that sometimes peer reviews are a little difficult to do however. Many times people take peer reviews very personal. One of the things I do to avoid issues like this is point out a compliment in the beginning of the review and at the end. I would start by complimenting something they did well, then talk about the things they need to improve on. I finish the review with another compliment. For the expository essay I reviewed Shanik Alvarez’s paper. My review went as follows:
“Dear Shanik,
I really like the flow of your essay, you have written it very nicely. The first thing I noticed was your title. I think that you should change it to a more creative title that tells the readers what the essay is going to be about. Many writers use a phrase that stood out in their paper. Just as a reminder, in MLA Format, the numbers are written out. In the introduction of the paper you talk about different methods of puppet therapy. On your paper I wrote that you should expand on those therapies and you did. I liked how you explained each different method when it presented itself in your evidence. You ended your introductory by saying “All of these methods give exceptional results” and I think you should leave this sentence for later in the essay, maybe in the conclusion. The statement shows an opinion that shows your reader what side you are on already. The reader might lose interest after that. Your quoting was somewhat confusing for me, you quote the person that the author was talking about. There are some points that I believe you should expand on like when you introduce Michael White. Another MLA formatting issue that I saw was that the text was a different color towards the end of the essay. I think you could also expand on the points that you talked about in your counterclaim. They way you concluded your essay was very well through out”.
As for the peer reviews written for me, I take all of them into consideration. One of the peer reviews that was made for my essay was written by Amanda Blanco and she says “ Starting from the beginning, your thesis statement was very clear and I found it easily in the introduction. Your format on the “who” “should” do what is good and does not need much change but there are many flaws in your writing that you can fix. I saw that throughout the essay you used subjective voice and said your opinion which you are not to post to do in argumentative writing. Be mindful when using certain words as stay clear from “I” and “we” which you used a lot. You demonstrated a need for action but you need to strengthen the “why” one would need to see this. I was able to identify your synthesis just work on the little details but there was no conclusion. Adding a conclusion would strengthen your paper. You also had 3 pages not meeting the minimum requirements which would deduct many points. Work on In-text citation you did not use the correct format to address it nor used it all. Refer back to NFG for additional information. Also, you had a quote that was over 4 lines so like Professor Ewan said you need to do a different format. But overall I was able to understand your argument and you supported it well with sufficient evidence”.
For as long as I can remember, I have hated making outlines and planning for essays. I always just liked to dive right in. But for my FIQWS essays I began to make outlines. I would write about what was going to go into each essay. I would add lots of details and thoughts into the outline. I think this is what really helped me.
In the college class I took before FIQWS, we used Chicago style for our writings. The professor wasn’t too strict on the formatting. MLA format is what was used in my high school classes but we didn’t use things like in text citation and work cited pages. Already knowing the format, it wasn’t too hard for me to understand what I was supposed to do but the quoting was something I had a bit of trouble in.
I learned a lot in this class and I know I will continue to use the things I learned in the class in my life. There are some things that I had already known from previous experience like logos, pathos, and ethos. However, most of the material was completely new to me. I had to make many adjustments mentally. For example, for a while I compared Chicago style of writing with MLA instead of just focusing on MLA. this class taught me so much and I look forward to using that knowledge for classes to come.
