Reflection on Project 2

1.  What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
     There were more local than global changes. Reading through my rough draft, there were times that I changed small conventions and other little things, but there were a couple times that I changed the organization of sentences. For example, here are 3 specific changes that I made from the rough draft to the final draft:
From: "There are many ways that technology is increasing and robotics is one of the most profound." to "Technology is increasing rapidly, and robotics is one of the most profound areas of improvement within the technology sector."
From: "People who are informed about the issue of rapidly increasing technology look to understand..."
to "Technologically informed people seek an understanding..."
From: "Valez believes that, in the working class, robots will aid productivity and allow the economy to boom because of it."
to "Valez believes that robots will aid productivity in the working class and allow the economy to boom because of it."

2.  Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
     I did not change my overall organization or thesis in this specific draft. With the planning and previous posts on this project, I felt as though my overall global organization was pretty good. I changed my thesis from the planning stage to the draft stage, but not from the draft stage to the final copy.

3.  What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
     Peer reviews led me to the change of thesis. I decided that the thesis that I used before hand did not flow as smoothly as the most recent thesis. I also felt like the current thesis was more to the point.

4.  How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
     These changes do not drastically affect my credibility as an author. If anything, my credibility is greater than it was before because my writing sounds more formal and free-flowing with the change to my thesis.

5.  How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
     These changes will better address the audience because it is simpler to read. My audience will have an easier time being the current edit of my paper and will be entertained because of its ease.

6.  Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
     The three examples from the beginning of this post are all examples of local changes. Looking back on the "Clarity" section from RFW book, I realized that there were some instances in my final copy that did not have good organization or made my writing seem passive.

7.  How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
     I changed these sentences in order to make my work more readable and better understood.  It better achieved my purpose because of the new ease of reading. Similar to the "global" changes, these small changes will not greatly affect my purpose. As a matter of fact, these changes do not truly affect my purpose whatsoever.

8.  Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
     The conventions of the genre were not greatly reconsidered. As stated before, there were a few small instances that the conventions of the locality of the paper were reconsidered and acted upon, but the changes were not large and did not change the paper much at all.

9.  Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
     The process of reflection allows me to see where I am struggling and where I am excelling. This allows me to focus on those excelling parts in the future and try to shy away from the type of writing in which I struggle. When I revise papers of mine, I develop a deeper understand of what I am capable of and thus, I allow myself to better my writing for the future.