CIE100: Common Intellectual Experience - Writing Fellow Meeting Reflection (10 Points)

Assignment Goals

The goals of this assignment are:
  1. To reflect upon one's writing to improve structure and content
  2. To develop strategies for persuasive writing and communication

The Assignment

Reflection Instructions and Guidelines

In this reflection, you will meet with your writing fellow to review your most recent essay draft. In this meeting, you will review specific strategies and feedback to revise your paper, and to elevate the structure and content quality of your writing in general.

To thoughtfully approach these meetings, it is important that you:

  1. Provide an earnest rough draft of your writing that represents an honest and thorough attempt to complete the essay. A rough draft does not mean an incomplete draft: the structure of your paper should be such that you could turn it in as-is. Rather, the rough nature of your paper should represent the presentation of raw materials and thoughts that would benefit from re-structuring and re-organizing for synthesis. You should not have empty or half-written sections in your rough draft; otherwise, your writing fellow will not have any material to work with you about and to comment upon.

  2. Prepare for your meeting with questions to ask about the state of your paper. You can (and are encouraged to) devise your own questions. Here are several possibilities you may also choose from:

1. Thesis and Argumentation:

  • What is your impression of the thesis statement? Is it clear and concise?
  • Do the arguments support the thesis effectively?
  • Are there any logical fallacies or inconsistencies in the argumentation?
  • How can I strengthen the connection between the thesis and supporting evidence?

2. Structure and Organization:

  • Is the paper organized in a logical manner?
  • Do the transitions between paragraphs and sections flow smoothly?
  • Are there areas where the structure could be improved for better clarity?
  • How can I ensure that each paragraph serves a specific purpose in the argument?

3. Content and Analysis:

  • Are the key concepts and terms defined adequately?
  • Is there sufficient analysis and interpretation of the evidence?
  • Are there areas where more depth or detail is needed?
  • How can I balance between descriptive content and critical analysis?

4. Style and Tone:

  • Is the writing style appropriate for the intended audience?
  • Are there any issues with the tone, such as being too informal or overly complex?
  • How can I make the language more engaging without losing academic rigor?
  • Are there any repetitive phrases or words that need to be varied?

5. Citations and Academic Integrity:

  • Are all sources cited properly according to the required citation style?
  • Is there any unintentional plagiarism or paraphrasing that needs to be addressed?
  • How can I integrate quotations more effectively without disrupting the flow?
  • Are there any missing references that need to be included?

6. Grammar and Mechanics:

  • Have you noticed any recurring grammatical errors?
  • Are there issues with punctuation, spelling, or syntax that need correction?
  • How can I improve sentence variety and avoid monotonous patterns?
  • Are there any sentences that are too long and need to be broken down?

7. Feedback and Revision:

  • What are the strongest aspects of the paper, and how can I build on them?
  • What are the main areas for improvement, and what strategies do you recommend for addressing them?
  • How can I prioritize revisions to make the most significant impact?

What to Submit

After your writing fellow meeting, write a 1-2 page reflection that summarizes the talking points from your meeting, with a specific aim of commenting on those topics that will help you to elevate your writing in the future. What are a few things that you’ll take away from this meeting as you write in the future (both within this course and beyond)? Additionally, discuss how you intend to revise your paper, including specific examples of sections, sentences, or structures within your paper that you feel require revision based on the feedback you received. Include the questions you asked your writing fellow in your reflection for reference, and discuss the responses that you received.

Submission

In your submission, please include answers to any questions asked on the assignment page in your README file. If you wrote code as part of this assignment, please describe your design, approach, and implementation in your README file as well. Finally, include answers to the following questions:
  • Describe what you did, how you did it, what challenges you encountered, and how you solved them.
  • Please answer any questions found throughout the narrative of this assignment.
  • If collaboration with a buddy was permitted, did you work with a buddy on this assignment? If so, who? If not, do you certify that this submission represents your own original work?
  • Please identify any and all portions of your submission that were not originally written by you (for example, code originally written by your buddy, or anything taken or adapted from a non-classroom resource). It is always OK to use your textbook and instructor notes; however, you are certifying that any portions not designated as coming from an outside person or source are your own original work.
  • Approximately how many hours it took you to finish this assignment (I will not judge you for this at all...I am simply using it to gauge if the assignments are too easy or hard)?
  • Your overall impression of the assignment. Did you love it, hate it, or were you neutral? One word answers are fine, but if you have any suggestions for the future let me know.
  • Using the grading specifications on this page, discuss briefly the grade you would give yourself and why. Discuss each item in the grading specification.
  • Any other concerns that you have. For instance, if you have a bug that you were unable to solve but you made progress, write that here. The more you articulate the problem the more partial credit you will receive (it is fine to leave this blank).

Assignment Rubric

Description Pre-Emerging (< 50%) Beginning (50%) Progressing (85%) Proficient (100%)
Reflective Discussion of the Meeting with Writing Fellow (40%) Lacks reflection on the meeting or provides only superficial or irrelevant details. Reflects on the meeting but lacks depth, insight, or connection to the writing process. Provides thoughtful reflection on the meeting, including some insights and connections to the writing process, but may lack specificity or originality. Provides deep and insightful reflection on the meeting, including specific details, connections to the writing process, and thoughtful analysis of the interaction.
Summary of Revisions Made or Planned to the Essay (30%) Lacks summary of revisions or provides only vague or irrelevant details. Summarizes revisions but lacks clarity, specificity, or connection to the feedback received. Provides clear summary of revisions with some connection to feedback received but may lack depth or comprehensive understanding of changes. Provides detailed and clear summary of revisions, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of changes made or planned, and a strong connection to feedback received.
Reflection about Broad Improvements to Writing Style Moving Forward (30%) Lacks reflection on broad improvements or provides only superficial or irrelevant details. Reflects on broad improvements but lacks depth, specificity, or connection to personal writing development. Provides thoughtful reflection on broad improvements with some specificity and connection to personal writing development but may lack depth or comprehensive understanding. Provides deep and insightful reflection on broad improvements, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of personal writing development and a thoughtful plan for future growth.

Please refer to the Style Guide for code quality examples and guidelines.