In reviewing the grading rubric/check list, I find that many of the the pointers/ pieces of advice have been beneficial to my writing/ editing process.
One of these pieces being among the “watch out for” sections. One that I found particularly relevant at this stage of my revising process is the “watch out for: a scattered intro that crams too much.” When I initially sit down to write my introduction I find that I get caught up in trying to portray my topic to my reader in a creative way that sometimes the intention behind my paper and the clarity of it gets blurred among all the creative ideas in my head.
With this being said I am also paying close attention to whether or not my ideas are “front and center and [whether or not] they reflect a deep understanding of the texts with which I engage.” Like I previously mentioned I tend to get excited about all of these creative ideas in my head that sometimes I veer off of the path in which I need to take in order to continue on a consistent topic path. So, this is something I am paying close attention to at this point.
Additionally, I found one pointer in the rubric particularly confusing to me at first. In the section “writer as driver” the rubric states “Have you used synthesis to create new meaning?” This is something that I intentionally thought “wait what?” and had to look more into in order to apply the tip to my own work.
Lastly, in the organization section of the rubric is a tip that poses the question: “Does your paper follow a logical path? Does each paragraph lead naturally one to the other?” This is something that will be at the forefront of my mind as I work towards finally calling my paper a final draft, I consider it the “re-read and polish stage” because at this point, i’m kind of going over more “housekeeping” type tasks to ensure that my paper flows to the reader just as it does to me as the writer.
