This first half of the semester has been a slow start for me in my efforts to better myself

as a writer. As I should, I set a goals to become stronger as an academic writer in a few ways, and
the midterm of the semester is a good time to check up on those efforts. Sadly, I believe I still
have a long way to go before I am able to connect the relationships between the topic, writer, and
reader before I even start writing what I have to write. I am still in a stage of actually answering
those items as I am already writing. With practice I hope to be naturally able to answer those
questions before I even start working on the assignment. Its strange, considering a writer really
SHOULD do that before anything else, including the format/layout of his/her paper. However, I
seem to pretty well-versed in understand how I will order my information in a writing
assignment. The downfall for myself in this is, Im not 100% as to what my material is supposed
to tackle. I have developed a habit of swinging in the dark.
My first artifact is a little unorthodox, but it works for its purpose. My whole Greek life
paper, which I will spare the text-box for, is an example of my faulty preparation of my writings.
Instead of a particular piece within the writing, the writing itself as a whole is off from what we
were expected to do. I didnt grasp that the purpose behind this was to show, through a narrative,
and not tell, what Greek life has done to me. I hurt my performance simply because I
summarized when I should of known to emphasize. I chose to display this artifact first because I
feel that the room for growth in this field is the most important. Personally, this is the best way to
show the value of understanding the relationships between reader, purpose, and writer. Theres
nothing more strong-suggesting than a paper that was written a completely wrong way. When
making a mistake this extensive, youre left with the responsibility of having to re-write or reformat your whole piece.

My second artifact is a search grid that was a half-way failure because of my issues that I
defined in the first artifact. This search grid emphasizes the writers ability to evaluate an article
as a reader.
Question

Source

Summary

evaluate

What is
ISIS?

http://news.discovery.com/history/vide
os/what-is-isis-video-140623.htm

ISIS is a
group of
Syrian and
Iraqi Sunni
Arabs, who
strive to
create their
own state.
They are
militant
jihadists.

This, even
though it is
biased, is a
good source
because they
explain well
the origin
and values of
the
organization.

What is
ISIS?

http://www.rt.com/news/166836-isisisil-al-qaeda-iraq/

ISIS is a
group that
tries to take
over the
cities that
hold value to
Iraq. They
are from the
development
of al-Qaeda

This is a
biased
article, but I
would take
info from it
because I
agree.

Is there a
cure for
cancer?

http://www.sott.net/article/228583Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-onetakes-notice

Scientists did
find a cure
for cancer
that nobody
cares about.

I think that
this article is
somewhat
true but not
a reliable
source of
information.

Is there a
cure for
cancer?

http://greatdreams.com/cancercure.htm

A stranger on
the internet
found the
cure for
cancer, and
the lord
helped him

As an atheist
I would not
utilize this
source as a
reliable piece
of
information.

find it.

Even though I misinterpreted the actual purpose of the assignment Search Grid, I was able to
evaluate these articles based on the origins of their bias. With this, it is easier to understand
which way the information that youre receiving is leaning. This is important because most
writing material has some form of bias to it that can alter the information you take in. I make an
active effort when I read biased articles to filter out raw facts and know when what Im reading
may not be valuable material. This helps you, as a writer, from damaging your own credibility by
referencing untrustworthy data. If the reader struggles to extract the right information, then
he/she will also struggle furthermore as a writer when trying to replicate that information.
My third artifact is the introduction to my Greek life paper, where you can see hints of
the organization process through the rest of the piece.

Some may recognize this introductory approach as something they have traditionally done back
in High School. I normally set up my introduction so that it can lead into the first point in a
manner where it seems most relevant to the adjacent paragraphs. By first talking about the
extinguishing of Greek stereotypes, it brings in the next relevant window of those actual
stereotypes. I purposely end that section in a way that the next topic, which would be actual
morals observed in Greek life, flows comfortably off of the previous topic.
In order to better myself as a writer, I must first tackle my weaknesses. I have come to
understand my faults in grasping the rhetorical knowledge needed to proceed into writing. I felt
that the best way to better myself in the way that I mentioned in the first article is ask myself the
questions that need answering before starting my writing. If I can tackle the purpose of the paper
before-hand, I will have a better time writing around the right topic once Im knee-deep in the
writing. Just like in other fields, writing things out when its not second nature to practice it can
only help you. In the same way, I should probably take notes to better myself as a critical reader.
This would help me remember everything visually as to what I learned and collected. The best
thing for me to do as a writer to better myself is continue to write things out, whether its notes
from an article, the purposes to what I write in the first place, or an organization map of how I
want to write my piece.