Kaitlin Matheny

Prof Enos

ENG 111 W03

3 December 2017

Critical Reflection

I know majority of students would probably write about how much they feel they have

learned or improved on throughout the semester. I am not the majority of students. I attended a

high school that offered Advanced Placement classes, I took two. I took Literature and I took

English Language and Composition. Now, in those classes I learned a lot. I learned to avoid

fillers like can and be and is. I learned how to substitute those with other words when possible. I

learned how to parallel a sentence. I learned how to use complex words meant to captivate and

challenge the reader. Another great thing that I learned through those classes was a great amount

of transition words. In addition to those classes, I have already participated in a College level

English class equivalent to this one (due to financial circumstances, I do not have access to those

credits, so here I am) at a small private college roughly two and a half hours south of Mount

Pleasant. While in that class, I learned about how to write for an explication, a synthesis, a

persuasive, and an argumentative essay. Everything I learned there replicates everything a first-

time student would be learning in this same class, except problematizing. The concept itself I

have a slight understanding of. A problem that is not just something simple like education having

a problem. It would be more like the effects views of authority has on a students education I

will elaborate more on this in a moment.

 Moreover, due to my experiences, I have the tendency to structure sentences differently

than the majority of my peers and use words others might not use. I know from having my

papers peer reviewed by other students and even my best friend, that the way I write can be

confusing to some or can be misinterpreted. The way I write, I try to write with a purpose and I

try to make it sound like I am writing for a purpose. I do not like to sound bland and like I am

just rambling on. For example, in my second AMS proposal, I titled it Size Matters. To me, the

phrase had so many preexisting meanings, therefore it was a sense of humor along with

something to grab the readers attention. But that was something I was suggested to change.

Another example was when I compared a cluttered classroom with one professor to a size six

woman trying to fit into a size two. I grasped that it was slightly irrelevant and may have not

been the best comparison, but it illustrated what I was trying to say. That ended up being

something else that was suggested I should change. I am probably capable of making

comparisons that relate better to each other that also show what I am trying to say, but doing so

does not always have the same effect as I feel otherwise. It just seems plain. So, to me where I

should speak plainly of the topic I am to write about, it can feel near impossible. Then, when I

attempt to be simple, I feel like I simplify it down too much and it becomes too plain. I have not

really found that middle ground. But back to problematizing Contrarily to how I write, when

something is being explained to me, especially certain things, the way my mom puts it is like

explaining it to a child. So, for the way problematizing was originally explained made zero sense

to me. I learned more from google about what it meant than I did in this class.

When I got feedback from the first reading of my AMS paper, I already knew the

scenario thing would probably not be something accepted. But I did not expect some of the other

criticism that I received. Like I had emailed about, where I thought I had analysis and it was
backing up what I was saying was perceived as summary. When I asked how to distinguish

between the two, the answer I got back did not really help my understanding. Again, learning

more from google than this class. Google states analysis is detailed examination of the elements

or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation. So when Freire

goes through his description of the banking concept, my analysis would be If there were money

to be deposited, the more money there was, the better the bank account would look. Therefore,

the more acts of deposition extended to the maximum capacity, the better the teacher would

seem. Whereas, the more submissive the students are, the better they make for such deposition.

That is the banking concept of education (Freire Explication). Where a summary would be

something like, the teacher deposit information to the students and the students never really

grasp at what they are being taught. Another problem I experienced was the fact that I was not

told until the first reading was done that I did not need so much background of the sources. I was

taught to never assume the audience knows who or what is being discussed, so automatically I

include a summary about the source for the audience to relate to. At no point did I think that I

was to just know the audience was going to know about these sources

All in all, I do not mean for anything said to be taken as an insult. I am just one student to

the many. I was to reflect upon my experiences within the class; where I was then and where I

am now. To me, I have the same knowledge (minus the new articles I have read and knowing

what jargon and discourse community means) I did at the beginning of the class. The major

difference being the amount of stress I have, knowing one majorly irritating paper determines

whether I pass or fail no matter any other grade I have in the class