I am Diego Villamizar, a future computer science major at City College of New York. I plan to attend The Grove School of Engineering once I am eligible to apply. I firmly achieved most of the learning outcomes from The Writing for Engineering Course. Previous to this course, I had only worked with stories, poems, and articles; in other words, The Writing For Engineering Course challenged me by demonstrating different formats of writing that are more data-based. I grew as a writer because I have learned to consider my audience, read my sources profoundly, draft, persuade the reader, communicate, collaborate on ideas, provide visuals, research, and analyze the sources throughout the assignments of the Writing For Engineering Course.

When interacting with my classmates, I noticed that many of us had not mastered the English language. To aid my audience’s (classmates’) understanding of the concepts presented and deepen my ability to use concise word choice, I decided to simplify the language used in my Technical Description. In Figure 1, I was describing one of the internal components of an office stapler: the throat. For the description of the throat component, I thought of saying: “Office staplers’ throats vary depending on the model”. Nevertheless, to secure my audience’s retention of the content, I stated: “An office stapler’s throat differs from one model to another”. This is solely one of many phrase simplifications that I thought about while completing this assignment. In conclusion, I did fulfill the Acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources and drew on those resources to develop rhetorical sensibility course learning outcome by simplifying the content language of my Technical Description.

This class helped me become a better reader of others’ works. For my Lab Report Analysis, I noticed the content of the sources was much more dense than what I had previously read before this course. Nonetheless, I noticed that confusing content was usually explained in some part of the source. An example would be from the article: Alcohol is a risk factor for helmet non-use and fatalities in off-road vehicle and motorcycle crashes by Kureshi et al. where it used the term “BAC” in the “Data Collection” section but never explained what it meant for a portion of the article. As I kept reading, I noticed that it explained what it was: blood alcohol concentration. This minute piece of information supported my comprehension of the source’s content. In Figure 2, there is an annotation made by me when I was reading this article to remind me that it explained what BAC meant, which was confusing my understanding of the material.

This class helped my drafting skills because for all assignments, the format was a key point to achieve the objectives of a proper paper. I improved by creating multiple drafts of the assignments. For example, as I had simplified my Technical Description by using a language suitable for my classmates and any unfamiliar individuals with mechanical objects, I thought there was no need for a glossary section (Figure 3). Nevertheless, Professor Metenko provided me with verbal feedback stating that a glossary section was required. By following his feedback, I created the glossary section (Figure 4), and I added the term “strip of staples” (Figure 5) to the glossary (Figure 4), which is something that I had not explained throughout the components, and was important for the reader to understand, as it was related to the magazine component.

I evaluated my own progress in this class by creating a plan for drafting and revising my work. With multiple revisions, I was able to correct grammar mistakes and inconsistent sentences. In my Technical Description, by using Professor Metenko’s feedback (Figure 6), I flipped my original sentence: “On a flat surface with the base stable, due to the pin’s rotation, the handle could be moved upwards” to “The handle could be moved upwards on a flat surface with the base stable, due to the pin’s rotation” to make the new sentence more concise (Figure 7). Additionally, I was informed to eliminate “Due to” and “the pusher” to not confuse the reader (Figure 6). Therefore, the original sentence: “Due to the coil spring, the pusher automatically pushes the staples to the front of the magazine’s space” was switched to “The coil spring automatically pushes the staples to the front of the magazine’s space”. As a result, the sentences were more direct when my work was revised (Figure 7). Finally, I did achieve the enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment course learning outcome by deeply reading the source for my Lab Report Analysis; as well as adding a glossary, and making a new draft for my Technical Description.

I did adapt my writing for a different purpose, because different from my previous works (Technical Description and Lab Report Analysis) listed in the previous paragraphs, which were mostly informative and collecting data, my Memorandum was used to persuade the reader (Dr. Vincent Boudreau, City College President) about the issue of limited parking spots for students in the NAC parking lot and how it can be solved. Facing the issue, I provided a solution by stating that investing in a multi-level parking structure would be key to ensure a commodity for students (Figure 8). To create a strong base for my argument, I delivered data to portray the significance of the issue at hand. I achieved an impactful point by citing the low percentage of students who could potentially have a spot in the NAC parking lot (Figure 9). I accomplished the Negotiate your own writing goals and audience expectations regarding conventions of genre, medium, and rhetorical situation and Formulate and articulate a stance through and in your writing course learning outcomes by persuading the reader with relevant information and key data to prove my point in my Memorandum.

I did interact with other students in the class because, despite the absence of most group members’ participation for the Proposal, I was able to effectively communicate with one of my peers to collaborate on our respective parts via text messages. Our Proposal was incomplete in terms of format; nevertheless, Alexandra Alarcon and I managed to work and complete our sections. As described in the personnel of the proposal, I was responsible for the title, abstract, and personnel, while Alarcon worked on the introduction, literature review, and references sections (Figure 10). Additionally, we helped each other on our sections to provide a more complete Proposal. I noticed that communicating together in a call to make edits to the assigned and unassigned sections was beneficial for the final draft of the proposal (Figure 11). Overall, I reached the Develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes course learning outcome by facing adversity and effectively communicating with those who were available in the Proposal.

I evaluated different writing formats for this classroom and achieved the skills necessary for building a portfolio because in this class, I learned how to add images and text to images. Descriptions are necessary when providing images to explain the function that the image serves in the text. As I was finishing my conclusion section in my Technical Description, I wanted to add the result of using an office stapler to place a staple. Therefore, to ensure the reader’s understanding, I wanted to help them visualize a front and back view of correctly placed staples by providing an adequate image and proper description (Figure 12). Since I exclusively worked in Google Docs, to insert images and descriptions, I pressed the options: “Insert”, “Drawing”, and “New” to portray the visuals (Figure 13). Ultimately, I achieved the Engage in genre analysis and multimodal composing to explore effective writing across disciplinary contexts and beyond course learning outcome by providing the reader with effective visuals in my Technical Description.

I did use the CCNY library to find sources by typing the word “Motorcycle”, which was a topic I was interested in for my Lab Report Analysis (Figure 14). Consequently, through using the filters to the left of the page, I eventually found my two sources for my Lab Report Analysis: Alcohol is a risk factor for helmet non-use and fatalities in off-road vehicle and motorcycle crashes by Kureshi et al. and Motorcycle injuries: a systematic review for forensic evaluation by Giovannini et al. (Figure 15 and Figure 16) I am unable to distinguish a good source from a bad source and that is something that needs to be improved as it is crucial when evaluating and writing papers. Lastly, I did not fully complete the Practice using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to your writing projects course learning outcome because, despite knowing how to navigate through the CCNY library, I remain unable to separate a good source from a bad source.

I had to use outside sources in my Technical Description writing. I can highly distinguish when to quote, summarize, or paraphrase. I usually quote the key point of a text, summarize what is relevant for the key point, and paraphrase when I feel that the author has done an excellent job of writing an idea. An example of good paraphrasing was turning the text from Gillentine’s article (Figure 17) to my Technical Description’s introduction (Figure 18) to address the stapler models and how they had evolved into the office stapler. I distinguish the source information that I am going to be using quickly; Before reading, I know what evidence or what information I am looking for. I did include a bibliography named Works Cited Page at the end of my Technical Description. Additionally, in-text citations were placed when they were required (Figure 18). Nevertheless, I still think I lack mastery in using signaling phrases to distinguish my ideas from the ideas of my sources, as the assignments required more information than personal analysis. To summarize, I did not achieve the Strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources) course learning outcome because despite having efficient summarization, quoting, paraphrasing, and finding evidence, and citing skills, my concept of signaling phrases is ineffective when writing papers.

Ultimately, the areas that I need to improve the most are the practice using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to your writing projects and strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources) course learning outcome because of my inability to differentiate a good source from a bad source and my inefficient use of signaling phrases to distinguish my ideas from the sources utilized. I will apply what I have learned in my academic future and career by considering my audience, reading my sources profoundly, drafting, persuading the reader, communicating, and collaborating on ideas, providing visuals, researching, and analyzing the sources.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.