Prior to my Writing 101 experience, I would rush through essays as quickly as possible. Free Response Questions on AP exams conditioned me to prioritize getting ideas down on paper in a timely manner above all else. What little revision I added to my essays were to fix spelling or small grammatical errors. The use of templates to create structured arguments in Writing 101 only fueled my rushing problems. Cathy Birkenstein & Gerald Graff address writers like me by stating “… in most cases when students do merely superficial revisions, it’s not because they are indifferent or lazy,” claiming instead that “They aren’t sure what a good revision looks like.” (Birkenstein and Graff 149). Although the most difficult, learning to take a step back and critically read through my writing became the most effective method to improving my revisions. In this essay, I will provide specific examples of the topics in Writing 101 which demonstrate the importance of slowing down when making impactful revisions to template writing.
A large portion of Writing 101 was dedicated to learning how to use templates which prompted writers to add necessary criteria to a pre-built sentence for an argument. The originality came when the templates were blended by replacing the conventional writing with my own transitions and phrases. At the beginning of the course, I struggled with getting the template writing out of my work. In my first essay, I tackled the ethics of AI use in academic writing, critiquing a scholar warning his audience against the reliance of formulaic AI writing. I stated “ Though I do disagree with much Kirschenbaum [the scholar] states, I fully endorse his conclusion that the overuse of AI tools in writing will result in an increase of mundane, uninspiring works.” Elaborating with “On the other hand, I believe that AI, understood correctly, as a remixer to what has already been written, makes for a powerful tool in the arsenal of a writer looking for fresh perspective in their writing.” Both sentences clearly use templates with no revision making for unoriginal writing with clutter and filler words. Later in the semester I learned how to start with a template, but then blend the formulaic structure to the rest of my essay with modified transition words and phrases. My third essay details the inner workings of the FBI’s data collection system and how it connects to mass incarceration. I assert “The War on Crime was likely paid for by the additional funding the FBI received through the inflation of crime statistics illuminating the connection between the mass incarceration of minority groups, and the FBI’s misrepresentation of crime data with the [Uniform Crime Reporting Program].” I originally wrote the sentence with a template but proceeded to remove the generic structure to more successfully highlights the connection between FBI funding and mass incarceration. The process took considerably longer, but the blended template more effectively supports the central argument with my own words. My writing greatly improved when I took a step back, thought through what I wanted to communicate, and then transitioned those thoughts into words.
The primary issue I had with slowly revising my writing, word for word, was becoming too critical and thus unable to produce any content at all. On my second essay, I spent hours fearful of writing unacceptable work after the criticism I received on the first essay. Scholar Ann Lamott addresses this common issue with her “shitty first draft” method. She claims “almost all good writing begins with terrible first efforts. You need to start somewhere. Start by getting something- anything down on paper” (Lamott 25). By beginning my drafts without overthinking, I conquered my fear of writing before going back and thoroughly revising my work. Part of the process was understanding, as Lamott states, “writing is not rapturous. In fact, the only way I can get anything written at all, is to write really, really shitty first drafts” (Lamott 22). I plan to implement this strategy moving forward to not only save time, but to ensure all my thoughts land on paper, leaving only the most important topics for the final draft. Silencing the fear of drafting has proven difficult and will be an aspect of writing I will always struggle with and seek to improve upon.
Beyond sentence structure and drafting, I have enhanced my ability to use outside evidence in a way which supports but does not overshadow my central arguments after using a template. My first essay featured an example of how AI collects patterns in human writing off the internet to demonstrate how AI uses pre-existing text as opposed to synthesizing original prompts. I wrote: “I Asked the AI tool, Chat GPT to write a speech based off Martin Luther King Jr’s writing style. The essay produced was a fiery speech promoting equality and justice for all. powerful metaphors, rhythm, and repetition were littered throughout the essay as if it were written by MLK himself.” Instead of supporting my claim that generative AI should remain in society, the evidence worked against me by scaring away readers who mistrusted AI’s ability to copy human speech. I learned later in the semester to carefully read through my work and ask myself if my evidence supported the main claim. The most helpful peer feedback I received throughout the semester was the sections where my writing had no clear correlation between the claim and the supporting evidence. To stay aware of this move in future writing, I must remind myself to slow down my revision process and thoroughly think through how my evidence connects to the rest of the writing the same way I blend templates.
I share the same perspective as Graff and Birkenstein, who support template writing to ensure all aspects of an argument feature in an essay. I would elaborate further that the strategy only works if writers are whiling to make careful revisions afterwards to strengthen their argument. Moving forward, the art of slowing down will be crucial in the abstract writing I will synthesize in Philosophy classes. Additionally, As I delve deeper into the natural sciences at Davidson, I plan to hone my ability to effectively represent the hypotheses I feature in papers with meticulous revision. The key takeaway from my writing 101 experience was learning to invest the extra time and stress associated with tedious revision to developed clear and thoughtful writing.
Link to Annotated Final Essays:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q5i7Y22SJFb6EcGTkRyFth8m7oO_fG2uG7NwDJivu3I/edit?usp=sharing
Citations:
Birkenstein, Cathy. Graff, Gerald, They Say I Say. Chicago, Illinois, Norton and Company, 2021
Lamott, Anne. “Shitty First Drafts”. Bird by Bird. Edited by Linda Taylor, Anchor Books, 1994, pages 20-27