12918_eo2346_1020F2013 1
Expanding Upon Learning Outcomes
Through these past five assignments I have grown as a writer. In the beginning of the
semester I was a bit confident with my level of writing because I took two years of AP English
classes and spent my freshman year learning about archetypes and analyzing writing. Since
English is one of my favorite subjects and reading is a pastime I am quite passionate about, I
thought this would be a great class. Especially since I love to analyze works of literature to figure
out what an author means to communicate. That confidence dropped when I received the
instructions and expectation of Project One. I was lost and confused. I knew how to write a
research paper, but four years of high school taught me to keep my voice on a leash and not
express my personal argument through first hand words. I became use to masking my voice and
expressing the arguments of others. To suddenly reflect upon what I wanted to say to an
audience was intimidating.
Reading
Through reflection of Project 2, I have found that my reading skills have developed into
to those of a critical thinker. These are shown through my learning outcomes of reading. During
Project 2 I watched and evaluated Jennifer Seibel’s documentary Miss Representation.
In the documentary Miss Representation, Jennifer Seibel reveals that
the media has strongly influenced American’s population to sexualize women
through the use of self-objectifying pathos, and focusing more on materialistic
appearances than messages. The argument is evaluation through sexualizing
media sources, which demonstrate resemblance in mashes of topics similar to the
one evaluated, as well as a collection of proposals asserting why these sources are
so effective. These arguments supported visually by a number of strategies
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 2
including the explicit creation of pathos, the ethos of the director herself and her
speakers, and persuasive testimonies (pro 2, par 3).
Within this excerpt, I identified the main appeals used by the author. In my thesis sentence of
Project 2, I was able to identify and evaluate, not solely rhetorical strategies, but also how they
were essential to Seibel’s argument. I found this identification process to be quite challenging
because the media form I evaluated was a documentary. Unlike a printed text in which
highlighting and contemplation of thought over the words on paper can be done, I had to
repeatedly pause, rewind, and replay a single message to transcript it for further translation and
evaluation. I often caught myself becoming more of a passive viewer than active viewer while
trying to find key claims to analyze.
I find that I have become more of an active reader through the ‘reading’ I did with the
Miss Representation documentary. I recognized strategies used in the documentary as the
director tried to break through to her audience. Many emotional attempts were made quite
successfully. After Project 2 I felt as if I become more able to read on a number of levels,
identify main claims, see larger parts of a message and even supporting roles. This benefits me as
a reader because I usually the text I evaluate does not move and contain dialogue to heard
conversationally. Since I made it through a documentary and paid attention to the key points, I
fell more confident in doing so with unmoving text.
This project received a high grade because I met the requirements of not only the criteria,
but also my learning outcomes.
Criteria Three: Coherent and unified paragraphs identify specific rhetorical forms,
techniques, or genre conventions, cites or paraphrases appropriate examples, and
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 3
offers smart insight into why these are important (or interesting) to the argument
being analyzed.
The content analysis paragraphs show a really strong reading/viewing of the
documentary and its arguments, and that you really know what you’re doing at
this point. There is, however, a need to be more assertive at the end of each of
these paragraphs, establishing YOUR insights into why these moves in the
argument really matter to the argument or why they impact viewers/readers
persuasively (comments on pro 2 by uber-genius rhetorical master Jared Grogan,
B.A. Hons, M.A., PhD, A.B.D).
The comment from my professor shows an accomplished outcome of learning for both reading
and writing. My specific identifications were a result of ‘reading’ Miss Representation to be
aware of when certain information was presented and how it was presented to what effect.
Despite my met reading outcome, I still needed more work with writing.
In my projects, especially Project 2, writing was a reflection of reading and
understanding the material I reviewed. The way the two work hand and hand together. These
learning outcomes serve as the integrated foundation or base for creating the structure of a
writing piece. MY writing. Before I begin writing I have to have an understanding of the key
concepts that I need to identify in the piece.
Writing
What is effective writing? Honestly, an effective writer is a person that grows in research,
reading, and reflection. Effective writing has a strong connection to effective reading.
Effective writing is communicating a message in a way that shows comprehension of a subject in
a comprehendible manner for the audience. Shaping thoughts into words on paper to draw in the
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 4
reader and present to them information. To write effectively one must include knowledge of a
subject. This knowledge is gained through research of that topic and applying any known
information to expand upon.
This class has taught me to think more about myself as the performer in my own show.
My writing is my art and my voice is carried out through the piece I am presenting. Before I saw
myself only as the conductor for the voice of others. Yes I controlled the rhythm, but I only used
the given/seen facts from the material, instead of instruments my own song and opinion. “In
"The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science", Chris Mooney argues people are going to
believe their own views and values over the logical facts and evidence of other individuals. The
argument is an evaluation of credible sources; comparison between people's beliefs and logical
facts; and a proposal to attract a person's values before presenting facts” (“Mooney Makes the
World Go Round”). There are still times in which I need to conduct the message of other
authors. Expressing both my voice, and the vice of another meet the outcome of writing because
I write reflectively using various sources and elements accordingly.
The entire third paragraph of Project 2 is elaborated information about the subtle strategy
used by the director. Music, as a popular media form, was the creative tactic Seibel applied.
In the documentary’s opening, the lyrics to “Help I’m Alive” by Metric create a
vulnerable pathos which connects to emotions felt by [female] viewers. Racing
hearts, fear of messing up or ‘stumbling’ because criticism and verbal attacks are
now online through comments and social media sites, as well as in person.
“They’re gonna eat me alive/if I stumble” (3:12). The media, a reflection of
people, has tendencies to be vicious, especially to women. It is “hard to be
soft/tough to be tender” (3:51) in a society where strength is needed to keep up
with the destruction of self esteem and worth is told to be based upon looks.
Kindness can be considered a weakness, while strength can be seen as b!tchy (pro
2, par 3).
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 5
The vulnerable emotions pointed out at the beginning of this paragraph was expanded upon with
detail from the text and simplified to an overall understandable [and relatable] form. Again,
Resemblance, a key claim expressed visually by Seibel, is put into play and explained. This
paragraph was organized with good support from the text and insight as to why the strategies
used were effective. Genre was touched upon through mention of movies and song lyrics through
the documentary.
Analysis:
What else are women good for other than sexy eye candy? “Through out
any type of mass media there is, we see a widespread acceptance of women as sex
objects” (28:02). In the documentary Miss Representation, Jennifer Seibel reveals
that the media has strongly influenced American’s population to sexualize women
through the use of self-objectifying pathos, and focusing more on materialistic
appearances than messages. The argument is evaluation through sexualizing
media sources, which demonstrate resemblance in mashes of topics similar to the
one evaluated, as well as a collection of proposals asserting why these sources are
so effective. These arguments supported visually by a number of strategies
including the explicit creation of pathos, the ethos of the director herself and her
speakers, and persuasive testimonies (pro 2, par 1).
While watching the documentary I noted elements such as genre, context, discourse community,
claims, evidence, organization, style, rhetorical strategies, and persuasive effects. These varied
technologies were used in my writings. More often then not I had to do a bit of research while
writing about these technologies. Sometimes I would forget them and I needed to see an online
example. Other times I wanted sources to support and counter my argument. This involved
finding material to analyze and evaluate to get the ideas needed for my essays.
Researching
Surprisingly to others, researching is my favorite part of an assignment. Especially for the
projects I worked on this fall semester! I wrote about effects of literacy in the media, and two
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 6
essays related to the way media’s sexualizes women. Researching was so enjoyable because the
topics were fascinating and there were tons of resources to choose from; both for and against my
arguments.
During Project 1 with my focus was on Go Daddy commercials and their shift of
campaign tactics, I included research from the Miss Representation documentary.
Female leads appear to be empowered as they kick butt until a layer or two is
peeled away to reveal the triviality of what they ‘accomplished’. Pozner calls this
a new archetype the “Fighting Fuck Toy” because “even though [the female lead]
is doing things supposedly on her own terms, she is much objectified and exists
for the male viewers” (Miss Representation). Pozner’s archetype is a form of
logos because she presents the logic of her reasoning. When the idea is
contemplated, it makes sense. Patrick and Fusco appeared to be in control of the
commercial as they made the guys do whatever they wanted; however, power still
belonged to the male viewers. Both women remained in towels as they lay next to
each other, slightly wet, in bed (pro 1, par 15).
Writing about the materials I read and researched. These three elements work together for my
understanding. Knowing what information works and what information does not is beneficial as
a student because I have to apply my sources to prove my argument. If I like certain information
but it clearly does not support my argument, what good is it? The answer: none at all. This brings
up the relevance of reflecting over past essays. People improve by learning from mistakes and
using those errors as the blueprints for more structured futures; writing included. Looking back
at a C essay shows me what to avoid and improve on for an A essay.
Reflection
Procedural Knowledge
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 7
In response to Miss Representation, I agree largely with the argument about
the influence of media upon young women in America and that more focus should
be on those representing themselves respectfully in power, but this could be reevaluated to effect more women. Young girls watch the documentary for
inspiration, yet they cannot view the full picture because not enough of that model
is shown. I propose Miss Representation feature more women of diversity because
race is an import factor, and to fulfill its own mission.
Seibel should feature more segments with diverse speakers in Miss
Representation because it can inspire girls with those same diversities. Rachel
Maddow is a lesbian television host, so viewers with the same sexuality, maybe
inspiring to become host themselves, may want to hear more about the difficulties
she mentioned. Of course it is assumed difficulties arise for hosting television;
even more for lesbian and gay hosts; these are not reflected upon in the
documentary. Maddow mentioned hate letters she received as a result of her
show, but only superficially. She could have gone into depth about the road to her
position and stated inspirational words to those watching and looking up to her
(pro , par 7-8).
Through my Response 10 assignment, I made a list of things I would accomplish in a
final revision. The first thing I planned do was go into more depth of my sources! I thought my
essay would have benefitted from additional concepts, facts, skills, and relatable subject
matter to influence my audience. I felt as if I tried to use too many sources in my essay without
going into enough depth for all of them. Thinking more about the concepts could have brought
more to my paper. The more I think about something, usually the more sense it makes.
Therefore, the more I understand it, the more I can explain it. Then I could have explained it and
presented it to my discourse communities!
I would go into more depth to explain and evaluate my sources to assist my proposal. As
I said before, I found numerous sources for my proposal and topic. I actually enjoyed the
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 8
evaluating of Project 2. I felt smart recognizing genre, arguments, and other, once unknown
information! During that Project I went into depth about information and made sure I really
pushed my arguments with full support. I admit to not thinking a lot about my audience –
consciously- during that assignment. Project 4 was the opposite because my discourse
communities were constantly on my mind. Granted more time on that assignment, additional
information would be given to my discourse communities. I tried to write toward my audiences if
I saw information that seemed applicable to them, but I felt as if I did not do it enough.
I need to go through and challenge my information to see how it holds up. A paragraphby-paragraph edit, to analyze the information I wrote and see how it holds up to the essay
requirements. Since Procedural knowledge is more of the How, I would reread my essay to see
my mind of thought for that particular paragraph. This would include a bit of skimming since I
am of course familiar with the information I placed on the paper. I would summarize and
paraphrase new information to strengthen my proposal in the essay. To include the Declarative
knowledge from above, I would need to do more reading of sources and writing. Looking over
past class notes and skimming through past essays that I did well would be a definite course of
action. I can look and see if I have a chunk of a message and break it down into smaller
sections. This break down would include expanding upon information for more clarity.
Through Project 4, I saw a connection between the process of research and writing. Well,
through the researching process, I had to evaluate sources that seemed to fit my topic. I could not
simply read an article's title and assume it contained relevant information for my proposal. (I
admit that I did this at first. I just made a tab for every article and source that held key words of
my topic. Eventually I went through these sources and discarded the unless and unrelated.) The
connection was learning to research, find, resources that fit my discourse communities. It was
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 9
great when I found my first source addressed one of my discourse communities, with FACTS! I
felt as if I was genius to find an article speaking to three of my communities with relevant and
enlightening information for me to expand upon in my essay.
I can honestly say that my thinking changed since I first began Project 4. More thoughts
towards my discourse communities, was a big change. At first it was more tunnel vision with my
topic. I acknowledged my communities, but as I began writing about my research, I saw my
thoughts shift towards them. The discourse communities were the audience I began to face with
the production of my words.
The more information I found that targeted my discourse communities; the more I shifted
towards them in my writing. This was a result of the research I conducted during Project 4. I
began to make a few sub paragraphs to expand upon the information I found. I wanted to make
sure my audience had a clear view of what I was doing. If the structure needed to change during
that process, so be it.
Met Learning Outcomes
Despite my initial intimidations of this course’s assignments, I realize that I am leaving
successfully. I met each learning outcome and grew as a writer. I can take lessons of research,
writing, reading, and of course reflecting, with me to future classes that will draw upon these
skills. In a future writing situation, if my Psychology professor were to ask me to write an 8-10
page paper on the question: What personality characteristics might affect employees’ personal
use of work computers? Through Research I would make a list of key words and place them into
a search engine via the WSU library website. Seek a librarian to assist with the search of
scholarly sources. Look to research question for some of the key words to use. Thinking of the
audience, identifying a potential discourse community, brainstorming key arguments for the
12918_eo2346_1020F2013 10
assignment or objectives that need to me met and addressed in the thesis statement, fall under
writing. Reading my materials is an obvious thing to do and look for counterarguments that may
arise, with a possible solution. Not to mention the Sh@tty 1st Draft is a must just to
communicate in a written form all my thoughts about the assignment and then go back to edit it
later (CoAuthors).