Science writing may be perceived as the ability to objectively and clearly convey information pertaining to a scientific topic so that the desired audience may receive it. It is a necessary tool that may arguably be just as important as verbal communication. As a scientist, it is important to deliver information, and to deliver such information accurately. Any form of misinterpretation may quickly turn into false information. The spread of false information can be extremely damaging to both individuals and communities, as we have already seen present-day in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. Science is a noble field meant to progress humanity and provide modern-solutions to universal problems. The inability to properly communicate not only hinders future discoveries, but limits any current endeavors within various scientific fields, essentially rendering them as useless.

 

As a student of science, I find that my writing has improved throughout this course. I’ve discovered new formats of writing, and even shifted certain behaviors that I have previously refused to change. These shifts, though subtle, become apparent when comparing drafts of previous writing pieces to final versions, or when observing reflections that were completed on select assignments. The three most noticeable patterns that I observed include an acceptance of disarray, a newfound citation format, and a completely altered drafting pattern. 

 

The first reflection revolved around my strengths and weaknesses as a writer, and was meant to provide a new perspective on my skills prior to the beginning of the course. This reflection, arguably, is the most important, as it provided insight as to how I viewed myself as a writer before completing any course assignments. I emphasized how much I “disliked going back to my writing pieces” to edit them. I tended to complete the final version of pieces in one sitting, and did not like the process of “drafting”. This is exemplified by the scribbled out words on the page, and inclusion of thoughts midway through the reflection. I claimed to want to improve my writing skills through the incorporation of correct citations in pieces of text as well as increased exposure to the medicinal disciplinary context. These goals touched upon Course Learning Objective 5, to “engage in genre analysis and multimodal composing to explore effective writing across disciplinary contexts and beyond”, and Course Learning Objective 8, to “strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources).” through my listed desire to expand to different “disciplinary contexts” of writing, as well as a desire to improve my citation skills. This piece served as the baseline for understanding the motive of each of my other pieces. For the NY Times summary reflection, I expressed a very positive review of the assignment. I claimed to have “written my evaluation well”, and cited “prior experience of analyzing authors’ writing in school”. Course Objectives 3, to “negotiate your own writing goals and audience expectations regarding conventions of genre, medium, and rhetorical situation”, and 8, to “strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources)”, were mostly addressed in this reflection due to my mention of the author’s stylistic choices as well as my first exposure to the CSE format. The 1st objective, to “acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources, and draw on those resources to develop rhetorical sensibility”, was expressed due to my mention of “tone, diction, syntax, and rhetorical devices”, and my attempt not to mirror those of the author himself. This expresses an awareness of writing conventions of both myself and other authors. Additionally, the 8th Objective was expressed because I “learned how to properly cite in CSE” for the first time. Lastly, the third reflection represented a slight regression on all of the aforementioned improvements. Rather than signifying a worsening of writing skills, I believe the slightly critical tone of this reflection emphasizes a newfound sense of self awareness. It also emphasized the initial shift of focusing more on editing drafts, and recognizing flaws that I did not see before. Although I “had trouble citing in CSE format”, I also found it easier to summarize and convey certain points than I did before. 

 

My perceptions of writing have shifted from focusing on achieving perfection to focusing on maintaining ingenuity and inspiration. This can be seen through a shift in the way I have written my drafts. For instance, my NY Times assignment draft and final submission are extremely similar to each other. From the thesis statements both emphasizing “how regret adds damage to already devastating medical issues” down to the very stylistic choices, there was little growth that took place from the draft to the final version. The NY Times article assignment forced me to confront Course Learning Objective 7,  to “practice using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to your writing projects” in order to locate the article for the assignment. The citations of the draft were extremely underdeveloped, which was later fixed in the final version, addressing Course Learning Objective 8 once more. Admittedly, I feel as though I’ve always been a strong writer, even when composing the initial drafts. Though the shift in my editing process did improve the quality of my writing, it improved the process behind it, which is significantly more important. The first shift in my editing process may be seen within the Scholarly Article assignment, in which my draft differed from my final version to a greater extent. This was largely in part due to the peer editing process that I underwent, which also addresses Course Learning Objective 4, to “develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.” I slowly began to become more aware of the fact that my writing is not necessarily perfect with every first attempt, even when I edit as I go. This skill developed even more as time passed, which may be seen from the chronological improvement of the quality of my assignments. The Literature Review is the most drastic example of change between a draft and a final version. For the Review, I completely shifted the trajectory of my groupings, as well as the way I thought about the assignment. This was exemplified further and likely facilitated by my brainstorming process, which is included in the Miscellaneous section. I found it easier to organize and write the assignment when I had an outline as a basis for my thoughts. The brainstorming process and groupings based on “sleep, suicidality, and quality of rest” provided a guide for the significance of the articles themselves, and allowed me to address Course Learning Objective 6 in “formulat[ing] and articulat[ing] a stance through and in your writing”. I became comfortable with being messy, if it meant organization and fresh, new ideas would come of it.

 

Lastly, technical aspects of my writing, such as citations, have also improved over time. From the initial NY Times Draft, it was evident that I did not understand the CSE format and how to place sources in a reference page. By the time I completed my Annotated Bibliography, the citations were almost completely correct from the draft alone. Though they improved, I still found myself needing to consult the CSE Name-Year Format Guide that was provided in the beginning of the semester. The Annotated Bibliography was one of the easier assignments to complete, because it simply required summarization and an analysis of reliability. If it had been assigned in the beginning of the year, I would have felt more uncomfortable with the citations. Other assignments, such as the Lab Report and Poster, did not impact my citing abilities whatsoever, as one of my group members had the responsibility of citing the sources. The assignment, however, still proved to be the most dense in terms of included information, and was very technical in the language use. I found myself excelling the most in flexible assignments such as the General Audience Essay due to its informal tone and ability to incorporate colorful word choice, imagery, and metaphors. From the Editing Exercise in the Miscellaneous tab, it is evident that when I do not place significance on the outcome of an assignment, I work freely and quickly towards achieving the desired goal. Each of these instances of improvement explicitly address Course Learning Objective 2 of “enhanc[ing] strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment”. Through trial and error, I was able to develop my writing, incorporating new methodologies while maintaining old ones that worked as well.