# data[].attributes.body
The paragraphs below explain how I have met the different learning outcomes throughout the semester. Some of the evidence can be found in documents I have completed over the course, which are all in a document titled “Table of Contents” under this text. Each link in the main document has its own place and reasoning for being under certain headings which is explained in the matching headings in the paragraphs below.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UPm0zEp5w3HybbcIisvd9GcSTyvhEgLpMIB0bA45yrw/edit?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.body
If my WP #3 topic were to be written by a different author, it has the potential to look very different from mine. What I mean by that is if the topic was given to a white woman, especially a woman with blonde hair, a slender figure, and colored eyes, the paper would look different from mine. Since I’m a black woman, parts of the topic I included in my paper, lack of representation in advertisements, for example, would be worded differently or not included at all if a white woman wrote it. White women typically don’t notice many of the things I mentioned in my paper. I learned that I can incorporate some of my voice in papers and that not everything has to be perfect. I’m referring to the pieces we read during the semester and the job we were tasked with to find the thesis statements. From that, I saw firsthand that thesis statements aren’t always kept to one sentence at the end of the introduction. They can be long and drawn out to many sentences and this is acceptable. Whatever informs the readers about everything that will be in the paper. I realized my own voice could potentially be incorporated into papers from some of the works we read and talked about. Reading pieces about different languages and cultures breaking the traditional writing expectations showed other languages can be included when writing. Now, of course, both of these things as possibilities depend on the professor I have.

# data[].attributes.body
There was a slideshow presented to us that we referred to a few times afterward that presented several argumentation styles. We were encouraged to use at least one, but certainly more than that, of the styles in WP #3. There was a small assignment that asked us to pick a strategy that we could use for our paper; I picked argument by example and explained why, and that document is in the table of contents under the information literacy heading. From there, we could use some of these styles to incorporate evidence from our sources; other styles could still show evidence but allows the writer’s words to show it. For example, one of the styles is narration, if a writer has a personal experience related to the topic, that can be weaved into a detailed narration in a part of their paper.

There weren’t too many challenges I faced when citing sources, though I did have a wide variation of sources that made the requirements to cite them slightly different. I had numbers of authors in my sources ranging from one to three, and each of them have to be cited differently. I overcame that by double-checking Purdue Owl to make sure I’m properly citing them APA style. I also scheduled a 15-minute meeting with the professor to make sure my citations, mostly my in-text citations, were correct. The NS library was also helpful in terms of citing sources.

# data[].attributes.body
The slideshow presentation breaking down what the CRAPP test is helped us look carefully at our sources for WP #2/3 to determine their credibility. When finding sources, we can immediately refer to the slides and scan through the qualifications for a credible source. The informational synthesis done over the three pieces we were tasked with reading was a great way to learn how to synthesize diverse texts.

I learned from the lack of sources in my WP #1 that I better not let that happen again for WP #3. I got onto the research part of the assignment almost immediately after I determined my topic. At first, I had a few good scholarly sources that had multiple points I wanted to touch on in the paper, with performed studies to back up the purpose of the journals. After that though, I was struggling to find more sources; my main issue was how to word phrases into the search engine to get an article related to the topic and enough of them to fit the required amount of sources. Formatting my thesis statement for WP #3 was a little challenging for me as well. I had to get out of that mindset that previous teachers had taught me: that a thesis statement needs to be one sentence and at the end of the introduction. During this class, however, we read pieces that not only had multiple sentences in their thesis statement but also weren’t always at the end of the first paragraph. It was a little troubling for me at first because there were many points in the paper that needed to be included in the thesis. For example, I first had to mention the reasons advertisements are sexist, as well as their negative impacts on certain groups of people. Then discuss the problem-solution point and include why this topic is relevant and important. It just took more time than usual to formulate.

# data[].attributes.body
There were several different ways we broke down and organized ideas, one of the main ones being WP #2. We collected sources for WP #3 and synthesized them while addressing points like credibility and relevancy. WP #2 is a synthesis of each of the sources so those who completed RRL #6 which involved synthesizing two sources they’ve found, could integrate the work into the writing project; That is with a few structural changes made to some of the sentences so it makes sense in that assignment. For those who completed RRL #6 which involved synthesizing two of our sources, they could integrate that work into the writing project.

Peer review work was introduced for WP #1 and #3. Readings like “Note, React, Ask” were helpful tools to have when determining how to give feedback to fellow peers. In the Google Doc, under the writing process category, there are direct links to the feedback I had given to peers. Both links are copies I made of their documents to add comments, one is a draft and the other is an outline. For WP #1, I peer-reviewed the students' draft and the student I peer-reviewed for WP #3 didn’t have a draft so they submitted their outline that I gave feedback on. One of the group members in the peer group for WP #1 hadn’t given very useful feedback and wasn’t descriptive. From that, I learned to be more precise with what I’m saying. If I’m asking questions, I must be as clear as I possibly can be so I don’t confuse the writer.

# data[].attributes.body
There were a few pieces we read over the semester that had to do with race and/or language. These pieces are Robin Wall Kimmer’s The Teachings of Grass, Teaching to Transgress by Bell Hooks, and Black Language Is Good on Any MLK Boulevard by April Baker-Bell. We read them prior to class and had an in-class discussion followed by a synthesis assignment in small groups. We were asked reflection questions such as what were key takeaways and if we still had any questions after reading. Then, other questions as well to get a discussion going like what kind of language is privileged in an academic setting? From there we broke up into small groups to complete an informational synthesis activity regarding linguistic oppression. We eventually came together as a class and drafted the synthesis that’s in the Google Doc. This can be found in the table of contents under the authorship title. Going back to those pieces, Robin Wall Kimmer’s reading explains how culture played a role in the publication process. Her colleagues didn’t take the report seriously because basket makers being fellow scientists wasn’t something they believed. They were also set in their ways dismissing the hypothesis of the experiment; showing a clear lack of disinterest in other cultures and values.