# data[].attributes.body
At the beginning of this class I was very intimidated and nervous for all my classes because of my disorder. But I found that annotating helped a lot, and that I had a lot more potential than I thought. I did a lot better at reading and writing than I anticipated I would. I feel like I learned a lot from this class and learned how to write stronger and more compelling essays. The class deepened my understanding of structure and rhetorical. My “win” to me was my grade in this class overall, because it represents all the hard work I put in and how I can produce great work despite my disorder.

The sections we were asked to read and annotate were quite helpful and relevant for each of the essays we did, and I would refer to those sections when writing the essays. I also really enjoyed the social issues/civil discourse theme of this class. Regardless of if someone is into politics or not, everyone has their own opinions about everything. And you did a great job of teaching us how to explore our own opinions, and base them off research and facts. Not only did this class teach us how to explore our own opinions, but also how to present those ideas professionally and academically.

I really like working with peers in class, it helps to have a different pair of eyes on my paper. Some things may make sense in your own head, but not make sense to others. Peer review allows an audience member to read it and make sure everyone will be able to understand the content and catch grammatical mistakes. I think class time was used wisely. There was not too much peer review and not too much lecture, which gave the class a good balance.

The assignments when you asked us to read an article and write a summary/response I did not really understand until the end when we did the small test, then it made a lot more sense. I think you should continue to do that because it prepared us all very much for the test.

I really liked this class overall. I thought the use of class time was great, as well as the assignments that you wanted us to do. There were no assignments that you asked us to do that were busy work and all the assignments were very helpful in this class. I thought your teaching style was great, you explain things very well and make big papers seem simple. I also liked the pacing of the essays, most classes I’ve taken have requested that you do the whole essay and do not ask to bring in first drafts for review. I learned a lot about making drafts, and how they should not necessarily be written on the same day.

I am also impressed with the feedback you gave to me and other students. It made me very happy that you had office hours that we could meet to ask questions about my essays. Your suggestions were very clear and really helped all my papers. You are also very approachable, and I feel as if many students agree that going to you for help is not intimidating like some teachers can be.

I really do believe I took a lot from this class beyond just how to write a paper, but also the importance of having an educated opinion on certain topics, and how to acquire the educated opinions. Overall, I think this class was perfect in my opinion. It had balance when it came to what we did during class time. All of the papers lead into one another, and I liked that we had to stick to the same social issue for the duration of the class so we could develop a deeper understanding of our position. I think you’re a great teacher and I would definitely recommend you to other students.

# data[].attributes.body
For my essay I incorporated two opposing viewpoints which I refuted with my own evidence and main points. Throughout the course, I have acquired much more knowledge on both sides of the death penalty. I still have the same position as I did in the beginning of the class, but I now have a deeper understanding and feel even more passionate about my position on the death penalty.

In order to write this essay, I did not use an outline as I did for the last essays. Instead, I merely looked at Essay 3 for my main points and my evidence and analysis and transferred it to Essay 4. Although Essay 4 had the same main points and evidence as Essay, I had changed the order of the paragraphs slightly in order for it to aline with the opposing viewpoints that I put in the fourth essay. I began my first body paragraph with a different opposing viewpoint that was not present in my third essays, so changing the order of my main points in order to correlate with the new opposing viewpoint would aid in making the paper flow. For this essay, however, I integrated outside sources as evidence to support my main points as well as my own evidence and analysis. The evidence I used was used from recent, scholarly, peer-reviewed documents found on an online database. The sources were credible, and also had it's own sources. A few online websites were also used, but only specific types of websites that had to be non-bias and approved first. All of the evidence that was incorporated into Essay 4 had in-text citations as well as a works cited page. I think the process was plenty effective as Essay 4 had the same main points as Essay 3, so I did not need to rewrite an entire new paper for Essay 4. The only suggestion I used in my essay was advice on how to make signal phrases in order to signal to the audience that I was about to introduce evidence from outside sources. This helped the paper flow and give variety in the way that evidence was presented.

I think my incorporation of more than one opposing viewpoints was a good idea, because the refutation of those opposing viewpoints made my position and main points more specific, and shows the relationship between my main points and the opposing viewpoints. For example, when introducing my third main point, morality, I used a second opposing viewpoint in order to present my ideas and evidence in a more meaningful way. I also feel as though I did a good job transitioning between the main points and connecting the body paragraphs together. The lead out sentences really connected each main idea to the next and built a relationship between them. Lastly, I think my introduction was great because it was an engaging narrative that captured the audience from the beginning.

I think the only thing that could use improvement would be word choice and grammar. I feel like I could have used more compelling words that would make my position on the death penalty more clear. I also believe that I need better punctuation in my paper, because having improper grammar can make an author look less knowledgeable about writing.

I feel like my essay would once again be made an audience that is unsure about their opinion on the death penalty, because I believe everyone should have an informed position about the death penalty, as they should with any social issue. The purpose of the essay was to argue my position on the death penalty, or even persuade the audience to agree with my position, as well as take action. I feel like it could also be an essay that would be found on a forum that is anti-death penalty and is advocating for repealing the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.body
This piece of writing was an argument essay that included at least one opposing view point for the death penalty and at least 3 supporting claims for abolishing the death penalty. Throughout the writing process my stance on the death penalty has not changed. However I do have a deeper understanding of both sides of the death penalty.

For this essay I used the same strategy that was used for the interview essay; using an outline first to map out how the paper will be organized, then filling in and elaborating on the main ideas written in the outline. Then, going back and revising the paper until I feel it is adequate for submission. Amy suggested I use an opposing viewpoint that included talking about how the death penalty is viewed by some as a sentence that restores balance in a community after a severe crime is committed and that it is the superior punishment. I struggled with organizing my thoughts when analyzing this point, so I went with another very common opposing viewpoint; the law of retaliation. I think picking this opposing point was a good idea because it is one of the most frequent claims that I've heard about the death penalty and is also a strong point to refute.

I think I did an excellent job refuting the opposing viewpoint, and it was a very intense approach. In my analysis I broke down how using the law of retaliation as the main reason is not entirely valid, because it would be going against more relevant religious views of that religion. Also, I think the Carey Dean Moore narrative I included in the introduction was a great way to capture attention of the audience and was an intense story.

I think the organization of the paper is one of the only aspects that could use further improvement. I have a hard time organizing the thoughts in a manor that flows well from claim to claim, and organizing the analysis and thoughts. For example, explaining the evidence for each claim doesn't seem to flow correctly, and has parts that are all over the place.

I think the purpose for this paper would be a call to consideration as opposed to call to action, and is also trying to argue the side of the death penalty that is against the death penalty and persuade the audience to consider my position on the issue. The primary audience could potentially be people who want to further explore different viewpoints on the death penalty, or as a paper that further supports their already developed opinions about the death penalty. I feel like this essay would be something you'd find in a blog about social issues or website that is spreading awareness about the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.body
This essay was written based of of an interview with someone who had an opposing viewpoint of my topic, which was the death penalty. I decided on this topic in the beginning of class and my position on the death penalty has not changed. The interview paper helped to broaden my knowledge on what at least one other person thinks about why the death penalty should be legal.

The process I used was much more helpful than the process used for the position paper. I think that using an outline for the essay, and then writing the paper and revising until it was finished worked better for me than using the "down draft" method, because it was more organized to begin and made sure I had all the content I needed to include. Some revision suggestions I got were suggestions for the transitions, how I should involve "call to action" in my conclusion and how I should include some background information in my introduction to grab audience attention. I think these things helped the paper flow more, and the conclusion gave the essay more of a purpose.

I think I did well on the analysis aspect of the essay. I analysed the evidence given by the interviewee and broke it down and explained what they said, and analysed their thoughts and if their ideas made sense or not. For example, my interviewee suggested his idea on when the death penalty should be used. He says it should only be used when the convict is regretful of the crime they committed. During analysis, I explained why that was not practical because a convict can lie about how regretful they are in order to "choose" their sentence.

Something I think could be improved in my essay would be the introduction and the conclusion. For example, I believe the introduction could be more enticing by using more compelling background or a narrative or anecdote to draw in readers' attention. Also, I believe the conclusion could be better by tying the essay together in the end and have even more of a purpose, because I really struggle with making a solid conclusion that flows and ends the paper nicely.

I believe the purpose of my essay is to persuade/argue my position, being that the death penalty should not be legal. An audience who might be reading this essay could be other students in a political class exploring their own political views as well as others, and this essay would be useful to argue the death penalty. It could also be read by people in the community who are uncertain about their position on the death penalty and can lead them to finding a solid position on the topic. This paper would possibly be appropriate to find in a newspaper, especially in Nebraska due to the recent Carey Dean Moore case, and how Nebraska has been going back and forth on the death penalty for years.

# data[].attributes.body
My position for the essay was the death penalty should be abolished. I decided on this topic at the beginning of class, but I also contemplated doing abortion rights as well, but settled on death penalty because I am more passionate about it. I already knew quite a bit about the death penalty, so I used the knowledge I previously had to write this paper.

For this paper I used process that included 3 drafts; a "down draft" to get all the information on paper, an "up draft" which make changes to the content of the essay, and a "dental draft" which fine tuned the grammar, word choice, and proofreading. I don't believe this process was particularly useful to me. I feel like I got most of the necessary information on paper in the down draft, but I may have left out some information that would have further expanded my topic. Some of the revisions I made include word choice, transition suggestions, and conclusion suggestions given to me by Amy which helped my essay flow more and reduce the amount of chunkiness. Amy suggested using an anecdote in my introduction to grab readers' attention, but I had a hard time coming up with one to include in the introduction.

I think the most effective aspect of my writing were my topic sentences/supporting reasons for my position. I think they were effective because they are the points with the most evidence, although I feel I did not elaborate on them as much as I could have. For example, I discussed how the death penalty is not very effective in the way the system is set up, and I did not elaborate to the full extent. I feel like I could have gone deeper into the fact that it does not give justice to the family.

In the next essay, I know the introduction and conclusion need the most improvement. I had a very bland and boring introduction and an off-par conclusion. Next time I can include background or narrative to my introduction to grab audience attention and/or give some background information on the topic. As for the conclusion, I think it lacked a purpose for the paper. So, next time I want to include something that indicates more of a purpose in the next paper. The body paragraphs had solid points but could have gone more into depth by using more evidence.

I believe the purpose of the position paper was meant to be an argument, because it was arguing one side of the death penalty and did not acknowledge the opposing view. I think this essay would be meant for an audience of readers who could use this as a resource for defending the death penalty being abolished. I would say it would be something you would find on a website group that wanted to get rid of the death penalty and wants to share reasons as to why we should no longer have the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.body
Allie Moon

English Composition 1

7/14/18

Pan Con Pollo

I believe the name of the Honduran sandwich was called "pan con pollo". It had been sitting on the bed next to me for what seemed like an eternity, patiently waiting for me to ingest it while I sat confused, flipping angrily through pages of my textbook. I looked carefully at each word and each letter, but it was as if I was reading a foreign language. I understood the assignment fully, mind you. So, why the frustration?

I suck at reading comprehension. And I mean, I really suck.

It’s not that the content bores me. Sometimes I just simply cannot make sense of the little symbols that make up the words that are supposed to mean something to me; regardless of the content. No matter how carefully I read, sometimes I just can't take even remedial concepts away from what I'm reading. And what am I to do? Call a friend to ask how to read a book?

So, of course I am frustrated. But this is not the first time. I started to feel the all-too-familiar, hot tears pool up on the waterline of my bottom eye lid. I blinked hard to release those tears and let them run down my cheeks. I felt hopeless.

My boyfriend, who had been witnessing my reading struggle, consoled me.

"Why are you crying?" He asked with worry in his voice.

"I can't read this stupid book. I can't comprehend anything!" I shouted out of sadness. He pondered for a moment, trying to come up with ideas.

"You could try annotating?" He said. At the time, I did not know what annotating was, but I was willing to try anything to help.

"What is that and how do I do it?" I asked, somewhat hopeful.

"Basically, it's when you read very carefully, taking note of important details or summarize to help further your understanding" He explained. I sighed and closed my eyes. Although I appreciated the suggestion, this technique would not help me at all.

"How am I supposed to summarize or take note of important information if I can't comprehend it?" I said. The dread and hopeless hit a peak.

"How am I supposed to do well in this class, or any class, if I can’t read a book! I am going to fail all my classes, I am going to fail college. I don't know what I am going to do". I continued to think myself into a hole, ending in the "I am going to die alone" scenario.

He sighed and looked around the room as if to find answers, but only found the sandwich. He asked if I was going to eat it. I picked it up and took a bite and cringed. It had gone extremely soggy and cold. Perfect. Not only am I going to die alone, but now my delicious sandwich was ruined.

"You need to think positive" he finally said. "Maybe you should talk to your teacher and get help. She is an English teacher". I let this sink in. I tried to change my mindset and switch "positive mode" on, and it worked. I felt more hopeful, that maybe I can finally get better at reading comprehension again. I remembered that every problem has a solution, and that I just needed to find mine.