Throughout this semester, I have learned a lot in Writing for Science. I learned how to work with others efficiently, I learned how to give positive feedback and negative feedback on people’s work, and I learned how to be more concrete with my writing. When entering this class, I thought it was going to be one of my hardest classes. However, the way the class was set up I was able to learn from each assignment and become a better writer as time went on. The first assignment was The New York Times summary/evaluation. This assignment taught us how to find articles that are written from a scholarly articles. After writing this assignment it was our turn as writers to make our own New York Times article from a scholarly article. This was the first time I had ever done something like this however, I enjoyed the process. When we did peer editing for this assignment, I got very good comments from my peer that made my analysis stronger and better. Writing the general audience paper what’s a little harder. Putting scientific findings into simpler terms can be hard. As a writer, I didn’t want to sound redundant, and I didn’t want to give out the wrong information. Also finding scientific articles itself that were simply understandable was hard. A lot of articles are already simplified already. I believe that the peer edit for the general audience paper was very helpful/effective because my classmates were able to give me good advice. Doing the group lab report was one of my favorite assignments assigned in this class. I got to talk to people that I usually wouldn’t talk to, and we picked a fun subject to talk about. One of the things that I liked about it the most what is the creation of the Google forms. We created Google forms as surveys for our lab report. When we went over the survey results it was fun to compare all the data and eventually put it on the poster. Presenting the poster to the class was nerve-wracking; however, my group members made sure that we were prepared enough that we wouldn’t embarrass ourselves in front of the class. The annotated bibliography was a simple assignment it asks for a summary of the source and how reliable the source is. This assignment prepared us and set our minds to write the literature review. We use these sources in our literature review. All in all, I believe that my perspective on writing changed positively after completing this course,  and I believe that I am a better writer than I was when I first started this class in February. All the course learning objectives of:

1. “acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources, and draw on those resources to develop a rhetorical sensibility

2. enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment

3. negotiate your own writing goals and audience expectations regarding conventions of the genre, medium, and rhetorical situation

4. develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes

5. engage in genre analysis and multimodal composing to explore effective writing across disciplinary contexts and beyond

6. formulate and articulate a stance through and in your writing

7. practice using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to your writing projects

8. strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources)”

were taught and I was able to build these skills and eventually use them in my future classes.