---

The commonality throughout each of the three primary assignments as well as discussion board posts was the integration of the Course Learning Outcomes to improve the writing process. This self-assessment essay will aim to evaluate how well I have implemented each Course Learning Outcomes to each of the assignments to accurately pinpoint how well I understood the theoretical concepts and rhetorical terms presented in the class. Although I may not have utilized all of the Course Learning Outcomes, I have learned a lot of necessary skills and literary elements that are commonplace in an engineering setting. Nuances such as choice of language, specificity, as well as how thoroughly researched my paper is were taught to me throughout the semester in this class.

The first assignment, as well as a recurring assignment was discussion board posts. These ranged from the Baffling Descriptions to writing about podcasts and being active audiences in group presentations. In my first discussion post, I wrote about vaguely solving a rubik’s cube without explicitly saying what I was trying to do. I tried being as unspecific as possible(as required by the assignment) but still explaining the steps. My first draft, the vague one, would intentionally exclude important information necessary for all first-time cube solvers to actually solve a cube. Things like “algorithm notations”, how to read a string of cube turning notations were omitted. This meant that those who already have experience with solving a cube and know the turning notations would be able to understand and solve it, while those who do not will be unable to. Afterward, part two of the assignment was to rewrite my initial description was to edit and expand in order for the piece to be understood almost universally. I explained what the notations were, “movement can be broken down into letters…”, as well as clearly stated what my description intended to do, “How to solve a 3×3 multi-colored cube, called the Rubik’s Cube.” Though not apparent at first, I now realize that Course Learning Outcome 1, 2, and 3 were applied to the assignment. I first wrote without “acknowledging [my] and others’ range of linguistic differences” by just stating what to do without expanding on terminologies. Course Learning Outcomes 2 and 3 were applied when I was editing part one of the assignment to part two. I had to “enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment” to critically achieve my writing goal in the second iteration. I had reread what I wrote for part one, and revised/edited as necessary in order to expand the audience range. I included definitions on notations, and provided simple illustrations of how a cube face would look after each algorithm. Course Learning Outcome 3 was also used in this step as I “negotiated [my] own writing goals and audience expectations” in the genre. My introductory sentences for the post clearly laid out what I wanted to explain and show, which was not initially included in the first part. Overall the discussion board was necessary to provide interactivity to a primarily asynchronous and online class due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

The first primary writing assignment was the Lab Report essay. The objective was to build “fluency in scientific research and the way that these reports are expected in the field.” Initially I wrote about an experiment conducted by The Action Lab about measuring the near-perfect vacuum inside a fluorescent light tube. My first draft of the assignment was extremely rudimentary, and merely restated what The Action Lab said and did. There was insufficient analysis and conclusions, only three sentences in my conclusion and vague short captions for the images used such as, “The 4 foot tube managed to take in enough water to fill it all the way”. After receiving peer reviews as well as instructor feedback on my rough draft, I underwent revision and edits to reach my final Lab Report essay draft. This iteration expanded a lot to what I previously had and added more in depth analyses. The previously short caption was expanded to “The 4 foot tube managed to take in enough water to fill it all the way. It filled up at a constant steady slow pace. At the end of the tube, the water bubbled and did not go any farther.” Adding depth of analysis and small yet necessary information was crucial in a research and scientific perspective. Any reproduction of the experiment should yield expected results that was prefaced in any preceding study or lab reports. In the writing process for the Lab Report essay, I again utilized Course Learning Outcomes 1, 2, and 3, while also 4, 6, 7, and 8. I revised and edited, reread my writing, and referenced The Action Lab’s video, while also having my first draft peer reviewed. The peer review achieves Course Learning Outcome 4, to “develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing” as I was peer reviewed as well as peer reviewed others. Course Learning Outcomes 5, 7 and 8 were used when researching the topic to see similarly used experiment’s observations and procedures. I used “various library resources, online databases, and the Internet” to strengthen my research as well as come up with accurate conclusions. I “strengthen [my] sources” by “evaluating, integrating, quoting paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing and citing [my] sources” as outlined in the Course Learning Outcome 8. The Lab Report essay assignment was crucial as a first exposure to engineering and scientific literary writing.

The next major writing assignment was the Technical Description. This assignment’s objective was to work on our specificity as well as mindfulness to any audience’s level of scientific/engineering literacy. I wrote about mechanical keyboards, an everyday tool that I would use in my career as a computer scientist, as well as know a lot about. The process was very similar to the previous assignment, but I had to structure it a lot more like a pamphlet or book with a table of content and in APA format. My rough draft had a decent quantity of information that included my preliminary knowledge of keyboards, however it lacked more research and context. In my conclusion I wrote briefly about the history, and knew what else to add, but did not have a solid enough source to implement it into the conclusion so I included a placeholder sentence instead, “[Discuss about QWERTY layout]”. This sentence served to guide me towards my final draft as I would know what to add once I have done the appropriate research and found a reliable source. This was part of the Course Learning Outcome 8 as I chose to omit the topic in my conclusion until I was able to use a simpler yet thorough enough source that I would be able to understand, and then paraphrase to the audience. This strengthened my source through “quoting, paraphrasing, [and] summarizing”. I had also peer reviewed others’ technical description essays as well as had mine reviewed. This assignment was very helpful in the research process of being an engineer and was equally as fun, being able to explore and research an object that I use every day for a more in depth view of it.

The last major assignment was the Engineering Proposal assignment. In this assignment I was assigned to a group. Our group consisted of 4 members total, including me. Our task was to address an issue through an invention. We chose to combat the modern trash can’s vulnerability to raccoon attacks. Our group first worked on creating the GAANT chart, which was a chart that would set responsibilities to each group member, as well as strict deadlines to get everything done. This essay was a lot more involved and greatly taught me the significance of applying Course Learning Outcomes 2, 4 and 7. I was held accountable for my part in writing the introduction of the paper. My research had to be surface level yet specific. I “negotiated [my] writing goals and audience expectations regarding conventions of genre, medium, and rhetorical situation” through specifically stating what the essay would entail, and prefacing all necessary information in the introduction. In order to achieve this, I wrote “Our proposal hopes to reduce the number of raccoon-related messes” as well as “We propose creating a sturdy, reinforced, and secure trash can that can withstand raccoon attacks”. Explicitly stating what the proposal is, and our goals/aims to the audience. My group members also reviewed my part in the assignment, to make sure it met their standards and included everything that they expected it to have. This was crucial and connected to Course Learning Outcomes 2 and 4, as I collaborated with others in revising and editing. The presentation aspect of this assignment was also very enjoyable, seeing other proposals and how their inventions/plans turned out and the feasibility of them. This assignment was another opportunity to experience the world of engineering and science, specifically how plans receive funding and go into development. Inventions and proposals come with need and society’s benefit in mind. This assignment highlighted that aspect of engineering clearly.