As a learner, unchanging habits are not a good attitude. On the contrary, you can benefit a lot by constantly improving yourself in the suggestions of others. In each stage of the writing process, I will discover my shortcomings. For example, in the writing process of phase 1, I found a lot of “nonsense” in my thesis; the structure of the composition in the phase 2 thesis I am not clear, and my understanding of rhetorical analysis is not thorough enough, which makes me lose my direction when writing; in the phase 3 paper, I am not very familiar with the source citation, which makes my paper lack persuasiveness. These shortcomings in writing are fully reflected in my thesis. But fortunately, every meeting and peer review allows me to find the deficiencies in my paper, making it easier for me to revise the paper because professors and peers can give me more writing suggestions so that I can be timely Revise my thesis.

     Thinking back to the learning process throughout the semester, I think I still like the phase 1 paper the most, because only when I wrote this paper reminded me of the difficulties I encountered when learning languages as a child. Although at the beginning of writing, all this was not very smooth, with the progress of peer review, I gradually got the general structure of the paper in my mind. While sharing with my peers, I not only listened to/read about their learning Language experience and difficulties, I also learned a lot of writing techniques from their articles. I went from the original too detailed description of things to later appropriate deletions, or converted some unnecessary content into pictures, videos, or links. This not only became my article no longer empty and boring but also improved the readers ‘interest when reading. In the writing process of phase 1, I learned to explore and analyze, in writing and reading, a variety of genres and rhetorical situations in this essay. (Learning results #2) Although my thesis is not perfect, it still has shortcomings and is not enough, but this paper is a step forward for me.

     In the writing process of phase 2, I Develop strategies for reading, drafting, collaborating, revising, and editing (#3); at the same time, I recognize the role of language attitudes and standards in empowering, oppressing, and hierarchizing languages and their users, and be open to communicating across different languages and standards in empowering, oppressing, and hierarchizing languages and their users, and be open to communicating across different languages and cultures. (#1) For this paper, I chose Amy Tan’s academic text, this is an article describing the experience of Amy and her mother being treated unfairly because of their mother tongue. Although the length of the article is not as long as “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You and the Future Life of Willie Jordan” (By June Jordan), the sparrow may be small, but all its vital organs are there. Even though it is a short text, when I was writing the phase 2 thesis, I still felt so confused that I did not meet some standards in the final essay, such as recognizing and practicing key rhetorical terms and strategies when engaged in writing situations (#4). Perhaps because this is the first time I have written this type of paper, I am a little confused about it, so in the phase 2 paper, my article as a whole looks more like a text’s report, not a rhetorical analysis essay. Although I don’t like Phase 2’s thesis writing, I don’t hate it either, because I have also learned a lot of writing skills (#3 and #1) in the writing at this stage, but I know the rhetorical analysis way of writing is still the writing method I should strengthen.

     In fact, phase 3 paper writing is the most challenging for me, because in the writing process I need to Compose texts that integrate my stance with appropriate sources using strategies such as summary, critical analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and argumentation (#8), which allows me to find and compare more information, from which to find the most suitable citation sources (#7: Locate research sources (including academic journal articles, magazine and newspaper articles) in the library’s databases or archives and on the Internet and evaluate them for credibility, accuracy, timeliness, and bias.) in order to support my thesis and argument, and add some digital data to the paper to increase the credibility of readers in the article (#6: Understand and use print and digital technologies to address a range of audiences.) When I thought my paper was “perfect” enough, the arrival of peer review made me dispel the label of “perfect” for this paper. “Vague arguments; no source applied between paragraphs (#9: practice systematic application of citation conventions.); need to explain more about citation conventions.” etc., these suggestions have to make me review my paper Define and modify. But it is precise because of this peer review that I discussed and collaborated with my peers (#5: Engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.), which allowed me to review the paper at the last moment. Make appropriate amendments and supplements to the deficiencies.

     Looking back on my study this semester, I have mastered many new writing techniques. After each meeting and peer review, I will find the deficiencies in my paper, and modify them according to the suggestions given by professors and peers to make the structure of my paper clearer and make it easier for readers to understand my arguments. In general, this is a course that has benefited me a lot. Every meeting and peer review has helped my writing to a large extent, and I have gradually improved my writing skill based on the suggestions given by others.