Dear Mr. Curtin,
Over the course of this semester, I feel that as a student, I have demonstrated a much better perspective of WOVE than the onset of the year. I’ve learned to be a better communicator in the literature and media world, as well as learned how to understand and cull information from each of the modes. I feel that as a writer, I have learned how to interpret a model’s thesis, extract the supporting material, and maintain consciousness as to whether or not the supporting material pertains to the model’s thesis. I have effectively learned how to cite sources and smoothly incorporate gleaned information from other sources into my project(s). I have learned the difference and importance between revisiting and editing, as well as maintaining proper expression, diction, and eloquence within my writing so as not to confuse my audience. Not to mention, being precise with key points and the use of concision in my writing; these tools all help me convey a designated perspective to my audience. I’ve also learned the importance of organization within my material, so as not to lose the central focus of my work in any of the WOVE modes. As a student, I can also say that I have learned the great importance of curating and filtering material that could prove contradictory or anomalous to the true essence of my project. This extraneous material could not only confuse my audience, but also draw their attention away from the main purpose I was trying to convey in the first place. For clarity, I could easily refer back to my Assignment 3 project where the main objective was to convey to an audience the importance and/or interest of an on-campus organization or program. Throughout the exhibition of my final project there were many inconsistencies that drew my audience away from the main focus of the project: there was no clear or evident thesis to discern from the material, the material was unorganized and lacking relevant points that engaged the audience specifically to the point of the paper, there was an excess of unnecessary material befuddling the supporting details of the thesis, and the delivery was weak and detracted meaning from the paper. In the onset of the paper, I established a clear sense of introduction, but it was undistinguished from there who and what I was trying to acknowledge. For e.g. in one excerpt from the piece, it is stated, “Darling had called up a meeting in New York City and had lined up nine land-grant colleges and their respective conservation departments to notch up the two-thirds of the $243,000 cost of operating the nine Cooperative Wildlife Units for three years. He needed some $81,000 to meet his designated quota to start up the ninth Cooperative Wildlife Unit, however the funding was not coming from the government…” but this was all premature information, useless to the audience simply because the central purposes of these facilities weren’t established within the paper. Signs of improvement can later on be seen in my Assignment 4 project where information was much better articulated and organized, although some more work on addressing the main criteria of the assignment could be useful. Within my hard copy of the visual project, I explained, “Beardshear Hall is a distinguished building that is established in its oppressive yet worthwhile history, its grandeur, and influence to the rest of campus.” However, based on this essential statement, there was little to no palpable evidence pertinent to the assignment criteria that these convictions were so. So with further consideration, standing back and looking at my progress as a student, I would definitely further work on summarizing and being sure that I have a clear understanding of what the assignment criteria is and being sure to work on concision, relevance, clarity, and organization of material. This will help me better as a WOVE communicator in the future. Thank you so much for the opportunity and encouragement Mr. Curtin,
Sincerely,
Juawan Thomas