HR: None
As mentioned in the subject essay, the practice of critiquing one’s own work is essential to improving one’s process. For me, this meant cutting down on the overabundance of “fluff words,” as well as growing from strictly following “prescription” to a more personal and adaptive way of writing. According to Linda Flower and John Hayes, prescription is described as “how the textbooks pretend people do it” (8). By only using this method writers limit themselves to only one way of planning and communication, potentially preventing creative expression. I knew these problems were present in my writing, but by forming an analysis around them the full extent of their effects was realized. Regarding my word choice, even during the development of my self-reflection I actively revised my work. This process, which I hope becomes a habit, is a conscious effort to communicate my purpose and position with an audience. When reviewing past works, it became apparent how much my style has changed to meet these goals; however, these efforts have not been focused on until this essay was planned. Thus, changes in my writing for the better have occurred subconsciously over time. This could be attributed to increased comfort with college-level writing, or perhaps underlying awareness of my struggles with writing. As discussed in the subject essay, as well as previous works, forced writing on a topic of no interest causes difficulty in producing content; this paper has reinforced that, as I do not enjoy reviewing my own works as much as others’.