Timothy Huang
A Writing 39C Portfolio
Essays
The Historical Conversations Project
The main issue in my first draft of my HCP was that it was not "historical" enough. The purpose of the assignment was to address how research progressed on the topic over time. However, in my paper, I felt like I used studies to describe olfactory tissue regeneration, the structure of the olfactory organ, and reason for damage to the tissues in lobsters. Therefore, I felt like I needed to include more past studies on cell regeneration in lobsters and made it a priority in my revision process. To do this, I went through the studies by Harrison et al. in 2001 and 2002, the core research of my paper, and looked for studies that it cited. I found two additional studies that were conducted to investigate nueron regeneration in crustaceans (Harzsch and Dawirs (1996) Beltz and Sandeman (2003) and reviewed these studies in my paper. In addition, I also followed Dr. Haas' suggestion about adding facts about lobsters in my introduction to provide some form of background knowledge about lobsters and to indicate my reason for my paper. I also did not include the credentials of the researchers I mentioned in the paper so I included them to increase the credibility of my paper. Specific changes and my reasoning for these changes are mentioned in my blog post, "A Week of Planning". An annotated version of my final draft, highlighting the change I made, entitled, "Literature Review of Olfactory Tissue Regeneration in Lobsters Final Draft with Annotated Comments", is also available below.
The Advocacy Project
The first advocacy project draft was suppose to be the combination of the HCP with the What's the Problem Draft. No changes were made to the "What's the Problem Draft" for the Advocacy Project Draft 1. However, the HCP was revised in order to fit the requirements of the Advocacy Project. For example, the introduction of the HCP and the section introducing the olfactory organs in lobsters were separated from the literature review (the review of the studies of olfactory tissue regeneration in lobsters). This section was reorganized to form a rough introduction of the Advocacy Project. In addition, the paragraph on the growth pattern of olfactory cells were also removed because of its irrelevance to the literature review and the advocacy project. Specific changes and my reasoning for these changes are mentioned in my blog post, "A Week of Revising".
The major issue with the first draft of my advocacy project was that I had not included the solutions for the problem of chemical pollution previously addressed. Stating the possible solutions for the problem was a requirement for the Advocacy Project. I used three sources (Thorpe (2010), Luo and Wang (2013), and Clay Shirky (2009)) to state how both the government and individuals can take action to resolve the problem of chemical pollution. I used Thorpe states how the government and non-government organizations can take action to promote clean production, Luo and Wang states how government can persuade farmers to adopt clean agricultural production techniques, and the TED talk by Clay Shirky to state how individuals can use social media to raise awareness of this global issue. Aside from the section on viable solutions, I also made changes to the introduction and rewrote a section addressing biomagnification in my draft. Firstly, after reading several example introductions in class, I felt like the introduction I made from reorganization of the introduction I used in my HCP was insufficient. The introduction did not address the problem and solutions of chemical pollution. I made changes to my introduction so that it was about lobsters, the reasons for researching lobsters, the problem of chemical pollution threatening lobster population, and the actions that can be taken by the government and by individuals. In addition, in my first draft, I had included a paragraph about how humans are affected by chemical pollution through the process of biomagnification. I initially wrote this paragraph because I felt like I needed to include a "so what" factor to persuade my readers that this was an important problem that needs to be resolved. However, Dr. Haas commented on my first draft stating that this paragraph was not necessary since it was about humans rather than marine animals. I decided to rewrite this paragraph so that it now addresses how fertilizers and pesticides act as chemical pollutants. In addition, I mentioned how chemical pollution effects marine animals of all trophic levels, not just lobsters, through the process of biomagnification. I ended the paragraph with a line on how humans are also affected by biomagnification so that it still had the "so what" factor I wanted to include. An annotated version of my final draft, highlighting other change I've made, entitled "Annotated Advocacy Project Final Draft" is also available below.