LISTEN

The connectedness of the group members' semester issues:

The issues that the group selected are connected by one main idea: advocacy for the individual. Each of us chose a topic that would be considered taboo in our society because of the difficulty in not only speaking about the issue, but also finding ways to address it. By looking at these issues together we found opportunities to leverage consistencies between them to better identify the impact to the individual and address the needs. These included sensitive areas such as adoption, child abuse, mental health, steroid abuse and sexual assault. Each of these issues have a significant emotional and physical effect on the individual as well as  those surrounding them.

 

Why specific papers were selected over others for the magazine:

 The papers that we selected were chosen for this magazine due to their ability to illicit an emotional response from the reader. Some of the other papers that were written over the course of the semester which were not selected did not have the impact we were seeking nor were they able to convey the issues the way we envisioned. While other papers were  written with an educational or academic focus in mind.

 

Revision choices for the papers:

The papers that were selected for the magazine were then reviewed by our instructor and peers who provided feedback and recommendations on how to strengthen each of the issues. These included at least one from each of the writing genres. We incorporated the profile and flash memoir genre to create an instance where the reader could relate to and understand the issue. The result demonstrates a combination of vivid stories which draws in the reader by bringing the details within to life.  The position argument and report genre that were included are more focused on the informational spectrum. These pieces are aimed to address and inform the reader of the specifics surrounding each issue as well as persuade them to take action and make a difference. It also highlighted the fact that the details about these issues are relatively unknown, and by shedding light on them we hope to create awareness and bring help to those individuals who are impacted.

 

Translation/adaptation choices for other papers or smaller projects:

The adaptations/translations we chose have specific meaning because they represent the multiple actions taken by others to address these issues, but in one cohesive picture. The combined result was a combination of both smaller pieces and the remaining projects to represent the social justice issues as a whole. This abstract representation of the issues gives depth to the magazine, and is presents a medium that the reader will not expect.

 

Why specific papers/projects were excluded from the magazine? 

Each writer had different reasons for excluding works from the magazine.

The two papers that were excluded for the mental health issue were the report and flash memoir genre. The report was loaded with information which made the writing come off as too academic and difficult to comprehend. It could have been adapted for the project, but proved more difficult to produce the desired result. The flash memoir was based off a decidedly personal subject which could not be told in a short, simple way.

The two papers that were excluded for the adoption issue were the profile and report genre.  These papers struggled to impress the writer and could not accomplish their goal to hold true to their idea. Each paper missed something, but became something greater when combined.

The two papers that were excluded for the child abuse issue were the profile and position argument genre. Each paper was focused exclusively on an individual and was not the aim of the magazine. The profile had the triumph of a child over abuse, while the position argument was a story of a child destroyed by it.

The two papers that were excluded for the steroid/sexual abuse issue were the profile and report. The report was translated to make it more intriguing and easier to get information across efficiently to the reader. The profile was told from a different viewpoint, but did not feel it was strong enough to include in the magazine.

Our choices were made because they were our strongest, relatable and had a personal connection to each writer.

For Skyler, his memoir and position argument were about his own and loved ones experiences with steroid/sexual abuse which enabled him to put a lot of force and emotion into them. He translated his report into a powerpoint which gave the reader visuals while also providing great information.

Hannah chose her profile about her close friend and position argument which was relatable to her peers. Each had a story and information that needed to be shared about mental health. Her adaption was a combination of notebook posts and images to represent her social justice issue in one collage which added depth to the magazine.

Shonnie chose her position argument and flash memoir which conveyed exactly what she desired for adoption for the magazine. She also combined her remaining projects to create a cohesive translation which strengthened both pieces.

For McKenzie, her memoir and report were emotional and informational pieces. She chose them because she felt they were her strongest pieces and told a story for her readers.  Her adaption was turning her notebook post into a powerpoint to tell a better story about child abuse.

 

What did group members discover about their research and writing when making revision choices as a group?  What did the group learn about the writing process throughout the genres? What advice would you give other groups for working on this part of the project?

We had each individual choose their two strongest pieces to contribute to the magazine. We each knew our own topics well, and based on that knowledge we selected two that fit for the overall goal. We gave each other suggestions on how to revise specific papers, but we all individually selected the works we wanted to use. This was helpful due to the feedback from our peers, but also gave us works to revise that we were most comfortable with. Our group feedback was found to be helpful. We all had a sense of how to complete the project efficiently and proceeded from there.

However, we missed out on the opportunity to review them all as a group which could have provided more insight and make it more of a group decision rather than an individual one. Assembling to make this a priority was a challenge due to time constraints.

We discovered that research is a key factor for any projects. The deeper we looked into our subjects helped fill holed and make our writing more fluid. Revision after revision is also extremely helpful. Sometimes the more you look at something the harder it is to see it, but when you are challenged with different ways of thinking and perspectives you can see the best outcome for your writing and what you envision it to be.

We would suggest to other groups to focus on research, and do it over and over again. You could find new information that inspires a different intended outcome, or enhance what is already there. You can never research too much as long as you are conscious of your purpose and stay true to your thesis. Don’t let the information consume you, digest it and use it to your advantage.

 

How strong is the magazine in terms of the main objectives? How well researched is it? How well designed is it? Where is it perhaps lacking?

We trust the magazine as a whole meets all of the main objectives. Each individual has submitted three works of writing, as well as contributing to the editor’s note. The research was extensive, and each of us has given multiple sources for each of our papers. The design is simple, but complete. Each of the issues are so intricate that I think keeping the webpage design simple has been very beneficial to the overall impact of the information.

 

Compiled by:

McKenzie Hilton

Hannah Kuhnhausen

Shonnie Sullivan

Skyler Lewis