I believe that one of the student learning outcomes that the Literacy Paper touched upon was

the “Writing Processes & Adaptation” one. This is because the literacy paper heavily focused on the
writing processes of our past and then how they affected our present. I believe that my paper
specifically focused on this and adaptation, due to its focus on how I had to adapt my writing to
benefit my writing style and literacy journey. I also believe my literacy paper helped me explore the
Writing and Power outcome, as it helped approach my identity and how that has affected my literacy
journey. How my specific personal experiences affected how I saw my writing and the depiction of my
style was one of the major themes that I followed through my paper, so I believe that it achieved this
literacy outcome. Revision was a brief topic that I explored in my paper, importantly regarding my
realization of how important revision is to the writing process in general, and how my experiences with
peer review and other forms of revision helped me in my journey. Thus, I believe it to have been one of
the learning outcomes that was explored within the realms of my paper. I feel like “Multiple Literacies
& Goal Setting” was one of the outcomes that I have learned and explored within the entirety of Unit
1, as figuring out the broad scope of literacy and how it could apply to numerous things other than the
standard reading and writing that we typically associate it with, was a big impression and takeaway
from the Unit as a whole. This mostly included the deconstruction of the mindset that most rhetoric
skills and tools are found only in academic settings. The truth is the opposite, wherein it is used all the
way down to our regular societal interactions and mechanics. However, I feel like my paper was mostly
focused on writing style and that alone instead of multiple literacies, so it might not reflect that but it is
something that I learned overall through the unit.

Revision Reflection:
In revising this, I read the comment that I received from my peer on this paper, that suggested
that I explain more about the pathways that I’ve mentioned in my reflection. This has caused me to
zero out a particular problem that I’ve had in many writings before: that it was too generalised and
broad. In that broadness, it was also wordy in that it could be cut down by a bit and still hold as much
purpose as I had intended. The first thing I looked for in the revision is ways to cut down my sentences
so that they could convey my message more concisely than the original piece.

In addition, I added a few lines that explained some of my points more, as that would help it
from being too generalised. Giving examples, I felt, would strengthen my claims more and help them
gain more significance.