In the researched op-ed response, we were tasked with choosing a published op-ed from Scientific American and then writing our own op-ed in response to that original source. This process was clearly described, which made each step fairly straightforward. Those steps involved selecting the source op-ed from a number of potential op-eds based on interest; creating a reverse outline to analyze the overall structure, tone, and strategies; finding other relevant sources on the topic and creating a source report; writing a rough draft response; going through a peer review process to get feedback from other readers; reflecting on the overall process; and revising the op-ed response into the final product.
The hardest part of the assignment for me was figuring out how to respond to the original op-ed in a way that added something new to the conversation without simply retreading all the points that the original author made. I agreed with all the arguments that the author made, but did not want to just say, “Miller argues that … and is totally right!” and “Miller points out that … and he is dead on!” Researching with other sources is part of the solution to that issue, but it was somewhat challenging at first finding sources that dealt with the specific topic about which I was writing.
I thought that the reverse outline and the peer review process were the most useful strategies for figuring out how to write an effective op-ed. The reverse outline helped me understand the overall structure and key characteristics of a science op-ed, and explicitly pointing out parts of the op-ed that created exigence or used ethos or added context (among other strategies) made it easier to use those specific techniques in my own writing. During the peer review process, it was very useful to get feedback from a classmate about what she thought worked well and what she thought could be tweaked or added. Perhaps even more useful, though, was reading her op-ed with an analytic approach, as that made me think back to my own piece and identify similar areas that I could improve. I plan to read my own work in the future with such a peer-review mindset.
During the research phase of this project, I was initially unsure how to navigate the library website to find new articles about my topic. As a returning post-bac student, this is my first class at CCNY in which I’m doing research with articles, and there was a bit of a learning curve in figuring out how to find quality materials. Going forward, I think that I will be able to find these materials much more efficiently, which will surely be useful for the IMRaD paper.
