The first draft of this essay had no headings; it was initially a collage of information with no real structure. Because I was writing a research paper, I was overwhelmed with the number of sources I had. Each text had its own set of information and its own opinion on the existence of individualism. I wanted to include a variety of perspectives, but didn't know how to do so without sounding like I was contradicting myself. In the end, I used headings to organize my thoughts; they provided a clean, concise way of structuring my essay. By assigning each source to a category, I was able to see the relationship between those categories and understand the overarching ideas between them. I was also able to directly convey my central message to my readers, who saw the heading and knew exactly what to expect. Categorizing my sources not only made it easier for me to write, but easier for my audience to read.

I wrote my first draft before I interviewed Professor Heyman. Even then, however, I was worrying about what he would say and how I would be able to incorporate his words into my essay. There was a lot of information Professor Heyman gave me that was not written into the final draft. I also interviewed Professor Heberlein, another psychologist, a few days before the essay was due. Like Professor Heyman, the information she provided was fascinating, but I struggled to smoothly incorporate it into my essay. I wanted to add her insight into my paper, but I couldn't force it. In the end, I had to selectively choose what would best fit my inquiry. I paired Professor Heyman's words with Jonah Berger because I felt like they complimented each other nicely. Though he's highly esteemed, Berger produced questionable statistics during his study, so I wanted to validate them with the words of another professional. Professor Heyman confirming the study allows the two to "interact" with each other without actually being in the same room. It gives me a chance to connect two of my sources together, while also allowing me to incorporate my own conversation with Professor Heyman.

In my first draft, the introductory paragraph was a weak set up for the remainder of the essay. I not only failed to hook the audience, but I also questioned the existence of individualism without explaining why I had those doubts. The paragraph as a whole was rushed and impersonal. In the final draft, I had to split the introductory paragraph into two. I wanted to use the opening paragraphs to successfully introduce individuality and explain why its existence may be farfetched. I switched to first person to give the essay a more personal, dynamic feel; I introduced my high school to catch the audience's attention and explain why I, as a writer, feel passionate about this topic. By using the definition of individualism and the anecdote of my high school, I think I am able to effectively convince my audience that this is a question worth exploring.

One of the main problems in my original draft was that I failed to interpret the sources and add my own personal insight. I simply summarized and combined the information I researched online. There was little depth and personality to the paper. By describing my own high school experience, I am able to relate to the kids in Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall." This allows me to connect my own reaction with the source itself, making it feel less like a "research paper" and more personal. As a writer, it is more interesting for me to add my own thoughts on the matter, and for the audience it is hopefully more interesting to read.

These sentences replaced a large chunk of the conclusion in the first draft. Originally, the conclusion was fairly short (you could tell that I had nothing to say), and it presented ideas that were all roughly and abruptly introduced. In the new conclusion, I wanted to return to the references I made throughout the essay (Pink Floyd, Chuck Palahniuk, etc). It was, in my opinion, a good way to review my essay's main ideas without directly stating them. It also gave me an opportunity to synthesize my sources and connect them all together. Combining new insight with old information makes my concluding statement less abrupt and more relevant to the essay as a whole.

This piece originated as a response paper to Jhumpa Lahiri's "Teach Yourself Italian," where I was writing to a question. I added these details of my heritage to establish a connection between me and Lahiri. In the original one-pager, I briefly talked about my struggles with the Korean language, but I wanted to elaborate a bit more during my revision. This is what introduces my Korean heritage and gives me some credibility in the next paragraph, where I question whether a "total metamorphosis" is actually possible. Aside from the content, many of my revisions were the omission of unnecessary words and the general rearrangement of sentences.

I chose to work on this piece because of the question. Although I revised these two paragraphs, I kept the last question exactly the same. It is something that I genuinely wonder from time to time, and it is a topic that interests me, especially given my heritage. Throughout Lahiri's essay, I was able to greatly relate to her. I saw this piece as an opportunity to build off of her insight and experience. Since we are both similar and different, I thought it would be interesting to interact and react to her text. During the revision process, I wanted to build up to the final question, so I did refer back to Lahiri after explaining my own thoughts on "total metamorphosis." I think it further establishes the connection I have with Lahiri, and it transitions into the final two questions nicely.