Dear Reader,
For deadline #12, I reviewed Lauren Hart's and Breanna Featherston's drafts for Project 3. In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions about my own project.
1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?
Ann Emilie Tjorhom and Mark Lubniewski
2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received?
The feedback I received was really helpful, particularly the feedback from Mark in the "audience" section and the feedback from Ann Emilie in the "purpose" section. Mark wrote, "at this point, it seems as though the mishandling of UVA was prompted by existing misconceptions about Greek life established beforehand, rather than Rolling Stone’s article building a fundamentally new image in people’s heads - after all, if Rolling Stone established the stereotypes, why would UVA react the way it did?". I found his point to be really helpful because I had not realized this before. I plan on re-evaluating how I can better explain this to my audience because I understand that existing misconceptions were already a problem but I want to emphasize how that issue combined with Rolling Stone's article failure led to more problems (and therefore, my argument).
3. What aspects of project 3 need the most work going forward [audience, purpose, argumentation, or genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas?
Personally, after looking over the peer review documents, it seems to me that I need to work most on purpose. Ann Emilie wrote, "Addie starts talking about the merits of Greek life towards the end, which could be an asset to her argument, but end up distracting readers from the causal argument she is trying to make". I realized after reading this that she is right. I plan on reconsidering how to effectively tie-in the "merits of Greek life" with my argument.
4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?
I feel pretty good about my draft, however, there are some changes that need to be made. Hopefully I will be able to combine a lot the advice/recommendations I received from the conference as well as from the peer review documents.
For deadline #12, I reviewed Lauren Hart's and Breanna Featherston's drafts for Project 3. In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions about my own project.
 |
| Huithril (2015) "Edit" via Phanaticmc Public Domain |
Ann Emilie Tjorhom and Mark Lubniewski
2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received?
The feedback I received was really helpful, particularly the feedback from Mark in the "audience" section and the feedback from Ann Emilie in the "purpose" section. Mark wrote, "at this point, it seems as though the mishandling of UVA was prompted by existing misconceptions about Greek life established beforehand, rather than Rolling Stone’s article building a fundamentally new image in people’s heads - after all, if Rolling Stone established the stereotypes, why would UVA react the way it did?". I found his point to be really helpful because I had not realized this before. I plan on re-evaluating how I can better explain this to my audience because I understand that existing misconceptions were already a problem but I want to emphasize how that issue combined with Rolling Stone's article failure led to more problems (and therefore, my argument).
3. What aspects of project 3 need the most work going forward [audience, purpose, argumentation, or genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas?
Personally, after looking over the peer review documents, it seems to me that I need to work most on purpose. Ann Emilie wrote, "Addie starts talking about the merits of Greek life towards the end, which could be an asset to her argument, but end up distracting readers from the causal argument she is trying to make". I realized after reading this that she is right. I plan on reconsidering how to effectively tie-in the "merits of Greek life" with my argument.
4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?
I feel pretty good about my draft, however, there are some changes that need to be made. Hopefully I will be able to combine a lot the advice/recommendations I received from the conference as well as from the peer review documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment