I've become very efficient in how to research and adapt resources to fit my needs. When looking up resources I also understand credibility is very important, so I have to make sure that their backgrounds are appropriate for what they're writing about or (if using a news article) if the journalist is using proper sources themselves. I find that cross-checking sources and numbers/statistics was the most difficult part, especially since I'm writing on Kurdistan and there aren't that many official reports on the region/incident that occurred due to its obscurity. I felt I conveyed the information the best way I could in the time allowed.
The outline we did earlier in the lab was very beneficial to me. It helped streamline and simplify the information I had already obtained, making it easier to read and pass on the information into the essay. The main topics and its sub-points helped my maintain fluidity while writing my essay, as well as understanding the basic message I'm trying to put across. I had wished I had gathered and researched a bit more before doing the outline so I could put together a rough draft of the sources I'm working with. If I had done that, I most likely could have put the essay together in a quicker fashion as well as made sure the sub-points of the main topics actually made sense within the realm of reality.
The peer editing experience wasn't exactly what I'd call perfect nor any where near average standards. It could be attributed to my partner or just my negligence in the audience that I was writing to, but I gained almost nothing (except one error within the thesis - grammar related) which didn't exactly help me write the next draft. I just put my sources/citations in my next draft and didn't change much structure or theme wise. I feel as though my choice in partners could have dodged some of this, but the lack of seriousness or attempt to correct was atrocious. After the peer editing part, we could have tried a self-reflection part where you examine your paper and try to dissect its weaknesses and flaws without ever looking at the peer edited draft, then compare the too and see the main weakness or what the two people agree on.
My strengths are very apparent in my essay. I have my facts and statistics correct, not to mention I try to coerce an emotional empathetic response out of the reader, and the essay flows very well besides a few paragraph breaks I need to put in. My weaknesses, however, are very damaging ones. I need to relate back to the Crucible and directly refer to it through quotes more often when referencing a specific event, and should try to clean up my introduction a bit better so it's more clear to the reader about what they're getting into. With that said, I definitely need to focus on cleaning up the main message of the essay in the introduction then move on to cite more and refer move back to the Crucible to give it some validity before moving on.
No comments:
Post a Comment