I was satisfied with my WP2, but I definitely know there is room for improvement, especially in terms of organization. I struggled with the structure because I felt like each paragraph had to directly relate to the thesis. So when I was simply explaining conventions and moves, I found it challenging to make it weave in with the thesis. I think the reason for this is because my thesis is not as strong as I would have liked it to be, but I struggled with coming up with something better. However, I was decently happy with the moves that I chose to compare and contrast and my integration of some quotes from the course reader.
The comments from the peer review that helped me the most was the suggestion to integrate more direct evidence. I talked about the structure often and found that somewhat difficult to quote--since I’m just describing the layout/format. However, I think I was able to incorporate course reader quotes. I also found it helpful that my peers suggested I break down my paragraphs into smaller ones. I struggled with having large one-page chunks of paragraphs, so I definitely needed to separate it more effectively.
I had the same problem with the structure of my paper as well. I constantly had to go back and change some things so they all tie back to the thesis in some way. It was pretty irritating when whole parts had to be changed or scrapped in order to do this. Tying in the course readings was difficult because you had to make sure the quote related and flowed with your statement. This WP was hard.
ReplyDelete