 |
| AJC. "Peer Review." 05/23/2008 via Flickr. Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License. |
I peer reviewed Annelise's and Tom's projects, both of which were very good and very different. Annelise is choosing to write a listicle for this project, while Tom is writing a blog post.
Regarding my own project, I will be answering the some questions:
1. Who reviewed your Project 3 draft?
Tom Cortez reviewed my Project 3 draft.
2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? Be explicit and clear. Tell me what helped or what confused you about the feedback you got.
Tom did a really good job about being specific regarding what worked and what did not work in my argument. He pointed out a few things that really struck him as persuasive, making me feel more confident about my work. I really appreciated pointed out minor details that seemed to be a little off, whether it was about the formatting or about my argument.
3. What aspects of Project 3 need the most work going forward? How do you plan on addressing these areas?
I personally feel like I need to work on Purpose the most because I feel I am not consistent when I am arguing. Some of my points come across as solution-based, while I am trying to present a con argument. I plan on addressing this issue by evaluating and revising my language and my presentation of my ideas in order to come across more clearly.
4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after teacher conferences and peer review?
I am feeling confident in my editorial, even though I know I have some revising to do. I left my teacher conference feeling very encouraged about the state of my project and I was anxious to see where it could go. Also, I know now that my argument and the points I am trying to make are understandable to an audience, so that is encouraging too.
--Jenny Bello
No comments:
Post a Comment