I found the peer review at Irving’s very helpful, not because of the atmosphere but because of the criticisms. At times the criticisms seemed harsh but that’s only because what was being criticized need more attention and you guys were just trying to help me understand the concepts behind writing a rebuttal. I also liked how Josh commented on it too because my peers can be a little too nice sometimes, but having two to three people read my paper gave me different perspectives on what was wrong. I guess the biggest problem with my paper was how vague it was with no specific quotes or examples from the book so it killed my ethos by making me look like I was attacking Packham’s character, in turn losing my audience. I was able to fix a lot through my paper by reworking sentence structures to make more, clear and concise points so the paper wasn’t as confusing or awkward to read. The flow of the paper I believe is much better now but I still found the pt-rebuttal-counterpt hard to do because I feel like if I wanted to I could I could have written a paper on just one of his pts yet I had to instead argue against about four to five of his pts. I think because of the review my paper comes across better when read but I’m still not all that confident if I was able to argue well enough my pts.
No comments:
Post a Comment