From the peer review session, I learned a lot about how to improve my essay as well as my reading comprehension skills in general. For instance, I now know that I have to bring my ideas to the forefront; this should be crux of my essay. Around twenty percent of my rough draft summarizes the individual arguments that Johnson and Davidson make, leaving out room for analyzation. On the other hand, one of my peers’ essays that I read focused on connecting ideas and exposing flaws between the two essays from beginning to end. Focusing on my observations and argument should be my number one priority. Instead of reiterating the basic connections between the essays, I should assume that the person reading my essay already have knowledge of the topic. From the review packet, I learned that my thesis ought to be more specific and less intuitive from a really helpful comment about how I can improve my essay by deepening my argument. Also, my peers were especially specific for which quotes I need to analyze/close-read. I should use at least a couple sentences to explain why a quote is important to my argument. One thing I observed from reviewing the two essays is that they were so different from mine. My peers presented their arguments and connections in unique ways that I would have not expected at all. I find it really interesting that among our class, most likely no two arguments are exactly the same; everyone has a different view.
No comments:
Post a Comment