Revised Paragraph

Original: All the authors also lay out different roles and descriptions for the individuals in their respective systems. Since Davidson’s aim is to convince the reader about the beneficial effects of crowdsourcing education, she spends a lot of time building up a picture of the student and how he or she behaves in her model for twenty-first century learning. Davidson has built her entire bottom-up classroom structure with the individual student in mind. Even though the entire system allows for the collective intelligence and betterment of the whole, the individual remains the irreplaceable and most important part of the system. The entire goal of the community is to make sure that each child receives the educational experience that brings out their full potential. Consequently, the individual is central to the system, unlike the description that Johnson provides. Johnson prefers to look at individuals as nothing more than simple units that make-up the whole. He never celebrates individuality as Davidson does. This is best seen in the demon programming example. Johnson quotes Selfridge to explain that the entire A.I.  has a “natural selection” process in place for the demons. The entire program works by having miniprograms called demons that identify shapes who then send that information to higher level programs that interpret the shapes into letter which then gives the information to even higher level demons that turn that information into sentences and ultimately read the text. However, each of these demons are evaluated for accuracy and “If they serve a useful function they survive and perhaps are even the source for other sub demons who themselves are judged on their own merits.” (Johnson 206). This shows that Johnson views the individuals as disposable pieces that can replaced at the smallest sign of inefficiency. This once again causes direct conflict with Davidson’s essay. Lethem’s stance tends to lean more towards Davidson’s. He understands the artistic value of free and unrestricted sharing of creativity and explains the power of art on the human mind.

Revised: All the authors also lay out different roles and descriptions for the individuals in their respective systems. Since Davidson’s aim is to convince the reader about the beneficial effects of crowdsourcing education, she spends a lot of time building up a picture of the student and how he or she behaves in her model for twenty-first century learning. Davidson has built her entire bottom-up classroom structure with the individual student in mind. Even though the entire system allows for the collective intelligence and betterment of the whole, the individual remains the irreplaceable and most important part of the system. On the other hand, Johnson prefers to look at individuals as nothing more than simple units that make-up the whole. He never celebrates individuality as Davidson does. This is best seen in the demon programming example. Johnson quotes Selfridge to explain that the entire A.I.  has a “natural selection” process in place for the demons. Each of these demons are evaluated for accuracy and “If they serve a useful function they survive and perhaps are even the source for other sub demons who themselves are judged on their own merits.” (Johnson 206). This shows that Johnson views the individuals as disposable pieces that can replaced at the smallest sign of inefficiency. This once again causes direct conflict with Davidson’s essay. Lethem’s stance tends to lean more towards Davidson’s. He understands the artistic value of free and unrestricted sharing of creativity and explains the power of art on the human mind. He says the creativity starts with the individual and then is spread to the group which allows for inspiration to be drawn by another individual which in turn creates further knowledge. Lethem highlights this symbiotic relationship between individual and society and creativity and product of one person can help the whole group as well as the actions of another person.

I responded to my peer review by eliminating all the redundant sentences throughout the paragraph. Instead of restating my point through different words, I focus on creating transitions into my next idea. I also eliminated sections of the paragraph that were summarizations of the essays. I also elaborate more on Lethem’s point of view so there is a more complete analysis. On top of that i also smoothed out some wordings. This new paragraph still conflicts with my thesis but I plan  on changing my thesis instead.