Saturday, April 16, 2016

Reflection on Global Revision Process (Project 3)

            This blog post will discuss this past week’s work. I will talk what went right and what went wrong. I will also discuss predictions on how the rest of the project will go, and how I’m generally feeling about this project.
      1.     There were one or two things that went well this past week. One, it was fairly easy to edit my rough draft. I believe the time and effort that I put into the QRG the week before made this week’s editing a bit easier. I only had to add a few sentences and ideas in order to make my argument more complete. Another success of this week’s process work was the research and inclusion of additional sources into my QRG. Because the new SAT is such a controversial topic, there were plenty of discussions and studies done on the topic. This made my search for specific references (such as the statistics regarding the relation between income and SAT score) quite easy.

          2.     With all of the things that went right, there were certainly a few things that didn’t go so well. As I was reviewing my QRG, I came across a few conflicts I had never thought of before. One of these was the development and acknowledgement of the counter-argument. My first rough draft lightly skimmed the idea of a counter–argument. So, I set out to develop this section of my QRG in more depth. Once I did that, I realized that I may have never specifically addressed these counter arguments in my claims. I wasn’t quite sure if this was a significant element for this project, so I attempted to incorporate the counters as best I could. Another thing that went wrong was the incorporation of pathos into my QRG. I seemed to have forgotten to include this vital element in my rough draft. So, I attempted to include an analogy of someone suffering from the new SAT. However, this was not an actual story, so there wasn’t any real evidence to support this section.

        3.     I think that next week may be a little tough. I seem to be confused on the overarching requirements of this project. I am not sure how our arguments are “supposed” to be constructed. I just introduced the idea, explained the counter, and then developed my rebuttal/argument. If our project should be in a specific form, I may have quite a bit of work to do next week. Next week might also be rough because I don’t know how to include a vital part of an argument into my QRG: emotion. I had difficulty finding ways to incorporate pathos into a subject based on standardized testing.


      4.     I am feeling decent about this project. There are a few reasons as to why I’m not feeling great, and why I’m not feeling horrible. I’m not feeling great because I think I’m still confused on the directions for this project. Most of my project wasn’t constructed based on a rubric, so it may deviate from what is expected. I don’t know how to create an argument while effectively following the conventions of a QRG (or maybe I did fine). I don’t feel horrible about this project because I feel like I have a decent base for my QRG. I think I followed the conventions/tone of a QRG quite well, so it won’t be hard to edit the publication in that respect. I also think that I understand my argument enough to where it wouldn’t be too difficult to reconstruct my QRG to convey my ideas.

No comments:

Post a Comment