Friday, October 18, 2019
Uncategorized

Response to peer feedback

I think the most significant thing that I took away from your comments was that my paper didn’t really find itself until the end.  I felt and agreed with the note that in my intro paragraph I asked some big questions which I never fully addressed and which didn’t directly relate to each other.  For example, “What happens when a map becomes outdated?” and “How does a map lose its worth?”.  I think that this is representative of my process when it came to writing the paper.  Rather than going into detail about specific lines I would have rewritten I feel that it is more valuable for me to address my writing process.  My paper only went through two drafts.  The first draft that I submitted was just over a page long and was about a different map.  This short draft made it very difficult to get effective peer feedback although (Viet and Lindsey were helpful and did a great job with what I gave them).  I was then struck by a new idea and started fresh.  I whipped out a draft, read it over, and ran it through spellcheck a couple times and sent it in.  I think that this also shows why I had trouble with some technical things such as run on sentences and inconsistency with citation.  I know that my process is not a great one and while working at the last minute does provide me with a lot of motivation it also gives me a lot of stress and leads to a more rushed final product.  This was evident to me in the feedback I observed and I felt that it warranted a deeper exploration in this response.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top
css.php