Q1: I was less happy with it than my WP1. I felt like I didn’t
focus too much on the smaller moves, and I felt like I was limited on space
(the amount of pages) to do so. I also felt like maybe I didn’t separate the
two disciplines as much as I would’ve liked, but maybe grouped them more as
scholarly vs media sources. I also felt
like maybe I didn’t use the readings as much as I did for WP1 although I
certainly used ideas from them.
Q2: I liked the one that pointed it out I didn’t have too
much analyses in the second paragraph because it was specific and allowed me to
work on something tangible. I also liked the comment that pointed out that
logos may not necessarily be the strongest for an argument. It allowed me to
revisit that part of my paper and further consider my argument and how I structured
it.
Q3: I really liked it. I thought it was way easier than
commenting on paper. It allowed me to write specific comments on a part of the
page without having to reference it later on at the bottom. It was easier than physically having to write
on everyone’s paper.
Neph I completely agree with you that the online editing was easier in some ways. I also had some issues with my WP2. Like you I also wish I added more quotes from the class readings even though I incorporated their ideas into the paper. I also agree that this online editing allowed you to pinpoint where in your paper you had to make revisions or decisions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the whole 'focusing on moves' thing-- that was hard for me as well. separating the different disciples was pretty difficult too ):
ReplyDeleteas far as the online editing goes, I agree with both you and Andrew, I liked it much more