Reflection on Project 3 Draft

In the following blog post I will be reflecting on the process of peer review and the changes I need to make on my draft.

I reviewed the drafts of Michael and Laurence (as well as Michael, upon request)

1. I had Andrea, Michael, and Michael review my draft.

2. Andrea's feedback was honest and more of what I expected regarding my opinion in the piece. The fact that I'm not forward about my opinion causes confusion, which is to be expected. However, the ineffectiveness of my form of argument was a little surprising, but provides insight for me on things to focus on. The low score I consistently received on my rhetorical strategies is an important note that I didn't realize. I gained generally higher scores from Michael B, which also pointed out some of the stronger points that I had on the assignment. The low score I received from Andrea on the Genre was unexpected and confused me slightly, since it was one of a stronger areas I felt. Michael F's review was the most positive of all of them, pointing out specific examples that were very strong. I got a great degree of bad and good reviews, which I couldn't be happier with.

3. Based on these evaluations, I think I really have to focus on voicing my personal opinion of the school funding conflict. I think argumentation needs the most work in regards to my argument as a whole. I could use a little work on audience and how well I communicate my opinion to them.

4. I think my paper is on the right track, though it is still very weak on the subject of my personal opinion. I really need to keep track of the fact that this is an opinion piece. After both the conference and peer review, I understand that I need to be more forward and honest about my opinion.

Díaz, Carlos "Ina" 1/11/09 via Flickr.com