Earlier this week, I was completely confused as to what exactly my task was for project 3. Thanks to my peer review, I have gained a better understanding of what I am suppose to do for project 3. I had only developed the un-digital subversive genre remediation, which were five memes. My peers recommended I do a twitter page and a survey for the other two genre remediations that I am required to do. I plan on developing my twitter page on gun control and for it to be active as long as possible. I also plan on informing twitter users of my topic. My subversive un-digital memes will remain the same because it captures the attention of my audience, which are students who support gun control. I will make the questions I input into my survey opinion based, so that I can see how students feel towards gun control and how they feel making current gun regulations stricter will impact the number of mass shootings we have in the United States in the future.
Sophia Fundora The text "Really Responding" surprised me in the way that Richard Straub claimed that putting forth maximum effort when peer reviewing someone else's paper could make you an even better writer. He emphasizes the importance of writing comments within the margarines and summarizing the paper in your own words. I believe that this strategy mentioned could be very helpful not only for the person who's paper your reviewing but for yourself as well. It helps the writer see how the audience would perceive their paper and what they need to work on. It helps the reviewer by enhancing their comprehension skills and applying their own comments on their own paper as well. I also believe his strategy of taking the stage of drafting in to consideration when peer reviewing could be very helpful. For example, Straub mentions how if it's a first or rough draft, try not to deal with all the editing at once but instead focus on the large picture like the focus, con...
Comments
Post a Comment