Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

[edit] Student feedback

Steph's second draft of the Self-in-Contradiction essay was dissected in Class #12. How can she use the following to improve her strategy for using self as an argument for a mode of identity construction?

[edit] differences

Student-identified differences (a.k.a. Peer Review)

• second draft has stronger opinion and definition
• second draft is more personal, connects with the reader
• second draft has better structure and sense of purpose
• the phrase, slow down, is placed better
• fewer questions, this helps clarity
• the first draft has a choppy feel that seemed cool at first but becomes confusing, too many directions at once
• second draft deleted stuff which made it more clear
• writer seemed more sure of self in second draft
• second draft "sounded" like Steph
• conclusion in second relates back to language
• conclusion is stronger
• asks the reader to think
• why remove the section regarding own disability? (One student felt this was the most compelling paragraph in the whole piece.) Another student suggested that the notion of deviance replaced disability...
• first draft more abstract, second more personal and understandable

[edit] similarities

Peer Reviewer (e.g. student-identified!) similarities:

• both ask questions
• can sense shifts in stream of consciousness
• includes examples from own life
• the style of "voice", (e.g., diction, attitude)
• the argument and position remain the same
• one paragraph repeated in full
• abstract quality to both

[edit] First use of feedback

How did the writer (Steph) use the feedback from her very first Peer Reviewer, Phil?

• it seemed she felt verified by his feedback
• she built on his interest
• added independence (where? someone had this perception but then we couldn't locate specific evidence to back up the claim)
• someone felt it was "sad to lose the third paragraph" (from the first draft)
• the notion of "who draws the line" was fleshed out - not that the line itself was made more clear, rather, that the fuzziness of any line was brought more clearly into view
• clarifies that language is a necessity to communication (across disability? difference? we couldn't quite pin this perception down)

[edit] Second use of feedback

I reviewed the excerpts I had already drawn out of the Self-in-Contradiction essay, refining my focus even more:

complicate first impressions; question the representativeness of appearance; valorize fragmentation as foundational; raise the body's dual superficiality and totality (diction?); break down traditional binaries & typical understandings of stillness & movement, ability & disability; question values separating mind & body; and illustrate language as the ground of "who I am".