Revision Process of my Literature Review and Advocacy Project

In this page, I will talk about my revision process of my two major assignments --LR and AP. For example, how I began the assignments and what paths did I take on completing them.

3 Building Blocks

I found read and annotate Safina's book very challenging. Unlike the other articles, the book is very long and dry. Sometimes it is even hard to understand. But breaking annotation down would definitely helps such as keywords, scientists, and quotable excerpts.

Getting start is always the hard process. I have no idea how to use Twitter before this class. I didn't even know what "tweet" is. But later I found that Twitter is very useful for learning and school work.

I think the SMC assignment is very challenging. First you have to make good use of your time and research. Then you have to summarize your findings to Twitter.

The value of peer review is to give out and receive criticism to make the essay better. It is very important to have peer review in writing. It allows me to look at others mistake and warn myself if I have the same mistake. I agree that students actually get more out of giving than out of getting review advice. When I was reading others essay, I learn from their best and avoid their mistakes. Besides from giving, I also learned a lot from others advice. They gave the the message that I have never noticed and pushed my essay to a higher level.

I am not be able to find the advice that I gave for my peers since they all resolved it. But here are my screenshot from the Peer Review: Literature Review assignment. I think for Kylin Guo, she has to change her sentence structures. Because for every paragraphs, they all look the same to me. I think this is one of my best advice to give because sentence structure is very important on essays.

For Kevin Nguyen's essay, one of the best advice I gave was the connection between sources and transition to the next section need to be better. Because without connections and transitions, the essay is very unorganized. Organization is a big part on the essay.

Wenqian Cui gave me all the good advice. For my first LR draft, she said that I have to make it clear that this is a LR. Otherwise it has shifted focus, which is the most important thing for LR

Next, I didn't write my paragraph specific enough. I was lacking the method part, which is very important for people to understand how the experiment worked.

My peers have carefully corrected my grammar mistake, which I think it is important to change to make the essay look more professional. In addition, I added the introduction of scientist before the main ideas.

My peers said on the introduction that it doesn't look like an LR since no problem is identified. And I need to stress the idea that this following essay is an LR essay. So I added the problem, deleted unnecessary sentences and corrected some grammar mistake.

I have changed my conclusion to counterargument. The conclusion before is just simply summarizing the essay. But counterargument helps me to defend my own argument and beat the counterargument.

Here is a link to my AP project.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N0uAK60YXPKqWwS8Ec8m_trBgIjW4zvsK0fCZTT_Nss/edit