Rough draft w/o comments: Berg_Task1_RoughDraft
Rough Draft w/ comments: Berg_Task1_RoughDraft – Troell
I felt that my most successful portion of Task 1 was in the methods. I had more information for my methods than anything else–I had to revise the introduction, initial analysis and research objective sections in order to provide to the fullest extent the required knowledge to understand Task 1 as a reader. In contrast to all this, I felt that I was least successful in conveying the information. I almost felt that I was saying the same thing in different ways, as there is not much I could have written on my particular focus for the assignment. I might be able to fix this through more drafting and editing, pulling repetitive portions and adding crucial information where it’s needed. This might cut down on the word count and page length but it would definitely make a better read. I did need to know what a literate activity was–I was extremely confused when Dat had his understanding of it wrong, same as me, and he asked the question “what is the literate activity?” I struggled to try to make sense of it but in the final hours I decided to roll with what I had and hope that both Dat and I were wrong. I also needed to know the various observation terms and know how to integrate those into my drafts. The final portion that helped me reach the length and word requirements was my Process Work that listed the methods and research questions. With this copy-paste assignment I was able to knock out two sections and have around half of the rough draft done along with a starter for the final draft. Amy’s comments on my draft very much helped me revise my essay; in fact, I think everything she mentioned in the comments I either fixed or clarified. I went so far as to get another review first-hand over the phone with her, just to get a few still-misguided thoughts cleared. I believe the entirety of Task 1 will help me with Task 2, as it provides a base for my research and a reference to ensure I keep my focus.
Final Draft: Berg_Task1_FinalDraft
Final w/ Revisions: Berg_Task1_Revised
Originally I had been skeptical about analyzing my clan in Clash of Clans. I had no idea what to look for, I could not figure out what I needed to focus on, and I didn’t know how I was going to get to six pages. Of course, after the revisions I had found that there was much more to discuss than I had written, and I easily made six pages. In short, I did not think that the community was a good choice, but after some observational studies and revisions I realized that my clan was as good a community as any. For example, my initial analysis was underdeveloped and barely explained the importance of my literate activity, communication. This was one part with which I had struggled, and had eventually said “I’ll take points off just to know what I need in this.” After I revised that section, I felt more proud of it as it was informative and detailed. The revision filled in a hole I left.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of writing the first draft was finding enough information to achieve the best end result possible. I do admit I was frustrated beyond all bounds, until Amy called me and went over my draft with me (even though I did not receive an amazing score, this probably saved me from a worse fate). Overcoming the famine of information was even more difficult, and in order to fix that I simply needed to think deeper. Referencing the initial analysis again, I had such shallow views on what I was writing about that there were only two paragraphs. Before I revised, I was only including information on communication and not its limits and benefits or its effectiveness. The revised version, of course, includes informational improvements all around but in the initial analysis there is much more of a change.
A lot of the feedback I received from both peers and Professor Arban pertained to what specifically I was trying to analyze. In the same spots on all my reviews, there were comments that asked what my literate activity was supposed to be. These comments appeared both at the introduction and in the initial analysis. I more appreciated Amy’s feedback than I did Dat’s, since he and I were both unsure on most of the key words like “genres” and “literate activities.” In addition to this, Dat had some confusing feedback–this doesn’t mean I didn’t use it! In fact, I went through all of his comments and suggestions and picked out what I felt needed changing (there was actually quite a bit I used), then moved on to Amy’s and found that most of her critical remarks were in line with Dat’s. Interesting. Professor Arban’s feedback, however, was a little more critical and went into even further detail than that of my peers, pointing out the smaller issues that are easily missed by students, such as citations and informational issues. I found that his proposals were very informative, giving reason to why I needed to change something rather than simply telling me something needed changing.