– Make sure all my body paragraphs have clear topic sentences
– Format my essay
– Write a conclusion
– rework intro: make sure I strongly introduce the two texts I will be working with throughout my essay.
– Look over my Barclay paragraphs
– Add more “I”
1. Focus on building a better thesis
2. using more quotes
3. Better flow in my writing
4. Only using two authors
5. Introducing the authors a little more
In the Introduction I need to work on explaining the author’s backgrounds more giving them more credibility. I also need to be more specific about what the “negative impacts” are by grabbing the examples I used later in the text and putting them up in the claim. For the first paragraph, I need to make a block quote and give background information on the first quote. Again need be specify and give examples of the “negatively impacted behavior” I talked about. Change the Carr quote around so it’s not a quote of a quote. Do the same thing for the Kelly quote from Turkle.
I found our peer review session super insightful to reflect and be able to hear changes I can make to my essay.
-I need to fix a couple of grammar mistakes, fixing my quote citations, MLA format, adding a title
-My quotes should be flown into more properly to draw together my explanation
-Some of my quotes need to be more explained before I state them to make it a natural flow
-I can add more input to my analysis and go deeper to tie up my points better
-My thesis is strong but should be more reflecting on in my body paragraphs
-I can use the Barclay’s paragraphs to have a better structure throughout my essay
-I should add more of Carr and Turkle in my analysis and not just my personal experience where I can get lost
-I can definitely cut back on some of my “I say” and add more “they say”
It was helpful for my peers to go through my essay and see the things I have missed or can elaborate more on. Overall, the biggest concerns I need to fix are my quotation mistakes and MLA formatting. Also my explanations into my quote and the analysis afterwards.
For revising my draft, I overall did a pretty good job on adding detail to my essay but I need to add more flow to my essay. In some places, mostly introducing paragraphs, I did not have a strong topic sentence to them. I could combat this by adding a stronger topic sentence. I need to add a conclusion to my work and in that conclusion I could make it reflect back to a call to action that something needs to be done about this. I talk about my work in very vague terms by using “things” a lot, I should add more specific words to my essay and that will help my flow and help the connection that the reader can get to my work. My thesis needs to be more specific. I start it by just agreeing with both Turkle and carr when in reality, I should say my own 2 cents to the discussion and say that “I believe….” And that will tie everything back a lot better. For explaining and describing who Carr and Turkle are, I should say the works that I am discussing instead of just saying who they are. This peer review session rocked.
For making changes and revising my paper, I mainly need to add my own personal viewpoints to strengthen my arguments and why I view their arguments the way I do. I also need to fix my MLA format a little bit, like adding in my last name and page numbers, as well as picking a title since I have two options currently. I realized throughout my paper that I do have strong points, however I need to add a little bit more analysis and my own opinion to really get my point across and what I want the reader to take home. Another point we talked about was how my thesis was good, however if it reshaped it a little bit and made it more concise it would make my thesis stronger and make the whole flow of my paper seem smoother. Overall, I really need to work on adding my own opinion on topics as well as going over grammar and run-on sentences that I had throughout my paper.
First, I need to create a clear, concise thesis that doesn’t beat around the bush. It needs to make sense and be able to connect to my other body paragraphs and their ideas. I already know what I want my thesis to be, I just have to find a way to better integrate it into the introduction. Next, working on the flow and length of the paragraphs is something I have to work on. I tend to write my essays as if I am in a flowing conversation with a person, which ends up with it having a few too many stops, where I will almost “breath” even though this is a paper and not a conversation. Next, I took a side in one of my paragraphs but didn’t actually show it in the paper. I sided with Carr when it came to how to inform the readers about the idea in the paper. For Carr, it was more about being factual and understanding the history of technology, while for Turkle it was more emotional. Taking a side here is fine and I just have to stick to my guns and say that I agree or disagree with one or the other, which is also good engagement on my part in the text. Lastly, there are a few quotes that I need to explain better and integrate into the essay. One from Turkle is a little weak, but I already have a plan to add another one in its place.
– Add more personal connections, specifically in my second body paragraph, to strengthen my analysis
– Go through and simplify some of my sentences, as they are very wordy and at times they over-communicate the ideas that I’m trying to convey.
– Revisit my analysis in both of my paragraphs and make sure that I am placing Carr and Anderson in conversation enough, as I feel like the connections that I am trying to make between them are not coming across as thoroughly as I want them to
– Discuss techno-cognitive nomadism and Skinner box, as those are terms that the reader might not have any context on
– Move away from the reliance and addiction points in my second body paragraph, and focus more on the “purposeful” distractions the internet poses, and how Carr and Anderson are in agreement, and how I place myself in that conversation
– In my first body paragraph, focus less on the differences in content on the internet and more on how Carr and Anderson differ, and why I align myself more with Carr than Anderson. I can talk about how this restless, “nomadic” way of thinking has caused me more harm than good in my own life, and use more direct words to almost pit the two authors against each other
As the final due date of Project 2 approaches, there are clear changes to my paper that I will look to change. The biggest change that I want to make is my paragraph structure. I need to specify more of my claims and include more personal stories and experiences to help convey what I feel and connect with the specific sources. I also want to break up my paragraphs. My first body paragraph is extremely long, and I feel that using another quote will allow me to break down that paragraph and expand my thoughts in a way that will benefit my overall paper. Furthermore, I intend on working to connect the “payload” of my body paragraphs to my topic sentences. During my peer review, I received feedback from two of the reviewers who said that my paragraphs would slightly get off topic and I would benefit from spending more time on my payload and specifying my thoughts clearly to the reader. I feel as though doing this will benefit my paper and create paragraphs that have smooth flow. Similarly, I had also received comments from the reviewers who said I did not maximize the potential of my thoughts. I think that this just needs more attention spent on my payload. Another aspect of my paper that received a lot of attention was me reintroducing the authors constantly. I did so in my introduction and therefore do not need to do it every time I go to cite the authors.
For this essay, I felt like mine was terrible. When I gave my essay to my peers, it was barely over 800 words because I was struggling with what path I wanted to go down. Once we came to class and talked about it, however, I feel more confident about what I will be writing about. Both of my peers pointed out small things throughout my paper that included grammar and sentence structure. They also made great points about how the two paragraphs that I have do not flow well. A big point that I had not taken time to look at was reviewing who the authors were, in my case that was Kelley and Carr. My introduction consists of two random authors that have no background, which makes my paper feel insignificant. When I originally began writing this essay, I planned on using just two paragraphs that used the Barclay formula structure, but I did not realize that would soon not be the case. Due to the complexity of my essay and thesis, my groupmates helped me realize that I should change my structure to introduce the ideas of the authors first and then to put them in conversation with one another. Something that my essay lacks is a natural flow. I have been told before that my writing can be very blocky and my group did a great job of pointing out moments where my words did not flow or felt like they had been randomly placed. Even though we are done peer reviewing, I feel like my paper was rushed and I did not have enough time to get my point across and that I shared my paper too early in the writing process. Overall, my peer review group did a great job of editing and analyzing my paper as well as each other’s.
The major thing that I have to go back and revise is the MLA formatting, I mainly wanted to get all of my information onto the page before going back and ensuring that my paper is formatted correctly. There are a few grammar mistakes that I need to go back and change which I plan on doing once I have gotten all of my ideas down and concluded the essay to then go back and reread through everything. I currently need to find a quote for one of my last paragraphs and tie it into my essay. I need to finish my conclusion and wrap everything together. I also intend on adding in one or two paragraphs of the authors ideas separately to be able to voice their own ideas as well as my view on the without contending with the other author directly. I also want to add in more of my own experiences into the paragraphs to strengthen my essay.
I think the comments From Mae and Natalie gave me a sense that I need to open the thesis up more and create a strong cross visual to associate the topics I brought later on in the paper. Their comments were clear that the ability to have something to only intro a topic while making sure to keep it clear and not distracting to the reader should be the way to go. Sometimes I find myself trying to explain too much info early on in a paper, making my arguments in the body paragraphs less effective in the long run. Besides some minor grammatical errors and making sure sentences flow a bit better, they enjoyed reading what I discussed. Mae brought up how one of the quotes would become stronger if I added an experience to create a visual for the topic. Overall, my last few revisions will be linking some of the information in a more fluid way. Some parts seemed repetitive and will not make sense if not corrected. Besides some minor grammatical errors, the information I wanted to get across should be there, it is always difficult to pack so much info into a short essay. I have always seemed to have issues creating a good thesis statement and connecting them well enough to make sense and flow.
12 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 21”
– Make sure all my body paragraphs have clear topic sentences
– Format my essay
– Write a conclusion
– rework intro: make sure I strongly introduce the two texts I will be working with throughout my essay.
– Look over my Barclay paragraphs
– Add more “I”
1. Focus on building a better thesis
2. using more quotes
3. Better flow in my writing
4. Only using two authors
5. Introducing the authors a little more
In the Introduction I need to work on explaining the author’s backgrounds more giving them more credibility. I also need to be more specific about what the “negative impacts” are by grabbing the examples I used later in the text and putting them up in the claim. For the first paragraph, I need to make a block quote and give background information on the first quote. Again need be specify and give examples of the “negatively impacted behavior” I talked about. Change the Carr quote around so it’s not a quote of a quote. Do the same thing for the Kelly quote from Turkle.
I found our peer review session super insightful to reflect and be able to hear changes I can make to my essay.
-I need to fix a couple of grammar mistakes, fixing my quote citations, MLA format, adding a title
-My quotes should be flown into more properly to draw together my explanation
-Some of my quotes need to be more explained before I state them to make it a natural flow
-I can add more input to my analysis and go deeper to tie up my points better
-My thesis is strong but should be more reflecting on in my body paragraphs
-I can use the Barclay’s paragraphs to have a better structure throughout my essay
-I should add more of Carr and Turkle in my analysis and not just my personal experience where I can get lost
-I can definitely cut back on some of my “I say” and add more “they say”
It was helpful for my peers to go through my essay and see the things I have missed or can elaborate more on. Overall, the biggest concerns I need to fix are my quotation mistakes and MLA formatting. Also my explanations into my quote and the analysis afterwards.
For revising my draft, I overall did a pretty good job on adding detail to my essay but I need to add more flow to my essay. In some places, mostly introducing paragraphs, I did not have a strong topic sentence to them. I could combat this by adding a stronger topic sentence. I need to add a conclusion to my work and in that conclusion I could make it reflect back to a call to action that something needs to be done about this. I talk about my work in very vague terms by using “things” a lot, I should add more specific words to my essay and that will help my flow and help the connection that the reader can get to my work. My thesis needs to be more specific. I start it by just agreeing with both Turkle and carr when in reality, I should say my own 2 cents to the discussion and say that “I believe….” And that will tie everything back a lot better. For explaining and describing who Carr and Turkle are, I should say the works that I am discussing instead of just saying who they are. This peer review session rocked.
For making changes and revising my paper, I mainly need to add my own personal viewpoints to strengthen my arguments and why I view their arguments the way I do. I also need to fix my MLA format a little bit, like adding in my last name and page numbers, as well as picking a title since I have two options currently. I realized throughout my paper that I do have strong points, however I need to add a little bit more analysis and my own opinion to really get my point across and what I want the reader to take home. Another point we talked about was how my thesis was good, however if it reshaped it a little bit and made it more concise it would make my thesis stronger and make the whole flow of my paper seem smoother. Overall, I really need to work on adding my own opinion on topics as well as going over grammar and run-on sentences that I had throughout my paper.
First, I need to create a clear, concise thesis that doesn’t beat around the bush. It needs to make sense and be able to connect to my other body paragraphs and their ideas. I already know what I want my thesis to be, I just have to find a way to better integrate it into the introduction. Next, working on the flow and length of the paragraphs is something I have to work on. I tend to write my essays as if I am in a flowing conversation with a person, which ends up with it having a few too many stops, where I will almost “breath” even though this is a paper and not a conversation. Next, I took a side in one of my paragraphs but didn’t actually show it in the paper. I sided with Carr when it came to how to inform the readers about the idea in the paper. For Carr, it was more about being factual and understanding the history of technology, while for Turkle it was more emotional. Taking a side here is fine and I just have to stick to my guns and say that I agree or disagree with one or the other, which is also good engagement on my part in the text. Lastly, there are a few quotes that I need to explain better and integrate into the essay. One from Turkle is a little weak, but I already have a plan to add another one in its place.
– Add more personal connections, specifically in my second body paragraph, to strengthen my analysis
– Go through and simplify some of my sentences, as they are very wordy and at times they over-communicate the ideas that I’m trying to convey.
– Revisit my analysis in both of my paragraphs and make sure that I am placing Carr and Anderson in conversation enough, as I feel like the connections that I am trying to make between them are not coming across as thoroughly as I want them to
– Discuss techno-cognitive nomadism and Skinner box, as those are terms that the reader might not have any context on
– Move away from the reliance and addiction points in my second body paragraph, and focus more on the “purposeful” distractions the internet poses, and how Carr and Anderson are in agreement, and how I place myself in that conversation
– In my first body paragraph, focus less on the differences in content on the internet and more on how Carr and Anderson differ, and why I align myself more with Carr than Anderson. I can talk about how this restless, “nomadic” way of thinking has caused me more harm than good in my own life, and use more direct words to almost pit the two authors against each other
As the final due date of Project 2 approaches, there are clear changes to my paper that I will look to change. The biggest change that I want to make is my paragraph structure. I need to specify more of my claims and include more personal stories and experiences to help convey what I feel and connect with the specific sources. I also want to break up my paragraphs. My first body paragraph is extremely long, and I feel that using another quote will allow me to break down that paragraph and expand my thoughts in a way that will benefit my overall paper. Furthermore, I intend on working to connect the “payload” of my body paragraphs to my topic sentences. During my peer review, I received feedback from two of the reviewers who said that my paragraphs would slightly get off topic and I would benefit from spending more time on my payload and specifying my thoughts clearly to the reader. I feel as though doing this will benefit my paper and create paragraphs that have smooth flow. Similarly, I had also received comments from the reviewers who said I did not maximize the potential of my thoughts. I think that this just needs more attention spent on my payload. Another aspect of my paper that received a lot of attention was me reintroducing the authors constantly. I did so in my introduction and therefore do not need to do it every time I go to cite the authors.
For this essay, I felt like mine was terrible. When I gave my essay to my peers, it was barely over 800 words because I was struggling with what path I wanted to go down. Once we came to class and talked about it, however, I feel more confident about what I will be writing about. Both of my peers pointed out small things throughout my paper that included grammar and sentence structure. They also made great points about how the two paragraphs that I have do not flow well. A big point that I had not taken time to look at was reviewing who the authors were, in my case that was Kelley and Carr. My introduction consists of two random authors that have no background, which makes my paper feel insignificant. When I originally began writing this essay, I planned on using just two paragraphs that used the Barclay formula structure, but I did not realize that would soon not be the case. Due to the complexity of my essay and thesis, my groupmates helped me realize that I should change my structure to introduce the ideas of the authors first and then to put them in conversation with one another. Something that my essay lacks is a natural flow. I have been told before that my writing can be very blocky and my group did a great job of pointing out moments where my words did not flow or felt like they had been randomly placed. Even though we are done peer reviewing, I feel like my paper was rushed and I did not have enough time to get my point across and that I shared my paper too early in the writing process. Overall, my peer review group did a great job of editing and analyzing my paper as well as each other’s.
The major thing that I have to go back and revise is the MLA formatting, I mainly wanted to get all of my information onto the page before going back and ensuring that my paper is formatted correctly. There are a few grammar mistakes that I need to go back and change which I plan on doing once I have gotten all of my ideas down and concluded the essay to then go back and reread through everything. I currently need to find a quote for one of my last paragraphs and tie it into my essay. I need to finish my conclusion and wrap everything together. I also intend on adding in one or two paragraphs of the authors ideas separately to be able to voice their own ideas as well as my view on the without contending with the other author directly. I also want to add in more of my own experiences into the paragraphs to strengthen my essay.
I think the comments From Mae and Natalie gave me a sense that I need to open the thesis up more and create a strong cross visual to associate the topics I brought later on in the paper. Their comments were clear that the ability to have something to only intro a topic while making sure to keep it clear and not distracting to the reader should be the way to go. Sometimes I find myself trying to explain too much info early on in a paper, making my arguments in the body paragraphs less effective in the long run. Besides some minor grammatical errors and making sure sentences flow a bit better, they enjoyed reading what I discussed. Mae brought up how one of the quotes would become stronger if I added an experience to create a visual for the topic. Overall, my last few revisions will be linking some of the information in a more fluid way. Some parts seemed repetitive and will not make sense if not corrected. Besides some minor grammatical errors, the information I wanted to get across should be there, it is always difficult to pack so much info into a short essay. I have always seemed to have issues creating a good thesis statement and connecting them well enough to make sense and flow.