css.php

Project #2: Reflection


Calendar Forums Blog Project #2: Reflection

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #595
    Bo Li
    Participant

    <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>For project 2, the research-based argument paper with an annotated bibliography, I believe I should receive around a B+. </span>

    <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Although I think I did a good job in covering important points on the topic of the paper, I believe I barely met some criteria for this assignment. The assignment was a research-based argumentative paper. I did the research part, however, it lacked an argument. As a result, my thesis was vague and had a hint of a nonexistent argument. </span>

    <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>I spent a lot of time on this assignment trying to present an argument and categorizing what should and should not be included. To limit myself from straying away from the important points of the topic, I structured the paper in such a way that instead of tackling the main points in depth and details, I address many important points shallowly. As a result of this structure, many sources were used, however, their full potential was not brought to light. Each source had a dedicated part of the paper to themselves, which also led to careless and lack of citations. Although I did not take full advantage of each source in the paper itself, I wrote about its potential in the annotated bibliography. I wrote more than what I used in the paper which could’ve been important or a good argument. As a result, the annotated bibliography became more of a strong analysis than the paper, but only for some sources. Writing with many sources but barely using them in the paper made me very inconsistent when I was writing the annotated bibliography. I unintentionally gave more weight to some sources in the annotated bibliography even though each source had about the same weight in the paper. As a result, some source’s annotated bibliography was longer and more in-depth than others. </span>

    <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>One good thing that came out of writing in this structure was good transitions. This structure helped organize the paper so that the transition from one point to another was smooth. For example, when I was clarifying how the journalist isn’t completely at fault in certain circumstances, I used the previous paragraph’s article to introduce the next source by exploiting a similarity they had of defending the journalist. “As a result, more bad news is created due to journalists sacrificing essential data within their articles for more readers. However, the journalist is not completely at fault, according to Resnick.” After summarizing the previous paragraph that was making the journalist look like they’re at complete fault, I reiterate that they are not at complete fault by citing the previous source which introduces the next topic and source. </span>

    <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Although the transitions are good in this paper, I need to work on my word choice for transition words. Throughout the paper, I kept using the same transition words over and over. For example, “although” was used 10 times; “as a result” was used 16 times; “however” was used 28 times, once 3 times in a single paragraph; and “due to” was used 28 times with at least 6 paragraphs having it used 2 times. </span>

    <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>As a result of these reasons and many more, I believe I should receive around a B+ due to the fact that although there are many flaws, I believe it is a solid research paper that has an ambiguous argument. </span>

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Need help with the Commons? Visit our
help page
Send us a message
Skip to toolbar