-Critique Own and Other’s work
I made my own critique of work based on the given peer reviews. First, I decided to add more explanation on the general background of my literacy. I didn’t clarify the relationship of two close characters in my narrative. Also I paraphrased the part where I explained the reason of my chosen answer. This part took up a lot compared to other parts. Last, I slightly changed the lesson I learned from this event. First lesson I came up with was broader than what most of the people would think. I also gave my feedback to other students. I tried to emphasize on which parts they did well and also suggested for some changes that could lead into better literacy narrative. For example, Mike’s narrative was about his behavior change toward learning English after he met new teacher. I commented on his specific explanation about the teacher that this helped reader understand more about the reason of behavior change. Then I spotted that if he organize the overall part where the teacher affected Mike it would be better. I commented on that at the end of his narrative.
-Active reading, critical reading, and informal reading response
In Cuddy’s ted talk, she first explains about the concept of nonverbals. I found out that by listing common examples of nonverbals in our daily lives, she emphasized the hidden effects of nonverbals. Without the purpose of doing that, people judge each other through nonverbal behaviors. She then contrasts between power nonverbals and powerless nonverbals. Students in business school shows certain power nonverbals, and I realized how important power nonverbal is to those who would purse in the field of business. In the business field it is important to interact with various people, and confident behavior is essential in this. Powerless nonverbals which makes themselves smaller is not a helpful behavior. Showing full range of power nonverbals is what brings them success in the field. I found some connections between Cuddy’s texts and extended those ideas into my own lesson of the lecture. Other texts I annotated was about discourse. From the text of Gee I learned notion of language discourse and found out it can be divided into two different ones. They are primary discourse which can be gained by being a member of closest socializing group, and secondary discourse which is beyond the immediate peer group. From this annotation I understood the key concepts of the passage.
-Writing as a recursive process
I revised my narrative based on my and peer review. I came up with three concrete ideas for revision based on what I thought about my narrative. First I decided to work on explaining the general background of the literacy. I explained more about two key characters in the story. How they met, and where the two characters met had to be explained to better frame the narrative. Also, I paraphrased the part where I explained the reason of the decided answer. That part at first seemed to take up a lot in my narrative compared to other parts. I could balance my narrative by making that specific part shorter. Next I changed and introduced new lesson from my story. At first my lesson seemed to be extended from what could have originally extracted from the narrative. My story was generally about multiple choice exam, and it evaluated the ability to interpret a literature. My original lesson was ‘literature education should be aimed to accept different people’s views’ which was broader than the modified lesson. It was revised to ‘Literature interpretation ability should not be assessed by multiple choice exams’. These revision process made my narrative into more organized and effective story than before.
-Control Individualized Error Pattern
At first I tended to have basic punctuational errors in the essays. Some of the connection between the words were not suitable. I have some examples of errors in my old writing. ‘It overturns the student’s world before they got education’, word ‘got’ had to be revised into ‘get an’. In a sentence ‘The institution for higher learning is represented as university’, I had to put an ‘a’ after as. Also, I had to revise the form of sentence to make it better. At ‘University helps creation of the prepared minds for the society’, I had to rewrite into ‘University helps create the prepared minds for the society’ to make it more natural. All the errors I made were fundamental so I could reduce these kinds of errors through practice. In later drafts it was hard to find punctuational errors.
