Contemplations, Creations and…well it’s a blog.

Eportfolio: Peer Response

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->Garrek:

Garrek is an individual who writes in unique and interesting ways. In his drafts, he begins with them being rather wordy. He addresses the topic at hand but uses too many words sometimes to illustrate his points. By the time the final draft rolls around it is polished. The piece is still able to display his voice and points he is trying to make in a more straight-forward, academic way that still makes the paper a good read. Most of his papers, and responses, begin with a very straight-to-the-point, logical statement that grabs the readers attention and encourages them to continue reading the entirety of the paper. While editing his drafts, Garrek seems to take what people have enjoyed or suggested for revision, and includes them in a more effective way; I saw this a lot in the moving of paragraphs around in the paper. And as an end result, the paragraphs were more effective and helped keep the overall flow of the paper going. The best part of Garrek's writing that I enjoyed as an almost theme-like way, was his effective use of voice in amusing phrases that help the reader to further understand the point that is being made, i.e "The River of Suck." Overall Garrek is a good writer that lets his personality shine through his writing while still being able to keep it academic.

Kyle:

Kyle writes in an interesting way. It seems to be impersonal, but upon further examination, his personality seems to shine through. Sometimes it doesn't seem so, but if you look you can see his voice and parts of himself in the pieces. He tells us that he enjoys poetry; I find this to be evident in his writing style. His style seems almost to strain for a flowing, soft, poetry-like style. Sometimes though, it seems choppy, but this is in an almost stanza-like way. This is particularly evident in drafts, when he goes back to revise them I see that the writing becomes more objective. The papers all seem to be written similarly, by this I mean that the style, voice, and overall objectivities are implanted in some way that sometimes is confusing, but then becomes more clear as you keep on reading. Kyle writes with a poetry-like style but still manages to keep it academic and shows much potential both as a creative writer, and an academic one.

Hilary:

Hilary writes her papers personal experienes laced in with the points she is making in her pieces. When she begins her papers, they seem shorter. By shorter, Imean tahat she lists out her main points but does not elaborate on them overtly much. When it comes to revisions, she is able to expand more on them and a lot of times, adds more voice. Along with voice, comes her own style of explanation. She gives good direction in an almost teacher-like way so that we can "see" where she is coming from and what it is that she wants us to glean from her writing. It is shown often in her writing, that she prefers "telling" it ( i.e telling about how a day went or a particular event in a day through a casual form like e-mail, etc.) but that she is able to work it nicely into her formal pieces as well.

Jessica:

Jessica has an objective writing style. In her writing, she tells things how they are, she tends to not "show" what is happening, or why she believes certain things to be what they are. Her text-book-like writing style works effectively in conveying points. In the beginning when these points are made, she tends to not elaborate on them enough from her own personal experiences etc. In her revisions though, she expands more on her explanations and is able to insert more voice so it is not as impersonal. It is evident in her writing that she comes from a medical background in education; this is shown in her themes of medical issues (i.e Alzheimer and in her Corbett imitations) that help us get a glimpse into how her mind works as a writer, and a person.