Conference and Revision Reflection for Reading Response #1

When I met with you in your office hours to review my draft for Fitzgerald’s Reading Response, the loudest feedback I heard was for me to include more nuance in my arguments. In my reading response, I was essentially trying to make the case that the centuries-long mistreatment of Native cultures by Western cultures was due to a critical lack of understanding of Native culture and how to study it. The polarities of dualism vs. nondualism, capitalism vs. natural resources, individuality vs. community, and notions of ‘advanced’ vs. ‘primitive’ serve to underline this chasm between Western and Native values.

However, in trying to illustrate this gap and increase the validity of my argument, I tended to paint with a broad brush, turning all Westerners into greedy, money hungry, cutthroat capitalists, ad all Native Americans into stoic, noble, protectors of the Earth. Obviously, in reality not all Westerners or Natives are like this. You encouraged me to introduce a little more nuance and difference of opinion into my responses and encouraged me to take a look at how Fitzgerald addressed counterarguments and then presented her own take of the basket. I definitely thought that this improved the overall ethos of my reading response. This manifested itself in sometimes little ways, like changing “Westerners view land and resources as….” to “Many Westerners view the land and resources as….”. This little change accounts for many Americans how actively fight for environmental protection and climate change research. Hopefully these changes are evident in the overall rhetorical tone of my annotations.

Peer Review Reflection for Reading Response #1

Aline Castro worked gave each other feedback at every level of our Reading Response process, so it was only natural that we would each review the other’s responses once we felt that we had a finished draft. As we worked through the rubric it was pretty much immediately clear that we had surpassed the ‘complete’ threshold of the rubric.

With that in place, I started examining her annotations for clear evidence, an organizational structure that backed up her core thesis, and multimodal content. Her evidence was good, and I thought she did a good job of not just arbitrarily annotating obvious sections of Fitzgerald’s text, but digging deeper into some of Fitzgerald’s more complex arguments. She had plenty of images and links to content that fully satisfied the multimodal section of the rubric. The only constructive feedback I gave her on the ‘skillful, persuasive’ area was in her organization. There were some small tweaks she could make that would make her annotations flow into each other a little cleaner and smoother, but I think that’s the only thing that could potentially limit her overall score.

Her feedback for me included some calls for greater clarity in the meaning of some of my more abstract annotations. I did my best to fix those and make it easier to understand what my intent was behind some of them.