I reviewed Marvin Chaires rough draft of his paper. The rubric grading of his draft can be found here. Reviewing this draft showed me how I needed to address the stakeholders more in my own QRG. Stakeholders are the reason why a controversy has any traction. If there aren't any stakeholders then the controversy will not have different sides and apposing arguments. I need to emphasize the different stakeholders on each side of the argument. My controversy project does have several things that were done well; in my opinion I did a good job of analyzing the cause of the controversy and the reasons for each side of the controversy, like I previously stated I still need to attach the different stakeholders to the controversy but otherwise I believe that to be a strong point.
One mistake that my peer made was that he did not specifically define what positions each stakeholder had or for that matter what each of the stakeholders were. Another mistake that my peer made was not talking about why the topic he chose was controversial, most people would agree that this event was a tragedy that never should have happened so what exactly was the controversy in all this. However he did do some things very well. He gave good background information into the event including what caused the event to take place in the first place (switching of water supplies). Another thing that my peer did well was giving a step by step explanation of the event and what different people are upset about as well as who created the problem in the first place. Both of these events are ones that I would like to emulate in my project and emphasize in my revision process.
 |
| Harry, "Revision...", via Flickr, Creative Commons License |
No comments:
Post a Comment