Week 4 Discussion: RevisionDiscussion Weight: 5%
Learning Objectives: 1, 3, 6
Review the Week 4 Discussion Rubric hereMAIN POSTFor this discussion, first complete the following readings:
- The Norton Field Guide: Revising pp. 350-355, Chapter 33 (pp. 356-360)
- Little Seagull Handbook: “Revising” and “Editing and Proofreading” in W-3
- Revision – from MIT’s Department of Global Studies and Languages
- Anne Lamott’s essay, “Shitty First Drafts”
In Paragraph 1, Briefly describe your revision process. Do you relate to any of the challenges noted in Anne Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts”? Share one tip or tactic that you found useful from the technique readings. Remember to cite Lamott’s essay. (100 words minimum)In Paragraph 2 & 3, Post one paragraph from your Final Argumentative Essay in its original drafted form and then post a revision of the same paragraph. (2 separate paragraphs)In Paragraph 4, Share your strategy for revising. What changes did you make and why? (100 words minimum)Include a reference for “Shitty First Drafts” and any other sources you engage.PEER REPLIES (2)
- In 100-150 words, respond to two peers’ main posts. Offer your thoughts on the effectiveness of your peer’s revised paragraph. Make a suggestion for possible further revision. Also comment on your peer’s approach to the revision process. Identify any considerations or strategies that your peer may not have identified initially.
- Take a moment to check replies you receive to your own main post.
- You should cite and reference your readings this week.
- You must create your own thread first before you will be able to see others’ threads.
- You are encouraged to submit your initial post (minimum 2 paragraphs, 250+ words) by Wednesday at 11:59 PM Eastern.
- You must reply to at least two peers’ main threads. In addition to replying to two peers’ threads, to earn full credit, you should also respond to comments within your thread.
- You must participate on three separate days to earn full credit.