Scribd
Upload
29 views3 pages

Ma 3

Martin Mejia thanks his professor for feedback on two previous assignments and outlines how he has revised them based on that feedback. For both assignments, Mejia's conclusions and integration of course readings needed improvement. He strengthened his conclusions by analyzing his own experiences more deeply and linking them to frameworks. For the second assignment, Mejia addressed each element of a discourse community individually rather than listing them. Through this revision process, Mejia aims to improve his ability to thoughtfully incorporate course concepts and provide fully developed conclusions.

Uploaded by

api-709738344
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views3 pages

Ma 3

Martin Mejia thanks his professor for feedback on two previous assignments and outlines how he has revised them based on that feedback. For both assignments, Mejia's conclusions and integration of course readings needed improvement. He strengthened his conclusions by analyzing his own experiences more deeply and linking them to frameworks. For the second assignment, Mejia addressed each element of a discourse community individually rather than listing them. Through this revision process, Mejia aims to improve his ability to thoughtfully incorporate course concepts and provide fully developed conclusions.

Uploaded by

api-709738344
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Martin Mejia

Professor Gonzalez

ENC 1101

30 November 2023

Response Letter

Dear Professor,

I would like to thank you for your feedback on my prior work on Major Assignments 1 and 2, as

well as the opportunity to use said feedback in revising those assignments. After revisiting those

two assignments individually, I feel confident I have received your criticism well and have used

it to construct a better version of each Major Assignment.

Overall, I have found that my weakest aspect in my writing are my conclusions as well as my

ability to connect the article’s and framework readings to my writings. This was a problem seen

in both my Major Assignment 1 as well as me Major Assignment 2, so that will be the main focal

point of my revision and retrospectives.

Firstly, I would like to discuss the main problem with my first Major Assignment, the Multi-

Modal Literacy Narrative.You appeared to enjoy the essay section of the assignment with only

minor nit picks such as the margins being off as well as missing an in text citation. The biggest

flaw in that piece of writing was not connecting what I said to the article by, and ideas of

Brandt. What I had done was only connect the stories loosely to Brandt at the end, and as you

said “By leaving the analysis portion at the end, it changes the tone of the essay”. Additionally,

you brought up the idea that my conclusion was too brief and not personal, as you state “I also
think you barely state your current values, beliefs, and attitudes towards literacy, which also

impacts your conclusion because it appears underdeveloped”.

After reviewing the notes given to me, I believe I have come up with a stronger conclusion as a

way to link my writing to the original frameworks and make it more personable. Firstly, for the

conclusion I would go more into depth on analyzing my experiences I wrote about in my essay,

as well as stating my beliefs now and how those events affected me. It now reads as “All in all, it

is quite clear to see that sponsors of literacy can be both negative and positive. We can see this in

the way that my mother’s reaction to my first personal writings made me not want to write any

longer, as well as the way my Professor’s reaction and pride in an assignment single handedly

made me love the artform to this day. Both types of sponsors clearly can have a great effect on

one's life, success, and of course, literacy.” Additionally, to combat the fact that my integration

of the frameworks and their ideas were an afterthought, I would have placed the section where I

spoke about the frameworks in between both stories and explained how each correlated.

As for Major Assignment 2, I was critiqued again for my integration of frameworks as well as

my conclusion. The main critique was that I had basically had a whole paragraph of just

quotations listing what was necessary to have a discourse community, as well as a very short and

unimpressive conclusion. To combat this, it is better for me to tackle each point individually as

to why LCA is a discourse community rather than say the points and then tackle it all in one

lump. This is why for my revision I made a conference style poster aligning why every

requirement was met individually. Additionally, for the conclusion I added more context as to

why I believe LCA is a discourse community.


In conclusion, I hope that my revision of major assignment 1 and my resubmission of major

assignment 2 shows that I have used the critiques and comments I received and fixed my

mistakes. I was able to tackle my issues with over reliance on quotes and mediocre conclusions

and will continue to use the principles taught to me through revision in everyday writing and

scholarly work.

Thank you,

Martin Mejia

You might also like