In Artifact 1, I mentioned wanting to equally validate and disprove the “hype” behind my writing. Peer editing repeatedly validated the idea that the quality of my prose was good but not perfect (see Artifact 8). At least there was a good laugh there. 

Submission comments from the professor provided criticism and feedback I did not object (see Artifact 9). And the conversations after class, and the few times I entered office hours acted as a lasso to the swarm of thoughts that went through my head trying to address the context and advocacy project. 

I benefited from the support system that encapsulated the professor and my peers. Being the strongest critic against my own writing, I always accepted feedback. Revising both papers was straightforward, taking in the comments, and at times, inserting new body paragraphs that provided substance to my papers. The revision process should always be a collaborative experience. Learning from others is not wrong, and I find growth hard without the exposure to actual feedback that elicits the need to improve or the validation to continue.

< Rhetoric, Argumentation, & Multimodal Communication | Support and Support Systems | Closing Remarks >