In my paper “Running: The Preferred Exercise Method” I discussed about the importance of how running affects the overall body. My objective in writing this paper was to get my audience, America, to understand that many if not all diseases/complications can be prevented/cured by running. There are definitely factors that are involved that differs from each situation or person. With proper coaching and recommended equipment, running can change a person’s life in positive way. Throughout my drafts of my papers, I felt confident with the idea of how running is the best method among all exercises that will positively affect the body. However, while writing those drafts I struggled to be very specific of why it is better than other exercises. I tried
…show more content…
J kept reminding me to have a specific audience and direction through one-on-one meetings during workshop days and through comments. During my outline I was unclear on who my audience was, so by the expanded draft I changed my unclear audience to American’s, more specifically, American’s with health complications. I did my best to listen frim the comments and fix any of the problems that was showed to me. During the peer review stage, my partner Amber Rundell, continued to critique my paper through suggestions and specifically showing me where I had to rework a sentence or two. All the feedback I received definitely helped me improve my paper. My scores in Project 2 for both the outline and the expanded draft were equal or better than they were during my Project 1 drafts were, so I was a little more confident going into my final draft. When I received my Project 2 final draft score I was a bit disappointed with my performance. I was a little confused at first with why I did so poor, but after reading the comments I realized how it needs more work. What I struggled with was my works cited and clarity of my audience. I don’t know exactly what I was thinking of when I inputted my sources into my paper, because many of my sources do not coinside with my works cited
J kept reminding me to have a specific audience and direction through one-on-one meetings during workshop days and through comments. During my outline I was unclear on who my audience was, so by the expanded draft I changed my unclear audience to American’s, more specifically, American’s with health complications. I did my best to listen frim the comments and fix any of the problems that was showed to me. During the peer review stage, my partner Amber Rundell, continued to critique my paper through suggestions and specifically showing me where I had to rework a sentence or two. All the feedback I received definitely helped me improve my paper. My scores in Project 2 for both the outline and the expanded draft were equal or better than they were during my Project 1 drafts were, so I was a little more confident going into my final draft. When I received my Project 2 final draft score I was a bit disappointed with my performance. I was a little confused at first with why I did so poor, but after reading the comments I realized how it needs more work. What I struggled with was my works cited and clarity of my audience. I don’t know exactly what I was thinking of when I inputted my sources into my paper, because many of my sources do not coinside with my works cited