In our peer review, we discussed organization and how to structure our arguments in the best way. We also talked about the improvements we’ve made from our first drafts and the pointers we took from our initial peer review discussions. We all plan to work more on elaborating on examples and explaining jargon that might be unfamiliar to our audiences. We will work on transitions and making the argument come together from start to finish. Visual rhetoric was another topic we brought up, as Nick has a lot of useful photos but Alec and Alaiah could use more to strengthen their arguments.
Here’s us at Wilbur dining:
Pao and Brenna met up in the gaming center in the basement of Green Library on Saturday afternoon. They had a productive meeting, and did a little bit of gaming, as well. Pao’s main takeaway from the peer review was that his paper needs to have a bigger “so what?” to show the importance of avatar identity. Brenna is now going to focus on integrating the results and quotes from her study throughout her paper. She’s also going to try to incorporate more of her own experience into her argument to show why what she’s writing about is relevant and important. Pao and Brenna will read Wilmer’s draft as soon as it’s submitted.
Today we held our peer review meeting today at 10:00 am on the second, and eventually first floor of the Arrillaga Dining Hall (Once we were kicked out to prepare the dining hall for lunch). Overall our meeting was very productive and all readers provided strong help to their respective authors. Starting with Chaz’s paper, its main topics of discussion were the overall arrangement of the paper and how it affected its flow. Additionally we focused on identifying which terms within the paper needed further explanation and incorporation into the essay. As for Arjun the main take aways was a need for heading to assist the reader in identifying their position within the flow of his argument. From his first draft, the readability of his paper skyrocketed and the improvement really showed in the effective communication of his ideas / arguments. Armando had the main take away of focusing on refining the present material within his essay, now that all his ideas were on paper making it sound smooth was a major talking point. Also it was recommended he incorporate images to facilitate reader understanding of the complex topic of in-game micro transactions. The session was very helpful to all members and concluded a productive morning!
Overall, our group meeting was very productive. Jacie’s main takeaway was that she can emphasize her argument more by restructuring her essay. Alex W’s main takeaway was that he can include more sentences that tie the evidence back to the argument. Alex K’s main takeaway was that he should expand more and specify his argument. We were impressed by everyone’s use of evidence and sources in their and essays and their ability to show up on time (given that 2 members were affected by illnesses).
Peer reviewing went very well for our group. Our main takeaways were that the review is, first off, very helpful when we’re able to discuss together in person in addition to having others annotate copies of our drafts. In terms of what we all realized about our writing, there were certain segments of each paper that weren’t very accessible due to the terminology being very specific to gaming,. We thought that we could clarify these points better so that a broader audience could feel the full impact of our arguments. What impressed us the most about this was the passion that we all had for our topics. We’ve really developed very strong and nuanced arguments over the past couple of weeks and they all feel very strong.
Today’s mixer was great as it helped me cement the format and structure in which I want to write my RBA in. What worked really well for me when explaining my topic was starting off with more factual claims as many people initially were not very open minded to the idea that professional gamers could be considered athletes. Once they were exposed to different factual claims, they began to open up and when I followed up with opinions from different people such as professional gamers and NBA Athletes. Then they asked for my opinion on the topic, and when I told them that I didn’t have an answer but rather felt that culutral nuances effect societal perspectives and that the definition of Athletes varies from America to South Korea and so does the perception of gamers they became incredibly engaged in my topic and thought what I was talking about was really cool.
I am trying to learn about the use of virtual reality in medical training
because I want to find out where its development is and where it can improve
in order to help my reader understand what steps can be taken (and why they should be taken) to make virtual reality an even more practical and beneficial part of medical education.
Today, I think our first activity in which we passed around our topic and let other people write the questions they had was most useful. I now have more perspectives as well as some specific questions that I didn’t think about but that are good things to make clear to the reader before actually making an argument. I think now I may add focus to where simulations started compared to where they are now, as well as the possible ethics of “gamer doctors” as one person put it.