Revision

Revision was not about just fixing typos, of which there were many, even after the revisions were made. My early research proposal had no clear question, only a topic. My later proposal has a focused question stated three ways to ensure clarity. My methodology paper also lacked the precision of a single item topic. My annotated bibliography originally listed sources without explaining how they connected to my argument. After feedback, I added a sentence to each entry explicitly stating the connection. My works cited page went from MLA 8th to 9th edition formatting after I learned the difference. My survey originally had 30 questions; I cut it down after receiving feedback where my questions were redundant in essence. The image of Guernica in my portfolio was originally a small thumbnail; I replaced it with a high-resolution version after realizing viewers needed to see details like the open mouths and fragmented bodies to understand my research. But later, I completely revamped my portfolio as I lacked an understanding in its true intent. I followed feedback from peers, one telling me my topic was too broad, which was a shared critique from my professor as well. Another peer expressed a clear observation of my portfolio that he deemed lacking in SLOs, which was very much true.  I simplified my design as Professor said it was too busy, as it was in retrospect. Although I did not fully interpret some feedback properly, I found all of it to be the most rewarding aspect of this class. Each revision was intentional, not cosmetic. I even added as an artifact, my annotated bibliography WITH my tracked revisions, just to show a visual representation of the revision process at hand. Ultimately, the most significant revision was the metamorphosis that my research question went through. Each time narrowing down to my absolute question of "How Does Picasso's Guernica use Visual Rhetoric to create Emotional Identification (pathos) with Civilian Suffering?" Looking at the artifacts provide a decent understanding as to the transformation I and my written works have gone through as the Cited Works paper reflects completely different sources than my annotated bibliography and furthermore, completely different sources from that in my research proposal.  

Many of my SLOs overlap, rightfully so, as I had redone my paper's topic several times. For example, my methodology paper spoke of survey(s) and interviews where ultimately to simplify it for accuracy, I narrowed down to three comparison groups.  The methodology also considered a larger subject group of 80-100 where my proposal settled at 20-30.