In high school, I always saw myself as a decent annotator. I think throughout this semester and this paper I got better but I’m still not that confident as I think some of my peers are.I don’t markup articles a lot, I very conservative. I usually only see evidence that is very obvious. I don’t think this is necessarily bad and kind of works for me, because when I annotate I look for evidence I plan to use in my essay. That way we I go back and look for quotes, I find the evidence right there and I don’t have to sift through my annotations to find what’s useful.
When looking back at my annotations, I see that I annotate to understand the article a lot. I make annotations to simplify new paragraphs to try to understand what they are trying to convey to me, the reader. I think this is something that keeps me on track especially for this class that involves so many articles we use for our papers. I can look back and understand topics based off the annotations I made.
Questioning is something I did not do a lot initially when reading, but would later on. In class when discussing ideas I would hear my peers ideas and look through my texts and add those questioning annotations. Plus I see questioning as a complex task so I see that throughout each paper, I questioned more and more.
Relating texts to each other was something I did primarily in paper 2. In paper 2 I was trying to compare evidence to find common themes. So I see my annotations were primarily relating to other texts in the 2nd paper while the other two papers not as much.
Challenging was something I did a lot of in my papers, but not as much in my annotations. I had the ideas later on, but while reading, those challenges didn’t come to me. Only after group discussions would I have those challenge ideas. I think it wasn’t until my third paper that I fully embraced challenging.
https://blafreniere.uneportfolio.org/2018/10/23/reflecting-on-revision-paper-2/
