Reflections and actions on Formative feedback for final submission

This was written feedback form my tutor followed by some email exchanges for clarification on points from myself

My reflections:

Reviewing the whole document and considered reordering and amalgamating, gave me the extra insight I needed to cut down repetition, preamble and see where I needed to get to the point quicker.

This is the first feedback where my Tutor hasn’t reminded me generally about using ‘PEEL’ using quotes to support points rather than vice versa (just in one place), I am now understanding and putting it into practice. He has also noted that my use of the ‘reverse engineering’ has worked well.

Conversely it is a balance and there are still one or two areas where I should expand a little to explain complex arguments.

Further reading carried out: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/category/contextual-studies/cs-assignment-5/cs-a5-pre-submission-additional-reading/

Covering note: Rename ‘Critical Reflective Summary’- this will be good for showing response to feedback.

Abstract:  Rework to:

• Integrate to introduce the theme instead of introduce theories I’m talking about. Overview of research question to tease but not give topic away.

• Reduce the number of words, although the allowance is 500, my tutor suggests that less is more.

Essay: Comments given:

• Flows much better,
• Good studentship incorporating feedback points successfully.
• Suggestions for linking learning points
• Reverse engineering has worked well
• Good studentship
• Answers question well, which my Tutor suggests is: Does a photograph show reality, or a photographer’s emotions

    General:

• Use my ‘voice’ sometimes instead of academic phrases
• Have mostly explained philosophical terms to general audience but check again
• Be careful I’ve not got too much preamble before making a point (ref reverse engineering)
• Don’t try to pack too many ideas in one paragraph
• Expand out writing in some areas and maybe cut some less relevant sections
• Filter in realism comments as I go along.
• Try to get below the 5,000 word count (currently 5080)

Intro:

• Make less dense
• Check critical terms are defined mostly in the intro paragraphs
• Expand out some points in key paragraphs.
• Show my knowledge of the theme, representation of reality.
• Stylistic codes need to be less densely packed,

Main body:

• Check that I’ve explained White’s relationship to Stieglitz equivalents clearly.
• Similarly reread my content on representation and ensure that it clear – expand.

Conclusion:

• Take out subheadings – reviewing it I don’t know why I left them in!
• Cut down some dense text references, don’t need as much as only summing up from earlier
• Review the last paragraph which reads a little bit awkward

Actions completed since feedback:

• Abstract: reworked and reduced the word count
• Covering note – renamed critical review
• Dissertation: Reviewed, expanded some parts, reduced others (reduced preambles) , reduced word count, checked that critical terms are in the introduction.