Reflective Learning Journal #9

I have now completed three essays for my study skills module, the second of which I recently received marks. Despite working hard on that essay, I did not get the grade I was hoping for and, of course, let my emotions get the better of me. Once I had calmed down, I could finally see the errors I had made, making the result feel more reasonable, if still a little too harsh. One of the main comments was that I was very general with my notes because I didn’t specify using examples from certain countries. I thought that this was difficult to do, not only because we had not really been taught what is classed as ‘general’ and ‘vague’ until it was too late, but also because the question was on the world economy. I felt that if I gave examples of a specific country it would be more an answer on national or local economy, rather than the world economy. One point raised was the recency of my references, which I have never given much thought to before. As the question was on the contemporary world economy, I tended to use readings from 2000 onwards, but gave little thought to how it may have changed between 2005 and 2014, which is something I have noticed and thought about when writing my third essay (which has now been handed in for marking). I was praised for discussing ‘relevant issues’ in my essay though and supporting them with journal references. I have definitely changed my use of readings. I now use less websites and more journals than I did at the beginning of my degree because I can understand them better and have improved my ability to search for relevant texts (although, admittedly, it is still difficult at times but Google Scholar always helps).

I took the comments on board and utilised them in the latest essay, using more case studies for evidence to support my arguments and making sure I was less general and vague. A tutorial session helped for this because we, as a skills group, had to point out what was vague or general, amongst other things, and distinguish the differences between poor and good writing. For example, “during the last few decades” is classed as vague and, to counteract this, I would have to use a specific timescale such as “for the past 20 years” or “between 1984 and 2014”. Although this tutorial has given me some idea of what constitutes as vague and general, I think it would be better to have some more guidance in these kinds of things as we, as a group, do not seem to get very much, so instead I will research it myself as, technically, university is about individual learning. We also should have had the information sooner because I felt that it came too late and, as a result, my grade suffered. To counteract my ‘generalness’ in the essay I have recently sent off for marking, I used more case studies such as Hurricane Katrina and some flooding facts relating to Britain. The topic of flooding in Britain related to Penning-Rowsell and Handmer’s (1988) statement that between 1985 and 1986, around one quarter of a million people in Britain were at risk of flooding and was contrasted to the Environment Agency’s (ca.2014) data which stated that ‘over 5.5 million... properties are at risk of flooding... across England and Wales’ today. However, because I was trying to be less general and give more examples, I found that, by the time I had written my first draft, I was 800 words over the word count. As a result, I spent about 3 days trying to cut down my work. I wonder if I am spending to long, overall, on my essays. I spend about one to one-and-a-half weeks reading, and extra one to one-and-a-half weeks writing and then about a week editing. If I compact my reading into a smaller timeframe, I will have more time to work on my essay, leaving several days in-between so that I can come back to it with a fresh perspective. This would help with editing, as I would be able to identify mistakes or errors that could be improved.

References

Environment Agency (ca.2014), How is flood risk managed?, accessed 26^th February 2014, <http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31666.aspx>.

Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Handmer, J. W. (1988) Flood Hazard Management in Britain: A Changing Scene, The Geographical Journal, 154(2): 209-220.

~Jones' Journal