Two papers, two different styles of writing

While the two papers we have written so far were on the same sort of content, they were very different. I thought that the summary/response to the cloning article that we did for the first paper was far easier. It was alot easier to write a 4-5 page paper summarizing the material and then choosing one side of the issue and writing about that. I also enjoy an educated argument so that made it very easy for me to write the paper. The visual analysis was a little harder to do, but not much. The biggest problem i had with the visual analysis was to keep coming up with new, fresh, ideas, and not repeating myself at all. I also did not think that blogging helped very much. I found that writing a rough draft, peer-reviewing, then writing a final draft was the most helpful. The rough draft gave me a base to start with, and then once i got three students opinions on my rough draft it made it alot easier for me to make changes, and add things into the paper as compared to starting from scratch and writing 5-6 pages. I feel like my writing has improved a little bit this year from the first to second paper, but it would have been alot easier to start with the visual analysis and move to the summary response. The easiest part out of either paper was by far the summary, because all you had to do was give the reader a very condensed version of what I was summarizing. That is why i preferred the summary/response paper.