In-Class writing assignment is scholarly collaboration done in isolation. I do feel as if it is very useful because it foremost helped me understand the second point of view about the text. While constructing my argument, I was not really thinking about or acknowledging other potential arguments that were equally viable. It is also less painstaking than an academic essay as it does not follow the metacritical conventions of MLA or APA. Instead, we write a full, inclusive paragraph that proposes an premise on a particular section of the play, which can, by extension, be made into an academic essay. While, I feel as if the first in-class writing assignment was done to assess how much I had retained from the play, it also challenges me to draw upon areas of critique.
On the other hand, the assignment taught me the importance of constructing counter arguments in academia. A second point of view can be either disputed or concurred upon. Nonetheless, texts are ambiguous and for this reason, readings may vary. These readings could be substantiated with concrete proof but also are disputable because of ambiguity. I cannot really think about anything that did not go well because the assignment fulfilled a goal in an organised way. If there are any modifications, I feel as though it would be in terms of the time allotted. I feel as though more time would increase the quality of the work and allow for more time to think or draft out more ideas.