I enjoyed reading my peers language and literacy  narratives.I think even though I was able to see brief presentations of everyone’s in phase one, phase two allowed me to fully grasp the extent to which someone has been affected by language. Especially for my partner, I felt as though I learned so much more from fully reading her narrative than I thought I knew from her presentation.

As for interviewing, I enjoyed interviewing my peer. I felt as though I could connect to a lot of what she was saying, but as I previously stated, I learned a lot more about her. It enabled me to write more deeply and personally about her in my peer profile. The only thing I wish is that perhaps there were two rounds of interviewing after finishing the interview, the first draft of the peer profile, and subsequent peer revision. I found myself wanting to know more about specific things that I hadn’t asked about. Either at fault of my own questions or lack of a second interviewing stage, I felt as though I didn’t have a full grasp of how her writing style connected to her background and identity. I knew a lot about the two separately; I was just struggling to revise and make that connection a bit stronger. So I think maybe a short second interview round could’ve been helpful in this way.

I also liked reading other people’s peer profiles. I think it allowed me to see other routes and strategies people were using to write theirs, and it allowed me to think about how I could revise and develop mine further.