- What big concerns did you have about your draft as you completed the first draft?
I had a hard time figuring out what I wanted to write, and the order that I wanted to write it in. Moving from my first idea to my second idea seemed a bit shaky.
- What did your peers like most about your paper? Be specific, perhaps by quoting from one (or more) of the comments on your paper. Be sure to credit your peer!
Both Dean and Charles agreed that I had a strong intro. Dean stated “very nice intro. I really like how you begin by defining discourses by implying the definition and then providing an example. It has a nice flow” and Charles states “good intro sets readers up with just enough to understand what you’ll be talking about later in the paper”.
- Where are you working best with Gee? What do your peers think you can do to improve on that section? You might quote from a peer, and give credit.
I work best with Gee in my second paragraph. That is where I introduce his ideas on Discourse entry. I feel as though I summarized a little too much, so I definitely want to go back and fix that. Dean had a little trouble at times understanding what I wrote due to my word choice, “I feel like there is a better way to phrase this”. I want to go back and look into my diction and sentence flow to smooth it up a little.
- Where are you working best with Cuddy? What do your peers think you can do to improve on that section? You might quote from a peer, and give credit.
I work best with Cuddy in the third paragraph. That is where I introduce her implied ideas on Discourse entry. As well as my Gee paragraph, I think I summarized more than I should have. Also similar to my Gee paragraph, I struggled a little with work choice and sentence flow. Again, Dean had a little trouble with it, “I think there is a better way you can write this. It doesn’t flow very well the way it is currently written. The sentences seem a little short and choppy to me”. Diction and sentence flow is something I need to work on.
- According to your peers, what are your two biggest challenges in your work with the texts? How do you think you can address those challenges in your revision? If you need quotes or “evidence,” be specific about the text you should bring into a revision. If you need stronger explanations of your Gee-Cuddy relationships, be specific about what you need to explain. (Don’t re-write the paragraphs or sections. Rather, explain what you need to do.)
My peers think that I need to work on my sentence flow and overall organization of my paper. I had an introductory paragraph, and then I had a paragraph for Gee, one for Cuddy, and one for myself on each idea that I wrote about. This resulted in too much summary within my paper. I am going to try to condense Gee and Cuddy’s views into one paragraph and then use specific quotes to go more in depth into my argument. I think that should help to eliminate a lot of the summary and help more with the flow of my paper. I also am going to try to broaden my word choice a little bit so that it doesn’t sound so repetitive and choppy.
- Using the guidance from your peers, put your overall perspective (viewpoint) into a sentence or two. How will you help your reader “get” your perspective?
I agree that Discourses can be difficult to get into, but I don’t believe that it is as impossible as Gee states. On the flip side, I don’t agree that it is as easy to get into a new Discourse as Amy Cuddy states. I agree with them both partially but not entirely. I am going to take quotes from both Gee and Cuddy that I agree with, or disagree with and explain why. This will help my reader to understand the aspects I agree with as well as disagree with in order for them to get my perspective on Discourse entry.
