- Where are you already working well with Gee’s concepts? How, specifically, will you apply that more solid engagement to a specific paragraph that is not yet working so effectively with Gee (or Haas, or another text in play)?
In one of my paragraphs, I introduced the idea of Gee’s building block of identities, and how it is changing within the science Discourse. My paragraph was a little rushed, and did not reach it’s full potential. I think I am going to expand on that idea by bringing in some of Haas, especially the part where she talks about how Eliza was able to enter the science Discourse and the changes she had to make in order to do so. Then I will elaborate more on the idea I already touched on with IMRad, about how readers today have changed drastically than readers 20 years ago.
- Where are you doing a pretty good job bringing in pieces of language to illustrate or support a point you’re making about how science Discourse works? Why is that working well?
In the same paragraph I talked about in question one, I took a quote from Nair and Nair about how authors need to change the titles of their journal articles in order to best fit the needs of the readers today. My quote gives a clear example of the differences between how the quote could have been worded 20 years ago, and how it needs to be worded today. It provides strong evidence on how readers today tend to have busy lives, and need a more narrow and obvious title than readers back then. I believe my quote is very strong in supporting this idea.
- Turn to a paragraph that is not working so effectively with material from your artifacts. What do you need in that paragraph if it’s to become more effective?
One of my paragraphs compares the IMRaD Cheat Sheet to an abstract. In order to boost this paragraph, I need some contextual evidence, maybe a quote about what an abstract is, and how the Cheat Sheet fits into that category. I also need some sort of transition to make this paragraph fit with the others. It is more of an idea that I need to develop in order to make it work for this paper.
- Write 2-3 sentences that capture what you believe your analysis tells us about science Discourse. These sentences will help you identify your perspective on how science Discourse works, which will help you revise your introduction and possibly the conclusion!
I believe my analysis explains how science Discourse is extremely regimented. There are may different steps that need to be followed in order to be a part of a science Discourse, and remain a part of a science Discourse.
ENJ 110 J
