• What big concerns did you have about your draft as you completed the first draft?

One of my biggest concerns about my draft is a lack of my own opinion.  More specifically I think it needs to be more pronounced throughout the paper.  Also, I’m worried I haven’t explained my quotes enough.

 

• 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!

Evelyn liked the structure of my paper, “At first, I didn’t know if I enjoyed how you structured the essay; however, I ended up enjoying the way you avoided making the comparisons in a linear fashion”.  The structure was breaking metaknowledge resistance and mushfake up into their own sections.

Cam loved the quote,  “How best to serve the memory of Reggie Jordan?  Should we use the language of the killer — Standard English — in order to make our ideas acceptable to those controlling the killers?  But wouldn’t what we had to say be rejected, summarily, if we said it in our own language, the language of the victim Reggie Jordan?” (Jordan 372).  However, he suggested a further explanation.

 

• 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.

Im working best with Gee in my third to last paragraph.  Evelyn suggests introducing the quote to improve on that section.

 

• Where are you working best with Jordan? What do your peers think you can do to improve on that section? You might quote from a peer, and give credit.

The quote that cam liked is where I’m working best with Jordan, and can be strengthened by a further explanation like Cam suggested.

 

• 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-Delpit or Gee-Jordan or Delpit-Jordan 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 peer’s two main concerns are the exact same as my concerns, with the addition of making my conclusion more complete.  I need to explain my quotes in the context of Gee, but most importantly my claim towards Gee. Deeper explanations will strengthen my claim throughout my paper, while also helping to build up the ideas in my conclusion.

 

• 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?

My viewpoint is that Gee’s perspective of Discourse and the successful combination is flawed.  To help my reader get this perspective I will strengthen my textual evidence and incorporate my viewpoint more often into my paper.