- I believe I work well with Gee’s concepts throughout my whole paper. I talk about Gee’s seven building tasks of language often throughout my paper, and I even connect Gee’s idea of Discourse to Haas’ study of Eliza. However, I can still add more analysis and explanation to the connections I make with Gee’s ideas and the other texts, along with the general discourse of science as a whole. I will be adding another paragraph to my paper that connects Gee’s “significance” building task to the abstract section of the IMRAD format.
- I do a good job at using a certain language throughout my paper. I use similar language phrases and words to make it as easy as possible for my readers to understand the information I am conveying to them. It works well in my paper as shown by my peer review comments. My peer group gave good feedback in terms of how easy it was for them to understand the points I make in my paper and it was not too difficult for them to understand the connections I make as well.
- In my second paragraph, I talk about the “practices” section of the building tasks of language. I make only simply connections and give a simple analysis, so I need to revisit this paragraph in revision and tune it up. I can make deeper analysis and connections to ensure the reader will be hooked after my first body paragraph and want to keep reading my paper.
- My analysis of science discourse reveals to the reader that by using the IMRAD format and keeping Gee’s seven building tasks of language in mind, you will have the best opportunity possible at writing a good research paper that will convey information to the reader in the best way possible. Using Haas’ journal as a reference since she follows both of these guidelines, I prove to the reader it is not very difficult to be a part of the discourse of science.
ENG110I
