Skip to content
- In writing my draft, my major concerns revolved around making sure I was properly using the works of each author, and drawing the right connections between them in a way that would set aside my own opinions regarding the subject.
- My peers, specifically Owen, seemed to really like the way that I was able to describe the authors’ views on the subject, and weave them into my essay in a way that did not give too much away but made the reader want to keep reading.
- I find that I am working best with Gee in reference to Delpit, and the discussion between pieces thereof. Specifically Alyssa noted this, and how this is, of course, one of the easier connections to draw as Delpit explicitly uses Gee’s work to criticize.
- I am working best with Jordan, again, when I put her piece side by side with Delpit, as I find that Delpit’s piece is a perfect connecting piece between Gee and Jordan, and thus deserves the most analysis.
- As a result of peer-review and my own judgement, I find that I certainly have my work cut out for me in terms of my needed revision. A couple of goals I have set for the next few weeks are to extend and add depth to my paper in many ways. I found that I concentrated too hard on providing background information on the pieces, and from here I should focus more on the analysis thereof. Bringing in more connective evidential quotes and depth to the paper will certainly do it justice.
- My perspective is thus: the articles/works that we have read have created a very noticeable dichotomy between ideologies. Gee’s work, while providing an interesting base definition for discourse, struggles to elaborate and apply the concept to society, as he creates all-too concrete answers to any questions regarding the subject.
