My paper was discussing the affects of that technology has on a variety of schools and in turn the literacy affects it has on the students. What affects the students literacy understanding ability teachers, money, location etc. I supported this evidence from showing points of a variety of authors that took on different stances on the issue. I supported this claim by showing many points that prove that money isn't everything and that you don't need money to have a good school good schools are based on the teachers money just helps improve students educational opportunities. The counter arguments that I tried to bring into my article was the fact that people are admit on technology being the center of education and they should focus on the basic fundamentals and than tie in technology and not to ambush students into the world of technology. The parts of my paper that are working well are the break down of sources. The parts I don't think that work as well are the transitions between the introduction and conclusion before they go into the major body of my paper. I would like readers to point out anything that they think aren't working well. If I was given more time I would like to go more in debt into the research process.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83883265/Paper-4
Tracy,
ReplyDeleteBecause I didn't get a chance to comment on your intro, I wanted to comment on your draft to add your peer's response.
Right now, I get the sense that you aren't sure what your purpose is with this paper. You establish a guiding question, you describe a lot of research, but even though you come to a conclusion in the end, I don't know what you're really arguing. The issue of technology seems to come in and out of the paper without a clear role, and I can't tell how the individual sources you explain relate to each other or to your own points.
I think the solution is to work on synthesizing your sources into a unified conversation and then finding something you will add to that conversation, which requires identifying a gap.
Brandt argues that literacy is tied to economics, Baron discusses that the pattern of technological change creates constant issues of access to technologies affected by economics (can't learn the new technologies if you or your school can't afford them). From just these sources that I'm familiar with, I could suggest that scholarship on literacy, literacy sponsors, and technology all connect literacy development to economics and access, which would suggest that attending poorer schools would inhibit literacy. Using research you did with co-authors for another project, you wanted to investigate what impact the type and socioeconomic status of schools has on students literacy.
So in you introduction and synthesis you would want to show that scholars seem to have come to a consensus on an issue (economic determiners of literacy) which would suggest attending poorer schools would inhibit literacy, a hypothesis that you will test.
The rest of your paper would then be an empirical study of your interviews (you can use all the interviews form paper 3 to help you). You would have a section that explains your methods: how you chose your interviewees, when and where you conducted the interviews, what questions you asked, a section that summarizes your results (discuss differences in literacy experience among interviewees using carefully chosen quotes from the interviews, and a section where you discuss (interpret, analyze) your results and give your conclusion about the impact of different schools on literacy based on your interviews.
Tracy,
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I want to say before you open your paper is there is a lot of track changes, this is simply because the first thing I did (simply because it is something we have to look at for submission) is I changed your format. I made it 12 pt font, I made it Times New Roman, I made sure your paragraphs weren't entered twice, and put a title and page number. It looks like a lot but it is not, simple fixes. There are more comments on the bottom of your paper (: I enjoyed reading your paper and there were a lot of things I really liked such as your language and how you brought interesting aspects into the paper, however I thought it lacked clarity of your over all point. I think you really did a good job on this paper but needs some work!
Elyse
LINK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84378749/Peer-Review-for-Tracy-Keck