1.) The most helpful piece of advice I received from Megan was the hint she gave me on the first source to explain not just how the author makes his points, but WHY he does so. I made all that effort to analyze my first source's argument, yet I never got around to talking about why I bothered to do that. I will address this in the second draft for sure. It seems like an oversight on my part because I did this on the other sources and just missed this one.
2.) The least helpful advice I received were the suggestions to capitalize Mathematics when referring to Common Core State Standards in Mathematics. I wasn't sure whether this needed to be capitalized or not, and throughout my paper I typed it both ways. I realize I should've been consistent, and I will fix this in the second draft by capitalizing each one. Still, it seems minor and therefore, I treated it as not so big a deal as the other comments and suggestions Megan gave to me.
3.) Honestly, I really don't have any questions for Megan. I think I can address each of her suggestions for revision without too much trouble. I did have a question about the capitalization of Mathematics in my work, but she seems to have answered it by simply correcting my paper.
4.) So obviously I will attend to the capitalization of Mathematics to keep things consistent throughout my paper. I will also revise my analysis of my first source (Kendall) and talk about why he chooses to make his points in the way he does, along with how this affects his credibility and utility as a source. Finally, I will attempt to explain in the third source (Achieve, Inc.) how they go about doing a convincing job of showing how Common Core State Standards in Math have attempted to address the achievement gap between the US and Japan. Megan said I didn't really touch on this, so I will explain why I felt the argument was "convincing".
No comments:
Post a Comment