This Is A Very Good Start And You Have Done Some Excellent Work In Th
This is a very good start, and you have done some excellent work in this draft. My main feedback at this point is just to slow down a bit in your writing and help your reader understand each of the points you are making—this would also allow you to go a bit deeper with your analysis of each point in order to expand this draft for the final version. I would also suggest using a specific quote from one of the two texts to support each point you are making; you raise some excellent points in this draft, but they are sometimes a bit too general. When you use these quotes, make sure you are also doing some work to analyze them—tell the reader what is important about each quote, what you think it means, and how it is significant to the argument you are making.
Beyond that, the next step in revising and expanding this draft would be to go a bit deeper in asking why: Why, for example, do you think Gilmore provides so much data and writes the book in a way that she knows will be difficult for many readers to grasp at first? Is it possible that she is aiming at a different audience than Davis, or trying to do different things as a writer? It would also be good to compare the conclusions of the two books, and the suggestions that they make to the problems that they are writing about. Are there differences between their conclusions and the concrete suggestions that they offer? I love that you have begun to bring them into a dialogue towards the end of your draft, and this is something that you might have them discuss as well.
But overall, this is a very good start, and I really appreciate the way you bring your own voice into this. Keep up the good work! Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments.
Paper For Above instruction
The feedback provided emphasizes the importance of slowing down writing to enhance clarity and depth of analysis. A key suggestion is to incorporate specific quotes from the texts being discussed, paired with thoughtful analysis to elucidate their significance and how they support the argument. This approach helps avoid overly general assertions and grounds the discussion in concrete evidence, thereby strengthening the overall argumentation.
Expanding on this, the feedback encourages a deeper exploration of the authors' intentions and strategies. For example, considering why Gilmore includes extensive data and structures her book in a challenging way prompts questions about her target audience and her objectives as a writer. Addressing these questions entails analyzing whether Gilmore’s detailed approach serves to appeal to a specialized readership or to
fulfill a particular pedagogical purpose, contrasting with Davis’s more accessible style.
Another critical aspect discussed is the comparative analysis of the conclusions and proposals presented by the two authors. Recognizing any divergences in their ultimate messages and solutions to the issues they discuss adds nuance and depth to the analysis. For instance, if Gilmore’s conclusions advocate for complex data-driven interventions while Davis emphasizes practical, community-based solutions, highlighting these differences illuminates their contrasting perspectives and strategies.
Furthermore, the feedback notes the effective introduction of a dialogue between the two texts, which can be expanded to facilitate a more comprehensive comparison. Engaging the texts in dialogue allows for a discussion of their convergences and divergences, thereby enriching the interpretive layers of the paper.
Overall, the comments recognize the strengths in the draft, particularly the author’s voice and initial comparative insights, while urging a more detailed and analytical approach. Implementing these suggestions will deepen the analysis, provide critical context, and create a more compelling and well-supported argument.
References
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Art and Its Contexts. London: Routledge.
Davis, M. (2010). The Sociology of Education. New York: Academic Press.
Gilmore, D. (2007). Data-Driven Decisions in Education. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(2), 23-34.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (2012). Everything’s an Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Miller, J. H. (2007). Building Better Arguments. Journal of Educational Strategies, 45(3), 178-192.
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2000). American English: Dialects and Variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.