Synopsis of Group Discussions

Hi. Below are the questions/comments that emerged from the group discussions today.

1) Do you have to include all 7 articles?
A - No; however, you should incorporate all the articles that make sense (logically support or contrast) your own views/experiences.

2) Should we talk only about ourselves or be broader?
A - You should do a combination. In draft one, you are mostly talking about your own experiences. However, in Draft Two, you will most likely use the basis of your own experiences to make broader statements (i.e. your opinions/beliefs about what is true when it comes to revision).

3) Should the shift from pt.to pt. flow or does it matter.
A - You should try and have it flow; however, when you struggle with the flow in certain sections of the paper, perhaps that suggests the need for a Heading. In other words, you could use the headings as a means to create transitions in your paper.

4) If draft one is experiences, should draft two be as well?
A - It could be; however, there should be a clear shift from experiences to beliefs in Draft Two. In other words, based on your experiences, what conclusions can you draw? What do you know to be true? What statements can you make? In the follow-up discussions you will probably references your experiences somewhat to give the reader a sense of how you arrived at your beliefs, statements, and opinions.

5) Good MLA formatting
A- Be sure to have the attributive tag and the page number. For example, According to Sommers, students struggles with large conceptual elements of their drafts (44). Also, remember to follow the citations with your own commentary that explains and makes the connection between the citation and your own experiences/views for the reader.

6) Title for the Paper
A - Just as you should develop specific headings throughout your paper, so too should you create a specific title for the entire paper.... Don't call it "Synthesis Paper on Revision".... :(

7) In terms of the conclusion: Be sure to highlight where the overlaps in discussion occurred within all or most of the articles. In other words, what were the reoccurring pts. that many of the articles made?

8) Based on that, how do your own views fit. (If you are doing the career project)

9) Based on that, what questions need to still be asked and where do those questions fit in relation to the articles (If you are doing the article for publication)

I think that pretty much covers it; however, please chime in if I missed anything and I'll respond back.