1. Where are you already working pretty well with Gee’s concepts? How, specifically,  will you apply that more solid engagement to a specific paragraph that is not yet working so effectively with Gee (or Haas, or another text in play)?

I am working well with Gee in basically every one of my paragraphs. I have taken what I think the most important building tasks are in a Discourse and relating them to examples in the articles to give examples. My introduction needs to introduce all the authors I am using, so I will work them into it.

1. Where are you doing a pretty good job bringing in pieces of language to illustrate or support a point you’re making about how science Discourse works? Why is that working well? (Try to say what you’re doing that’s working!)

I feel like most of my paragraphs are working pretty well with bringing in pieces of language to support my points about scientific Discourse. I had followed the Barcley’s formula for each of them to help articulate my ideas and evidence.

1. Turn to a paragraph that is not working so effectively with material from your artifacts. What do you need in that paragraph if it’s to become more effective?

My paragraph about connections is not working so effectively with the material from the articles. I have not developed it fully or made any connections to Gee or explained it. I need to finish my thoughts and make the paragraph work with the quote I have while making sure it supports my claim of analyzing scientific Discourse.

1. Write 2-3 sentences that capture what you believe your analysis tells us about science Discourse. These sentences will help you identify your perspective on how science Discourse works, which will help you revise your introduction and possibly the conclusion!

I believe my analysis tells that Scientific Discourse is essentially just like any other Discourse. Gee’s seven building tasks are all incorporated and can help identify the different unique aspects of it.