SKILL 6065 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION POST

SKILL 6065 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION POST

SKILL 6065 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION POST

ANALYSIS

To generate analysis, scholarly writers ask themselves questions about the evidence, such as What does this piece of evidence mean? How does it bolster my argument? How does this piece of evidence connect to another piece? What do I want my readers to understand or “get” from this evidence?

In this Discussion, let’s practice answering these questions by evaluating and analyzing the evidence from Week 3.

Check out this video from the Walden Writing Center for tips and tricks as we analyze and evaluate research information.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE SKILL 6065 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION POST HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Video: Analysis: Definition & ExamplesLinks to an external site.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCE

To prepare for this Discussion:

• Review the Week 3 Discussion for your paraphrased evidence as well as any feedback received.
• Review the Learning Resources on analysis.
• Recall the argument you are making.

BY DAY 4

Post your initial 1- to 2-paragraph response that addresses the following:

• Using the evidence you identified and paraphrased in Week 3, analyze that evidence in the context of the argument you are making.
• Additionally, reflect on the process of analyzing the evidence. Pose any questions and/or explain challenges that came up during the process.

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

SKILL 6065 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION POST

My main argument is: There is a need to incorporate proximal, detailed, supportive feedback when dealing with students to improve their writing skills. Qualitative evidence establishes that the study subjects opted for proximal, thorough, supportive feedback through rubrics, track changes, and examples, which enabled them to polish their writing skills (Gredler, 2018). The interview data from data supports all four major themes from the qualitative survey data. The themes include students’ desire to improve their writing skills and the preference for proximal, detailed, supportive feedback (Gredler, 2018). Besides, the interview responses supported four of the minor themes, including rubric feedback, timely feedback, feedback needed to validate deductions, and feedback needed regardless of a good grade.

Quantitative results revealed that the study would rather have received proximal comments rubric feedback, and instructors use track changes for corrections. With this regard, the quantitative results support students’ preference for detailed feedback provided through complex affirmations instead of simple affirmations (Gredler, 2018). When analyzing the evidence, I encountered challenges in explaining how an idea is related to my argument and why the results are important in supporting my argument.

Reference

Gredler, J. (2018). Postsecondary online students’ preferences for text-based instructor feedback. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 195-206