Discussion and Responses

Graduate LEVEL REPLY 275 words should be enough. I’m estimating 90-100 per comparison if you are getting straight to the point (comments does not have to be long only concise). However, if the writer feels they will need another page to fully complete the requirement please let me know. The instructions are as follows The uploaded document consist of excerpts from the sources that students plan to use for their literature review section of their research proposal.

For this discussion board we are to read 3 of the student’s sources summaries and reply to them separately. Comments must be detailed in nature. You are not critiquing the paper but you are just looking at their content. Compare and contrast what they did to what you did (My document will be uploaded first, then a separate document with the 3 student’s excerpts will be uploaded). You are not critiquing nor should you comment on the formatting due to everyone having similar instructions on formatting and answering the question. Do not make general statements that we already know because we all had the same instructions and questions to answer. When responding to their proposal you are to answer things specifically based on this thought context thought process: Discuss how each of us handled things? Did we do it the same way or did we do it differently, and why? If they did something that you thought was a great idea. Tell them that! Also, tell them why it was a great idea. Tell them why it would make your paper better if you did it that way. THIS SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN EACH REPLY. You are looking at their content specifically not in general terms. I have attached an order that was completed before. The REPLY IS TO READ EXACTLY LIKE THAT. It does not have to be as lengthy. Only a few sentences needed for each proposal separately. Remember the thought process and comment as if you are having a face to face conversation. The grading rubric for the reply is Comparative Analysis: Includes significant comments concerning comparison of content of groupmates’ discussion and analysis to their own.