So, I FINALLY finished commenting on all of the AE drafts, and I have some general feedback for all of the groups.
- Frameworks! Not all of the drafts have a clear framework as requested. This could be just that you did not include that section in the draft, but think about this, identify and explain it early on in your draft, and use it as you assess the level of accessibility of your buildings. So, check the buildings against ADA standards, or check them against Andrade & Ely’s components of spatial accessibility, whatever you’re using.
- Research! Most of you have good background information about your buildings, but you also have research about accessibility in your annotated bibliography that should also be used to support your claims/assessment in your report. Your annotated bibliography is just an expanded works cited or reference list. It’s not just for funsies. Any sources cited there should be used in your paper. The sample papers I gave you model how to integrate sources, some better than others. Refer to them for examples of how to do this.
- Consistent voice! In some of the papers I can tell which there is a switch in authorship. Try getting together in person or over Google Hangout and reading the papers aloud. Or, go to the Writing Lab. In some of your majors you’ll do a lot of collaborative writing. Cohesive writing is a valuable skill to learn.
- Language! Some of the papers are making use of less preferable terms. There is debate about terms (e.g., people first), and in real life, a lot of times the best thing to do is ask. For our purposes, I have found a few lists of preferred terms and terms to avoid. These are not the final word, just a place to start so we can make sure we’re being mindful and consistent (this is one of the indicators of a different writer). It’s also just useful and interesting historical, cultural, and contextual information.