Category: English

Purpose:

Now that you’ve crafted a working thesis statement and begun drafting what your essay could look like, it’s time to put this thinking into practice. Write a traditional rough draft. It does not have to be complete, but you should strive to write as complete a draft as possible.

Drafting, revising, and receiving feedback is essential to improving your writing. Peer review is a big part of this. As just one person, I may miss things in your drafts. Having an extra set of eyes on your writing allows you to get a variety of feedback from multiple sources. Additionally, being able to examine and critique your classmates’ writing gives you a chance to see what others are working on (not just what they could improve, but what you could improve too).

Task:

1) For your rough draft, please attach a Word document to your main discussion post.

The main criteria of your rough draft is that it needs to contain a minimum of 800 words of editable material. This may include quotations, citations, and even notes on how you plan to fix or add to something already in the draft. Once it is submitted, it should look like the file I submitted in my discussion board post (sorry, that was all I could find).

2) Once you have submitted your rough draft, complete your peer reviews by giving feedback on your assigned partners’ drafts. You will be assigned two partners. Look for their discussion post below, download their rough draft, and respond using the questions in the pdf below. If their file is Word (Definitely a preference for Rough Draft submissions btw), then you can leave comments and cut and paste the 10 questions into the end of their draft to write your answers on. If it is a pdf, then you may need to open a Word doc to write your response and feedback on. Once you have their feedback completed, add your name and email address at the top in case they have questions about your feedback, and then you just post it as a reply to their original draft post.

– 3 hour walk through of the game

Our professor wants us to choose a ‘monster’ or ‘outsider’ that’s made to be strange by others. They want us to discuss 3 ways that the figure in the story goes against the world it’s in.

Need to address 3 scenes that serve as good examples of the character’s ‘outsider status’.

Please strictly follow the outline and use only uploaded sources (A few other sources can be used if the full PDF document is accessible.)

Topic:

“Seeing Beyond the Surface: Development of a Racism-Critical Analysis Tool for Colorism to Foster Critical Visual Literacy in the EFL Classroom”

Research Question:

“To what extent can the Critical Literacy analysis framework be adapted to make the phenomenon of colorism in English-language picturebooks visible, thereby fostering the Critical Visual Literacy of teachers and learners?”

Focus Areas:

Critical Visual Literacy: Understanding images not merely as illustrations, but as carriers of meaning and power (based on Serafini, Arizpe/Styles, Nikolajeva & Scott).

Colorism vs. Racism: Differentiating between race and skin tone/complexion; Colorism as an often-overlooked marker of discrimination in children’s literature (“Symbolic Annihilation”, “White Supremacy”).

Adaptation: Adapting Tondreau & Rabinowitzs disability framework to the category of Race/Colorism.

Villain Coding: Are villains depicted with darker skin?.

Racialized Space: Who occupies space in the image, and who stands on the margins?.

Teacher Professionalization: Using the tool to support teachers in the selection of materials.

Student Competence: Promoting “Close Viewing” and visual competency among students.

Concrete Tasks:

Analyze: Theoretically derive the status quo of colorism in children’s books and the necessity of Visual Literacy (identifying the research gap).

Transfer: Systematically transfer Tondreau & Rabinowitzs three categories (Plot, Character, Word Choice) to the context of colorism. Develop new guiding questions for each category.

Design: Create an “Observation Sheet” as a finished product for teachers (addressing the criterion “Quality of Didactic Design”).

Evaluate: Critically reflect on the tool: How can it be implemented in the classroom? What are its limitations? (Addressing the criterion “Quality of Evaluation”).

OUTLINE with uploaded sources

1. Introduction (approx. 1.5 pages)

Objectives: Development of a tool (conceptual-didactic focus).

Relevance: Picturebooks as an unquestioned norm; the gap in addressing colorism.

2. Theoretical Framework (approx. 4-5 pages)

Evaluation criterion: Breadth & depth of literature work.

2.1 Critical Visual Literacy: Learning to read images (Sources: Arizpe/Styles, Serafini, Nikolajeva & Scott from your uploads).

2.2 Colorism & Critical Race Theory: Definition and distinction from racism. Why is “skin lightness” an instrument of power? (Sources: The Routledge Handbook of Colorism, Prez Huber, Sciurba).

Note: Here you demonstrate that you have read the specialist literature.

3. Conception of the Analysis Instrument (approx. 5 pages)

Evaluation criterion: Quality of the didactic design & justification.

3.1 Methodological Derivation: Justification for choosing the “Disability Framework” (Tondreau & Rabinowitz) as a structural guide (Transfer from Critical Literacy to Race).

3.2 The Development (The Transfer):

Category Character: Integration of “Villain Coding” (Sciurba) into the inquiry regarding “Monstrous depiction”.

Category Setting: Integration of “Racialized Space” (Falkner) into the inquiry regarding “Inclusion/Exclusion”.

Category Word Choice: Integration of “White Supremacy” (MacCann) into the inquiry regarding the naming of perpetrators.

3.3 The Product: Presentation of the finished “Observation Sheet” (as a table or list).

4. Didactic Application & Evaluation (approx. 3 pages)

Evaluation criterion: Quality of the evaluation (strategy).

4.1 Application Scenario: How do teachers use the tool for book selection?

4.2 Potential for the Classroom: How can parts of the tool be simplified for students (“Close Viewing”)? (Sources: Scherer, Mantei & Kervin).

4.3 Limitations: What can the tool not achieve? (Reflection).

5. Conclusion (approx. 1 page)

Follows the Rogerian Structure Has at least 2 sources Is written in MLA style

A tutor who can teach someone how to do a Full accurate research

RESEARCH PAPER: LEADERSHIP INSTRUMENT ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

OVERVIEW

In this assignment, you will complete the Path-Goal Leadership Instrument provided in Read:

Northouse: Chapter 6. The leadership instrument is complex and utilizes several dimensions to

assess your current leadership style and skills. The leadership instrument allows you to not only

identify your current leadership styles and traits but also consider how you might utilize other

skills and traits moving forward. Upon completion of the leadership instrument, please take some

time to evaluate your responses and scores considering your current leadership style. Do the

scores match your perceived leadership style? In your paper, you should provide a summary of

your scores in paragraph form. Then, provide your thoughts on the scores, how you might utilize

the identified leadership traits and what changes you might make moving forward.

INSTRUCTIONS

The paper should consist of at least 5-7 full pages (not including any title, abstract, and reference

pages) in current APA format and must discuss the points required. Follow the guidelines

provided below:

Summarize your scores on the leadership instrument in paragraph form.

Provide your thoughts on scores. Where they what you expected? Where they something

other than what you expected?

Discuss how you might utilize the information gained from completing the leadership

instrument. Would you make any changes to your style moving forward? How does the

knowledge of the instrument scores impact your leadership now?

Please be sure to incorporate Biblical concepts/passages into your paper.

Conclusion

References

Make sure each section is clearly labeled with headings (i.e. Summary of Instrument,

Thoughts on Scores, etc.)

All papers should consist of 5-7 full pages (not including any title, abstract, and reference

pages) in current APA format

At least 3 citations (in addition to the Bible)

Acceptable sources (e.g. scholarly articles published within the last five years)