While revising my researched article, I first went in order of the intext feedback.

This
ensured that I was not missing anything and that I can fix my mistakes in an orderly fashion. As
seen on my track changes I fixed my title to bold and the I changed the “if” to “of” in University
of Central Florida. Next, I fixed the citations in my Lit. Review from MLA to APA by adding
the year of publication after the authors last name. This was a correction that I forgot to fix when
resubmitting, so I immediately fixed this to ensure I do not forget again. Going in order of the
intext feedback also helped ensure this change. After this, I fixed the extra space that was in
between the paragraphs. Then I fixed the correction with the purple box surrounding a couple of
my paragraphs. The feedback was that these paragraphs belonged in the step 1 or 2 of the intro
and not the literature review. To help me better understand this I looked up the C.A.R.S module
on canvas and this really aided me to understand and fix this mistake. After reading the module
page many times and once I felt confident, I moved those paragraphs to the very beginning of the
intro as these paragraphs are my step 1 and step 2 making the literature review step 3. After
these changes I deleted the paragraph that was in the literature review section that should’ve
been in the method section because it was too repetitive for what I had already in that section and
it did not add anything to my method. Next, I made the quick change of the order of my
appendix so that the interview is Appendix A which goes in alphabetical order in the researched
article. Then I corrected the feedback of moving the paragraph surrounded by the purple box
and the coding chart up to the intro of the researched article. I was skeptical of doing this as the
coding chart is usually in the results section but when I moved it and read it with everything else
it is more coherent. That was the last correction I made using the intext feedback.
After using that feedback, I then went in order of the comments in canvas. Since the first
feedback was already changed from the intext feedback I did not need to do anything more with
the first comment. The second comment said it would have been great to see an explanation as
to why I chose the method. Thus, I wrote a new first paragraph of what was my methodology
and why I chose it for my research because. This helps explain that there was a thought process
to my primary research. After this I read the comment below this dealing with the results
section. After each of the primary data I expanded the analysis by explaining how it helped with
my findings and research question. I also tried to expand on how it helps the overall discourse
community. Then I fixed the discussion section by adding paragraphs that synthesized each
central code to my primary data. I also have a paragraph explaining the secondary sources
impact and specifically mention two authors from my secondary sources that help support my
findings.
These changes have helped me learn to not only fix my mistakes but understand what I
did wrong. Furthermore, by writing this cover letter I can reflect on what changes I have made
and why they are beneficial to not only getting a better grade but also to my overall research
path. These changes helped me to expand my analysis of my primary and secondary research
even further which will help in future classes as well.