Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| Sat, Mar 15 2025, 14:30:47 PDT | [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ] |
| Subject: Michael's Answers on Lívia and Karen consideretions | |
|
Author: Michael de Souza (dead) |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Mon, Aug 26 2013, 7:59:20 PDT • I used “Yet according to” because in this case “Yet” is a conjunction, grammatically it’s correct, however, if you have another other that fits better, please, change it. I tried to find another one but I couldn’t. Just remember that the use of conjunctions is an attempt of always give to the idea its real author. If not, who read it will think it’s our thoughts. • Lívia, “the fact of there is no research on this field” is information I got from text for sure. I’m afraid to include “sufficient” and we fail because it wasn’t really said by the author. However, I did it: “the fact of that moment there was no research on this field”, what do you all think of it? Is it better? • “The authors explored the use of the resources by the students involved, taking into account their participation, perception of the process and objectives. The study points out students tend to focus their correction on meaning rather than on form. (P.93)”: If I’m not mistaken I understood that part was said only by those three authors even they have consider Kessler to say that, it was their assumption of what they have studied. Including, I realized we don’t need to put the page number in this case because, in spite of it is the author idea paraphrased by Bárbara, there was already a connected word previously placed in this part that shows it is the author idea not ours. • “the results shown are interconnected to the previous article when the author mentions that “students were more likely to be accurate when focusing on grammar rather than correcting grammar as a secondary act while focusing on meaning.” Bárbara, that underlined part is your idea, isn't it? I think I did wrong referring that part to the authors, however, as you have used a direct citation we need to put I the end of the (KESSLER 2009 p.90) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: Michael's Answers on Lívia and Karen considerations | Michael de Souza | Mon, Aug 26 2013, 8:02:07 PDT |
| Re: Michael's Answers on Lívia and Karen consideretions | Nivia | Mon, Aug 26 2013, 14:40:01 PDT |
|
||