After finishing my first draft, my major concern was that I did my paper completely incorrect. And I was correct in that aspect. My paper, though containing the information needed, was written in method which was less than what was required and did not go well with the prompt.  What my peers liked most about my paper was that “I had good information and quotes that explained main ideas” (Jeremy).  They claimed that they liked that I accurately and effectively used quotes and described them in a way that the reader could understand. The part of Gee which my peers thought I did well was defining discourse: “”you immediately started out defining a Discourse which really makes it helpful to know what definition you are using to set a base of basically what your points are formed around” (Chloe). My peers do believe that I could do better explaining the quote as Francesca said my explanation “Was not clear” (Francesca).  My peers believed that I summarized Jordan well, but that my quotes did not line up well with the time line, as stated by Francesca. My two biggest challenges in my paper are my claims and my quotations. First, the claim was absent due to the fact that I misread the prompt as all of my peers commented. The second biggest challenge is the quotations. Some of my quotations are not fit for the discussions I made and at times they do not line up chronologically. I need to work more on my Gee-Jordan quotations as I was told that my mush-fake and meta knowledge descriptions contradict with each other and it is difficult to distinct the difference between the two.  My overall perspective of the paper is that I need to do some work on it. I am working towards explaining that I agree with Gee’s aspect of meta knowledge  being able to allow you to enter a discourse, but I disagree with Gee’s ideas of using resistance and mush fake techniques as a way of entering a discourse.