Audio Feedback-Bere- Milestone1 Assignment

The speaker praises Pam's paper overall but points out some areas for improvement. They mention using present perfect or past tense in APA for previous research, wanting more rationale about Pam's agency within her position, and the need for more concrete evaluation of core issues related to the organization rather than a philosophical approach. The conclusion is also highlighted as needing more depth to recap the argument effectively. Overall, the writing is clear and succinct, with minor tense errors. The speaker offers to discuss further but concludes that Pam is in good shape. Hey, Pam. Good paper. I thought overall pretty well done. I'll go through my substantive comments with you. Most of the stuff that I have is just in gold because the APA, it's fine. The only issue I saw was just you have a few times where you're using present tense. You can use present perfect tense or past tense in APA for previous research. Sometimes you do that and sometimes you don't. Overall, I thought it was good. Your problem or practice was articulated clearly. I would have liked to maybe see a little bit more in the rationale specifically about your agency within your position. I think you could have added a little bit about there. The positionality was fine and your institutional context was good. When we get to the organizational section, though, when you talk about your three leadership frames, you did well to frame these in a leadership lens. I think your thinking was appropriate. What happened was, as you did this, it made your responses to the actual core issues of the problem a little bit more philosophical. When you're talking about things like financial issues, they were more philosophical in nature and not necessarily directly tied to the institutional problem. I think looking at these through a leadership lens is good and appropriate. I think you need to put more concrete stuff in there in the actual evaluation of the issues as they pertain to the organization and not just through a philosophical lens. Are there, for example, financial considerations that are direct that are an issue here? Is there any institutional, organizational structure, leadership, governance issues? I guess you have the leadership, but governance issues that are hindering the problem. Is there any outside influences, government influences that are affecting this? Or even student affairs issues within the organizational structure of a student affairs department. Again, you get at this a little bit through these leadership lenses, but more so through a philosophical approach, and that's fine. You just need to be a little bit more concrete in your approach to beefing that section up. Your conclusion was left wanting. It should really be a recapitulation of the whole document. Bring us through your argument. More than just a couple of sentences, show us why your argument is sound and where you brought the reader. You should use that opportunity in the conclusion to kind of almost be like your proof, your grand finale, in order to show the reader that you've taken them on a sound journey. I thought overall the writing was good, though. Very clear and succinct, and your APA was pretty good. Just, as I mentioned, a couple tense errors, but nothing major. Happy to discuss any of this if you want, but I think you're in good shape.