Skip to main content

COMMENTS ON MY PAPER HERE

Post your comments on my paper on this page

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 29, 2018 at 8:58 AM

    After reviewing my peers papers, It is clear that I should go back and make sure that there are no opinions or argumentative parts to my paper. In addition, I should make sure everything is throughly explained while being concise. In this, the research question and gap in knowledge should be clearly stated. Overall, I should re-read my own paper, to make sure all aspects of the assignment are included and clearly stated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownOctober 30, 2018 at 8:54 PM

    I think your rough draft is overall good paper. You are clearly listed problem, findings and implications of your research. The flow is well, and the charts are helping reader to understand the results.
    The language is clear and concise. However, I have some suggestions for your format. For the in-text citation, the correct format is (author name, year, page number). Like this one, (Freedman and Fraser, 201, 1966), you should change the order of year and page number.
    Then, seems like you used quotation mark for all resources, so I think you can try to use your own words to summarize the opinions from other researchers, not just quote.
    The organization for this paper is correct. They are connected with each other, but you can give some suggestions about your research at the end of the discussion.
    At last, center align "Discussion" .....
    Well-done for this paper!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Konnor LindseyNovember 2, 2018 at 2:59 PM

    1. I thought it flowed very well through the entire paper. Listed everything that was needed and proved it with solid evidence and findings.
    2. Clear and concise, with not pattern errors that I could see, and fulfills the length requirement. I’m pretty sure your dates and page number/paragraph should be flipped around in the in text citations for APA format.
    3.I thought everything was pretty solid throughout, except a few thing in the Data analysis section. I would center the Data analysis title like you did with the methods section, intro, and abstract because it kind of got confusing with the separation of sections. Do the same for discussion section. Also, I would add more of a paragraph to the data analysis section.
    4.The finding of the experiment look good, but is there any data that could have been put into the paper, after the references page?
    5. I would focus on fixing the section heading first to make it more clear which sections are which. Then, I would go back and fix the in text citations to make it APA format. Lastly, I would make the data analysis first paragraph more into a intro to the results section and put your research or data in after the references page if possible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Speech #1 Outline

Attention getter: What do you think of when you hear the name Alexa? Introduction: Show Commercial, a brief overview of the topics being discussed in the speech Purpose: Brand Recognition Repetition:  "Amazon" Credibility in the company "Alexa" Putting a name to the product helps you remember Brand Logos in the setting in the ending Humor Dialogue jokes are funny and make the audience happy (pathos) an intended audience is a broad group that includes varying races, ages, and genders Unexpected Responses Not what you would think the answer to the questions would be Celebrity Cameos Credibility If my favorite musician endorses the amazon Alexa than it must be good Use examples, like Cardi B, Gordon Ramsay, Etc. Effectiveness: Does this commercial make you want to buy the product? YES, because the commercial is relatable Relatabliness Location The characters are in locations that their intended audience would ...
Post a Comment
Read more

IMRad Intro and Methods

Introduction In social psychology has established effective compliance techniques such as the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. This strategy states simply that, “ agreeing to a small request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, larger request”(McLeod, pp4, 2014). The original experiment on the foot-in-the-door phenomenon was done by Freedman and Fraser in 1966. In the original study, the prediction was that if a small request was asked first and the person agrees to the smaller request, the person is more likely to agree to a larger request after. This prediction was supported in their data which showed that, “Over 50% of the subjects in the Performance condition agreed to the larger request, while less than 25% of the One-Contact condition agreed to it. Thus it appears that obtaining compliance with a small request does tend to increase subsequent compliance” (Freedman and Fraser, 198, 1966).  This is important because this significant data supports that the foot-in...
Post a Comment
Read more