Hello All:
The end of the year is getting so close!! It's so exciting but also so scary. Our papers are nearing their final stages and our presentations are beginning to take shape. As we move on to the presentations, it is extremely important to understand the rubric and how my script and slides fall into it right now. One thing I will say is that I think I went way overboard with the script and had a lot of trouble cutting out all of the information from my paper. I have grown so near to every word in my paper that it is painstaking for me to take out one of my babies (I mean ideas) from the presentation. Hopefully you guys can reign me in and help me condense my paper into true presentation form. It will not be an easy ask but I am excited to get it done.
I think I do a really good job of completing the first two rubric rows. It may be overly long-winded and over the top but it definitely still gets the job done. I discuss the research design fully and explain every step of my experiment and how it relates to my research question. At the end of the presentation I also bring it all back together and discuss my findings in relation to the prior literature, connecting claims and bringing the argument of my research full circle. I also think I identify the consequences and limitations of the research clearly (but not concisely), completing row two of the rubric.
Rubric row three was something I do not think I have put enough of into the script. Although I did state my hypothesis after my research question, I never fully and explicitly articulate how the findings caused my own personal growth and opinions to change. I definitely explain how the research relates to the prior literature that I explained, but I do not really relate that to my hypothesis directly as much as I probably should.
For rubric row four, I feel like I have pretty engaging and easy to follow slides, but how I score on the rubric will depend on my delivery of the presentation. I'm sure that with practice I will be able to engage the audience and deliver a great presentation.
Hopefully this week I will condense my script and be on my way to a great presentation!! (403)
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Refine Refine Refine
Hello All:
I want to start this blog post with a moment of silence for my bracket. With Duke's loss, I am officially done for.
Anyways, after a great week of commenting on each other's papers and reviewing my results section with Mrs. Haag, I think my paper is getting to a really great place. Shoutout to Kristiana, Grace, and Sunskruthi for taking the time to read my paper and comment thoroughly; I really appreciate the feedback.
After reading their comments as well as reading my paper over again, I realized a few weak spots that needed to be fixed in my paper. Transitions were somewhat of an issue for me throughout. Many of my transitions sounded very formulaic and robotic and did not really guide the reader through the flow of my paper. In a few sections, I used the subtopic break a s a crutch to transition without really transitioning and explaining myself. In order to fix that, I need to reword a few transitions to sound more natural and add a few transitions in places that are currently lacking.
I tended to repeat myself and redefine some terms numerous times, which cost me a lot of words. Especially this occurred about the SOEP survey, which I mentioned three different times and justified it each time. In order to fix that I will try and cut out unnecessary explanation, which will also help me cut some words.
I also found that my results section, especially the statistical significance was lacking and confusing. Last week at my meeting, Mrs. Haag and I talked about changing the benchmark from risk-neutral to no risk, so that my calculations and graphs can be more easily understood. I am trying that along with the risk-neutral format to see which one works better in the paper. Hopefully by fixing the graphs, which will not change the actual results (only the numbers will be a little different), I can make that section clearer and bolster my paper.
In terms of the AP rubric, I think I have achieved the middle mark for all sections for sure. I think changing my graphs to help improve my statistical analysis and results section will allow me to get full marks in 5, 6, and 7, which deals with the results section and the graphs. I also think the inclusion of the table outlining the procedural changes will help me score higher for the figures and charts as well as the methods section, since it makes my methods clear and easily replicable. The one place I think I am lacking is that my voice needs to always be distinguishable from the sources'. Though for the most part I am distinct, there are a few spots that I use extended quotes, so I need to fix that in order to score the highest. I'm excited to keep making my paper better and to help my peers with their papers this week. Thanks for reading my post!! Here's Patrick to tell a classic Max-story. (503)
I want to start this blog post with a moment of silence for my bracket. With Duke's loss, I am officially done for.
Anyways, after a great week of commenting on each other's papers and reviewing my results section with Mrs. Haag, I think my paper is getting to a really great place. Shoutout to Kristiana, Grace, and Sunskruthi for taking the time to read my paper and comment thoroughly; I really appreciate the feedback.
After reading their comments as well as reading my paper over again, I realized a few weak spots that needed to be fixed in my paper. Transitions were somewhat of an issue for me throughout. Many of my transitions sounded very formulaic and robotic and did not really guide the reader through the flow of my paper. In a few sections, I used the subtopic break a s a crutch to transition without really transitioning and explaining myself. In order to fix that, I need to reword a few transitions to sound more natural and add a few transitions in places that are currently lacking.
I tended to repeat myself and redefine some terms numerous times, which cost me a lot of words. Especially this occurred about the SOEP survey, which I mentioned three different times and justified it each time. In order to fix that I will try and cut out unnecessary explanation, which will also help me cut some words.
I also found that my results section, especially the statistical significance was lacking and confusing. Last week at my meeting, Mrs. Haag and I talked about changing the benchmark from risk-neutral to no risk, so that my calculations and graphs can be more easily understood. I am trying that along with the risk-neutral format to see which one works better in the paper. Hopefully by fixing the graphs, which will not change the actual results (only the numbers will be a little different), I can make that section clearer and bolster my paper.
In terms of the AP rubric, I think I have achieved the middle mark for all sections for sure. I think changing my graphs to help improve my statistical analysis and results section will allow me to get full marks in 5, 6, and 7, which deals with the results section and the graphs. I also think the inclusion of the table outlining the procedural changes will help me score higher for the figures and charts as well as the methods section, since it makes my methods clear and easily replicable. The one place I think I am lacking is that my voice needs to always be distinguishable from the sources'. Though for the most part I am distinct, there are a few spots that I use extended quotes, so I need to fix that in order to score the highest. I'm excited to keep making my paper better and to help my peers with their papers this week. Thanks for reading my post!! Here's Patrick to tell a classic Max-story. (503)
Sunday, March 12, 2017
23 Pages Later
Hello All:
I had a great week in Sweden and Denmark and will be peppering in pictures I took from the IceHotel (Yes, it is what it sounds like) and Copenhagen throughout the blog post. This week was not only exciting one for me because of travel, it was also an extremely important week for my research project. I finally finished the paper (sort of). Though I still have a lot of editing a cutting down to go before the paper takes its final form, the all sections of the paper are finally done. At the beginning of the year, I couldn't even imagine what was going to become of my research paper. Now that I have the 23 page behemoth sitting in front of me, I can't believe that my work has really culminated into a tangible product. I'm extremely proud of how far we have all come as a class and am excited for the rest of the journey.
In order to ensure that my paper is the best it can be, I need to go back and understand what is strong and why and what is weak and why, so I can make the weak parts and ultimately the whole paper strong. Overall, I think my paper is pretty strong right now, but it can and will be greatly improved before I turn it into the college board. I am a little over the word count (600 words, which is comparatively not that much), so I need to fix that and become a little bit more concise with my ideas.
I feel like the strongest parts of my paper are my discussions of each of the effects individually in the literature review and the explanation of the specific methods and changes for each effect in the methods section. In both of those parts, I am pretty concise and clear, which is important to understanding the paper. In my literature review, I think I clearly convey the prior research and how different sources converse with each other. I feel like I especially do this in the time-pressure section when I discuss the conflict between Dhar and Nowlis's ideas about choice deferral and Young et al.'s findings on risky behavior in time-pressure situations. That section of my paper shows a clear gap, which is imperative to a great literature review. In the methods section, I feel like I do a great job of laying out the changes that were made for each group and explaining how those changes provide a standardized way of measuring behavioral changes.
The weakest parts of my paper I think were the transitions and the statistical significance portion. In terms of transitions, I feel like I sometimes tried too hard to justify moving through the paper and sometimes I didn't include anything. Although I have improved my connection between the subtopics greatly over the course of the year, I still feel like the different effects can be connected better and more smoothly in the paper. For my statistical significance section, I feel like I just gloss over the significance and need to beef that section up a lot. Although I do discuss the less than 10% increase being negligible because that is less than one person, I do not really do anything else to show why my results are significant. If I want my paper to be great (which I do), I will need to fix this section as well as my transitions.
I hope you have enjoyed the pictures from my trip throughout the blog post and that you enjoy reading my paper. (613)
I had a great week in Sweden and Denmark and will be peppering in pictures I took from the IceHotel (Yes, it is what it sounds like) and Copenhagen throughout the blog post. This week was not only exciting one for me because of travel, it was also an extremely important week for my research project. I finally finished the paper (sort of). Though I still have a lot of editing a cutting down to go before the paper takes its final form, the all sections of the paper are finally done. At the beginning of the year, I couldn't even imagine what was going to become of my research paper. Now that I have the 23 page behemoth sitting in front of me, I can't believe that my work has really culminated into a tangible product. I'm extremely proud of how far we have all come as a class and am excited for the rest of the journey.
 |
| The ice room my mom stayed in |
 |
| The ice bed Will and I slept on (it had a mattress don't worry) |
I feel like the strongest parts of my paper are my discussions of each of the effects individually in the literature review and the explanation of the specific methods and changes for each effect in the methods section. In both of those parts, I am pretty concise and clear, which is important to understanding the paper. In my literature review, I think I clearly convey the prior research and how different sources converse with each other. I feel like I especially do this in the time-pressure section when I discuss the conflict between Dhar and Nowlis's ideas about choice deferral and Young et al.'s findings on risky behavior in time-pressure situations. That section of my paper shows a clear gap, which is imperative to a great literature review. In the methods section, I feel like I do a great job of laying out the changes that were made for each group and explaining how those changes provide a standardized way of measuring behavioral changes.
 |
| Copenhagen |
 |
| Northern Lights |
 |
| One more northern lights picture |
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Discussing the Discussion
Hello All:
It's spring break!!!! Woohoo!! Oh wait...we don't have one. But we are off all the time so we win.
Anyways, this week is a really exciting one for me. For my brother's spring break, my family is taking a trip to Denmark and Sweden (Look out for pictures on next week's post), so I am posting my blog a little early to make sure I don't miss it with my shaky internet situation as I will be traveling. Even though I will be spring breaking, my research will not be. Our discussion section is still due at the end of next week and I will be perfecting it in my extra time on my vacation. There is still so much to do and all this research has me like...
In order to better understand how to perfect my discussion, I have looked at the discussions of a few of my sources and tried to take out the useful parts. I found that looking at the same sources I looked at the results sections for was the most useful for me, since I was able to better understand how they linked the two sections since I analyzed both. Thbus, I will be looking at the same sources as last week again.
1. The Near-Miss Effect in Blackjack: Group Play and Lone Play by Gunnarsson, Whiting, and Dixon
After they found that people's hand ratings changed after the research induced the near-miss effect with the participants. The discussion explained how this new idea fit into the previous knowledge of the near-miss effect. It then discussed the significance of the findings not only in terms of gambling but in terms of behavioral psychology as a whole. It ended with some limitations and new questions that arose from the research. It did a great job of integrating the new findings with prior research to create a nuanced discussion.
2. The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral by Dhar and Nowlis
The study had participants choose between risky and safe choice or defer choice to a later time while under time pressure or no time pressure conditions. After it was found that choice deferral was prevalent among time pressured participants, the researchers tried to explain this using prior research. They discussed the significance of the new findings in consumer choice theory as well as behavioral economics. They asked further questions about the type of good or risk that will induce choice deferral most often. They overall did a great job of integrating the new research with long-standing theories of the field.
3. Priming Motivation Through Unattended Speech by Radel, Sarrazin, Jehu, and Pelletier
The study was investigating auditory priming's effect on people's motivation and actions. They found that people would perform actions and choose images based off of unconscious auditory stimuli. They explained this in terms of psychological priming and the theory behind it. They also related it to past research and asked more questions about the relation of auditory and visual priming.
What I have gained from these discussions is that I need to make sure to explain my findings in terms of the prior research and relate my results and lit review. I also need to assess my research and its limitations and pitfalls. By doing this, I will be able to draw the real significance from my project. I will finally have to ask further questions based on my limitations as well as those that arise from the research and that it doesn't cover. For example, one question I have is, how will group behavior affect blackjack behavior while the effects are induced?
I'm super excited for my research to come together and my trip this week. It's going to be a great spring break. (627)
It's spring break!!!! Woohoo!! Oh wait...we don't have one. But we are off all the time so we win.
Anyways, this week is a really exciting one for me. For my brother's spring break, my family is taking a trip to Denmark and Sweden (Look out for pictures on next week's post), so I am posting my blog a little early to make sure I don't miss it with my shaky internet situation as I will be traveling. Even though I will be spring breaking, my research will not be. Our discussion section is still due at the end of next week and I will be perfecting it in my extra time on my vacation. There is still so much to do and all this research has me like...
In order to better understand how to perfect my discussion, I have looked at the discussions of a few of my sources and tried to take out the useful parts. I found that looking at the same sources I looked at the results sections for was the most useful for me, since I was able to better understand how they linked the two sections since I analyzed both. Thbus, I will be looking at the same sources as last week again.
1. The Near-Miss Effect in Blackjack: Group Play and Lone Play by Gunnarsson, Whiting, and Dixon
After they found that people's hand ratings changed after the research induced the near-miss effect with the participants. The discussion explained how this new idea fit into the previous knowledge of the near-miss effect. It then discussed the significance of the findings not only in terms of gambling but in terms of behavioral psychology as a whole. It ended with some limitations and new questions that arose from the research. It did a great job of integrating the new findings with prior research to create a nuanced discussion.
2. The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral by Dhar and Nowlis
The study had participants choose between risky and safe choice or defer choice to a later time while under time pressure or no time pressure conditions. After it was found that choice deferral was prevalent among time pressured participants, the researchers tried to explain this using prior research. They discussed the significance of the new findings in consumer choice theory as well as behavioral economics. They asked further questions about the type of good or risk that will induce choice deferral most often. They overall did a great job of integrating the new research with long-standing theories of the field.
3. Priming Motivation Through Unattended Speech by Radel, Sarrazin, Jehu, and Pelletier
The study was investigating auditory priming's effect on people's motivation and actions. They found that people would perform actions and choose images based off of unconscious auditory stimuli. They explained this in terms of psychological priming and the theory behind it. They also related it to past research and asked more questions about the relation of auditory and visual priming.
What I have gained from these discussions is that I need to make sure to explain my findings in terms of the prior research and relate my results and lit review. I also need to assess my research and its limitations and pitfalls. By doing this, I will be able to draw the real significance from my project. I will finally have to ask further questions based on my limitations as well as those that arise from the research and that it doesn't cover. For example, one question I have is, how will group behavior affect blackjack behavior while the effects are induced?
I'm super excited for my research to come together and my trip this week. It's going to be a great spring break. (627)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)