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)
Sup Max,
ReplyDeleteLove all these Spongebob memes. Also, if I had made a bracket, I would have had Duke going all the way, so don't feel bad. Considering the state of your paper, the bracket should not be your biggest worry. Lol, I'm kidding.
Seriously, I was just joking. I liked your paper, especially your discussion section. The part where you connected your results back to the literature review, I thought, was very strong and effective. Also, your use of your graphs was very good, so you can check that row off the rubric.
The weaknesses were evident mostly in your literature review. You made a lot of implicit claims and jumped to conclusions too often. This lead to a weakened argument. You need to make some of those claims explicit, especially the ones I highlighted in my comments. Also, your transitions still seem choppy and even the transition between ideas/subjects needs some work too.
Further, you did not include a detailed enough analysis of your legal and ethical guidelines, which you should definitely improve before you turn in the paper.
Finally, you should include your survey and other forms that you used in your appendix or paper so that it is clear to your reader what you are talking about. You are doing great, and the end is nigh! Keep up the the good work!
Well Max,
ReplyDeleteThis is going to be confusing because I have the exact opposite suggestions as Gursajan. I liked your paper a lot, and actually thought the literature review was good. Although you didn't fully explain everything, I honestly don't think you needed it because a lot of the stuff you say is pretty intuitive. If there's anything I would correct in the literature review it would be the priming section, though. You need to explain what that is in more detail. I was a bit confused.
Other than that, I do definitely think you need to provide a better explanation of the risk analysis and definitely the statistical significance section. What you have right now isn't really much.
Anyways, with the discussion section, I think you need to explain the implications of your research a lot more. The analysis seemed a bit too one-dimensional and although you did connect it to your literature review well, it wasn't really developed or synthesized in the way you promised at the start of the paper.
Also, cut down on the passive. We all use it, but it isn't really helpful.
That's all I got!
Akash
hey max!! your paper was really interesting and it was really cool to see what you found. overall, it was pretty good, but I think there are some things you should really work on.
ReplyDeleteIn your Literature review, there were a lot of places where you were missing the so what. You also didn’t have warrants in a lot of places (which should include the so what). If you add these, it’ll keep your paper from sounding very expository, as it tended to sound when you talked about the different conditions and what the game of blackjack is.
Your Method section was pretty strong, but some parts just sounded a little confusing. Clearing it up should make it all good.
Your results section was fine until the statistical analysis part. You need to do an actual test bc at the moment, it sounds like you’re just making stuff up and it isn’t very convincing because there isn’t really much analysis.
In your Discussion section, you need to also talk about so what. I also think you should talk about real world applications to add to the significance.
Good job, and good luck with fixing it!!