The past week was spent peer editing our final research papers, which I am so happy we were able to do. Getting Blog of the Week last week was also really awesome and motivating. When I read my paper it is harder to find where I went wrong because I have been so immersed in my research and writing this for so long that everything seems right. But the comments I got were incredibly helpful in not only cutting down words but making sure my points were communicated clearly through my own voice. Grace, Max, and Kristiana all helped me make everything more concise.
My literature review needed the most work by far. My sentence structure was choppy and the transitions were just a repetition of the previous sentences; as a result, nothing really flowed or felt connected. There were entire sections for which I dedicated so many words to (for example CBT and drug/dependency disorders) that could be severely cut down or placed elsewhere, and the paper would not suffer. Often I would present a source and entire blocks of quotes without presenting my own interpretation or thoughts. Ultimately, implementing these suggestions helped me cut down 1,500 words and for the paper to be under 5,000 words. I combined sentences that seemed disjointed and reworked transitions to incorporate ideas of the next paragraph instead of reiterating the same information. I cut down the quotes to leave room for my voice. For my methods, I was able to separate the limitations and future directions section a bit more, so only new information and conjectures were being presented. Other parts of the paper, I improved by combining paragraphs and reorganizing certain paragraphs for clarification (ex: putting the explaining of the t-test and what it does first before going into how to do t-test in methods). At first, I was afraid I would cut out the interesting conclusion regarding difference in improvement of ADHD with NFT dependent on gender to bring it under the word limit, but by going through the entire paper once more and finding where I repeated myself or was too choppy allowed me to not have to make that sacrifice. I was overall so relieved when I was making edits and looking back on the first rendition of the literature review, especially, I have come so far.
Now to go over the rubric and see how I feel about my paper accomplishing each row's criteria.
Row 1: I think I spend a lot of time describing the purpose of my paper and the significance in this sphere of research. I build up to articulating the gap at the end of the literature review. I think I do reference previous research and where mine fits in in comparison, so I think I could score well on this row.
Row 2: I try to put sources in conversations with each other and included quite a few that corroborated with each other. I do not have many that disagreed and had to cut down some of this for word count. I do connect previous studies to my own, but I think I will need help with next round of editing to see if I put sources in conversation with each other enough.
Row 3: This section I think I did a pretty good job with. I use sources that are credible, significant, and relevant and cite and explain the credibility of each source.
Row 4: For this row, I just this past week edited the methods to ensure it scores higher. With Mrs. Haag's help, I was able to identify where I could justify why I am conducting this particular research design and thus earn more points for this section. I hope my peers could please double check to see if I articulated it as clearly as possible (while being concise as I am so dangerously close to the word limit).
Row 5: I do acknowledge the limitations and implications of my own research, in my discussion section exclusively. Generally, I describe links between evidence and claims and make relevant conclusions.
Row 6: This past week has been spent working on this section. I rewrote some parts to interpret more sources and to use evidence that was most relevant to the point I was making. My first literature review would have scored low on this, but I think now I do a good job of interpreting most of the evidence. There are some places (NFT paragraph) I am afraid my voice is lost, so I think there is still room for improvement. I do manage to interpret my data effectively in the results section and the significance in the discussion section.
Row 7: I think organization-wise, my research flows logically and actively shows my reasoning. With the new edits, there aren't choppy sentences or repetition so this part was greatly improved. The graphs and tables are clear and relevant.
Row 8 and 9: I was able to also improve these sections, by improving grammar, conventions, and word choice throughout to make it as concise and easily understandable as possible. I did integrate a lot of sources with my own voice, but again this is something I hope my peers can look for and help me improve upon with a second round of editing, as I do have some longer quotes in my paper.
Next, our presentations are coming up after we finish these papers. I think what I am most confident about my presentation is that all my information will make logical sense and flow well. I can picture presenting the gap in the research and then going into each part. However, I am most nervous about presenting all that information in the time limit given. It was so hard to cut down words from my paper itself, so making sure I can communicate all my points in 15 points is stressful. I am unclear of how to really prepare for oral defense and I am scared I won't be able to answer immediately and clearly articulate my thoughts. Hopefully, I can practice presenting in front of many people and see what questions are most commonly asked or what most confusion stems from. I can do some reflection to see what kinds of questions my content would evoke. Ultimately, I know with some planning I can make sure my presentation reflects the work and discovery of this past year.
Word Count: 1,069
My literature review needed the most work by far. My sentence structure was choppy and the transitions were just a repetition of the previous sentences; as a result, nothing really flowed or felt connected. There were entire sections for which I dedicated so many words to (for example CBT and drug/dependency disorders) that could be severely cut down or placed elsewhere, and the paper would not suffer. Often I would present a source and entire blocks of quotes without presenting my own interpretation or thoughts. Ultimately, implementing these suggestions helped me cut down 1,500 words and for the paper to be under 5,000 words. I combined sentences that seemed disjointed and reworked transitions to incorporate ideas of the next paragraph instead of reiterating the same information. I cut down the quotes to leave room for my voice. For my methods, I was able to separate the limitations and future directions section a bit more, so only new information and conjectures were being presented. Other parts of the paper, I improved by combining paragraphs and reorganizing certain paragraphs for clarification (ex: putting the explaining of the t-test and what it does first before going into how to do t-test in methods). At first, I was afraid I would cut out the interesting conclusion regarding difference in improvement of ADHD with NFT dependent on gender to bring it under the word limit, but by going through the entire paper once more and finding where I repeated myself or was too choppy allowed me to not have to make that sacrifice. I was overall so relieved when I was making edits and looking back on the first rendition of the literature review, especially, I have come so far.
Now to go over the rubric and see how I feel about my paper accomplishing each row's criteria.
Row 1: I think I spend a lot of time describing the purpose of my paper and the significance in this sphere of research. I build up to articulating the gap at the end of the literature review. I think I do reference previous research and where mine fits in in comparison, so I think I could score well on this row.
Row 2: I try to put sources in conversations with each other and included quite a few that corroborated with each other. I do not have many that disagreed and had to cut down some of this for word count. I do connect previous studies to my own, but I think I will need help with next round of editing to see if I put sources in conversation with each other enough.
Row 3: This section I think I did a pretty good job with. I use sources that are credible, significant, and relevant and cite and explain the credibility of each source.
Row 4: For this row, I just this past week edited the methods to ensure it scores higher. With Mrs. Haag's help, I was able to identify where I could justify why I am conducting this particular research design and thus earn more points for this section. I hope my peers could please double check to see if I articulated it as clearly as possible (while being concise as I am so dangerously close to the word limit).
Row 5: I do acknowledge the limitations and implications of my own research, in my discussion section exclusively. Generally, I describe links between evidence and claims and make relevant conclusions.
Row 6: This past week has been spent working on this section. I rewrote some parts to interpret more sources and to use evidence that was most relevant to the point I was making. My first literature review would have scored low on this, but I think now I do a good job of interpreting most of the evidence. There are some places (NFT paragraph) I am afraid my voice is lost, so I think there is still room for improvement. I do manage to interpret my data effectively in the results section and the significance in the discussion section.
Row 7: I think organization-wise, my research flows logically and actively shows my reasoning. With the new edits, there aren't choppy sentences or repetition so this part was greatly improved. The graphs and tables are clear and relevant.
Row 8 and 9: I was able to also improve these sections, by improving grammar, conventions, and word choice throughout to make it as concise and easily understandable as possible. I did integrate a lot of sources with my own voice, but again this is something I hope my peers can look for and help me improve upon with a second round of editing, as I do have some longer quotes in my paper.
Next, our presentations are coming up after we finish these papers. I think what I am most confident about my presentation is that all my information will make logical sense and flow well. I can picture presenting the gap in the research and then going into each part. However, I am most nervous about presenting all that information in the time limit given. It was so hard to cut down words from my paper itself, so making sure I can communicate all my points in 15 points is stressful. I am unclear of how to really prepare for oral defense and I am scared I won't be able to answer immediately and clearly articulate my thoughts. Hopefully, I can practice presenting in front of many people and see what questions are most commonly asked or what most confusion stems from. I can do some reflection to see what kinds of questions my content would evoke. Ultimately, I know with some planning I can make sure my presentation reflects the work and discovery of this past year.
Word Count: 1,069
Hi Sunskruthi! Congrats on blog of the week, and I loved reading through your research! I think it has really valuable implications for ADHD treatment. :D
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think your paper is really strong in that you seem really knowledgeable on the topic, and your results are really clear (great graphs and explanation of how you implemented the t-test!). Also, great job being under the word limit! I think all of the information is there, and, if anything, if you make a couple sections more concise/less wordy, I think you could be in an even better spot.
In terms of areas where I think you can improve, I think the transitioning could still be improved in the lit review. The sentences don't seem choppy/bad, so you probably have improved those, but I think better transitioning between and connecting the ideas within each of your sections will create better flow. Otherwise, I think you get to a gap and your ultimate question well with the information and what is unknown.
For the methods, I think you really need to work on tying YOUR RESEARCH to the stats tests and numbers/softwares you are discussing. All the information is there, but, as the reader, I wanted to see more how YOU are using each of the methods you are discussing and what they mean as you analyze your sample. (You mention the sample quite infrequently, so it is unclear how all the info is being applied to it.)
Overall, I think your results was really well done. For the discussion, maybe save the significance for after you attempt to explain your results for a more natural flow. Other than that, I think I only had more nit-picky comments, which are on the paper.
Great work so far! I can't wait to see the final project. Good luck with finishing up editing and crafting your presentation. :)
Hey Sunskruthi!
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I think your paper was pretty fantastic. Your lit review and methods were easy to follow, and I think you've come up with some amazing conclusions. You should be really proud of everything you've accomplished so far! One problem that I noticed throughout your paper was the fact that you jumped between ideas without transitions quite a bit. It made everything a little jarring, and distracted from all of the great information you've included. Additionally, I'd be careful about being too technical. As someone who doesn't have a stats background, some portions of your paper were a little overwhelming. Overall, this paper was fantastic. Great work!!
Hey Sunskruthi, Congrats on Blog of the Week!
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with the feedback that Kimy and Audrey gave, and I think you are really close to having an excellent paper! However, to get there, I found two things that you might want to address.
Firstly, I think you might want to talk about, even if briefly, the limitation of having 24 people in your study when you mention that in the methods section. If you don't, then we end up on this really weird area where while you discuss your methods, results, and half of your discussion, the reader is constantly thinking, "yeah but that was only 24 people how can you make conclusions from that". If you briefly address the topic earlier, it would be much better in terms of flow and clarity.
The second thing I noticed (and it may have just been me) is that your Literature Review (which didn't have any choppy sentences by the way) seems to jump around from treatment to adult and children. You bring up the adult and children, but only do so briefly before discussing the treatments that are currently out there. Then, you try to tie those back in to the adults and children aspect, but it gets a little confusing and I don't think the full connections are made in order for it to be as clear as it can be.
Other than those two points, there weren't any large errors in your entire paper, which I think is an awesome sign of how close you are! This was written really well, and I cant wait to see how your presentation is!
Thank you guys so much for your comments! I definitely felt like in my effort to consolidate pieces in the literature review, my transitions weakened in between subtopics and paragraphs, so I went back and tried to fix that as much as possible. I also do need to tie in my research's purpose more in the method, so it isn't lost on the reader. And in terms of technical jargon, I will work on making it simpler to understand (especially in the methods section). This was a huge help!
ReplyDelete