Reminders for the upcoming week (no class 11/10):
-Obviously if I don't have your annotated bibliography and background literature review, those are absolute priorities at this point.
-Research Log #7... this relates to tonight's unfinished class exercise. Take the sample proposals and evaluate them according to 1 of the 7 criteria given on pages 11-12 of the course syllabus (as assigned), and explain why you rated them as you did. Then discuss how your evolving proposal does or does not currently meet those criteria.
-Send/share me a draft of your methodology section and your hypotheses/preliminary arguments section.
Reminders for 11/17:
-Class will meet in SciTech II 242, since this was everyone's preference
-Read Booth: Chapters 14-16
-Read Tufte book on using visual information.
-Send/share complete proposal draft, which includes some elements you've already worked on (Project Description, Background Literature Review, Methodology, Hypotheses/Arguments) and some new ones (Summary/Conclusion, Non-Annotated Bibliography, Timetable for completion)
-Think about when you'd like to have your final personal conference for the semester... I am targeting 11/29, 11/30, 12/1, 12/2 as possible dates, but 11/18 and 11/19 could work too.
Research Log $ 7:
ReplyDelete#5- Use of Supporting Information:
Paper #1- Federal Government Management of Private Contracts in Iraq:
• Claims are supported by appropriate warrant and evidence.
SATISFACTORY- The paper provided at least 9 reference. It has pointed more facts coming from various gov’t agencies
• Includes substantative background information from appropriate expert sources.
LESS THAN SATISFACTORY- out of the 9 references used, only half really provided background of information.
• Uses accurate statistical data or other evidence
SATISFACTORY- there are plenty of numerical data provided, mostly tax dollars spent by tax payers. However, I need to see number of lives saved.
• Differentiates treatment/use of popular and scholarly sources, using variety of sources appropriate to topic.
SATISFACTORY- I see that he has used mostly web sources and provided government sub agencies who deals with contractors.
• Quotations strengthen argument or position:
MORE THAN SATISFACTORY- many quotes were used. It provided profound impact on the paper after quotes were used.
OVERALL RATING- SATISFACTORY
Paper $2- Description: Green Building
• Claims are supported by appropriate warrant and evidence.
MORE THAN SATISFACTORY- supporting evidence which resulted from the damages by typhoon Katrina were spelled out very clearly.
• Includes substantative background information from appropriate expert sources
MORE THAN SATISFACTORY-More than enough references have been used. Comprehensive approach to fix the problems, re-evaluation of New Orleans environmental safety.
• Uses accurate statistical data or other evidence
LESS THAN SATISFACTORY- I did not find any relevant statistical data included on the paper. I believe that they are not necessary. However, I can understand why the photos are pasted on the paper. Writer is proving all required evidence which include photography.
• Differentiates treatment/use of popular and scholarly sources, using variety of sources appropriate to topic.
MORE THAN SATISFACTORY- there are plenty of references used for this paper which I believe the paper provided more than required.
• Quotations strengthen argument or position:
SATISFACTORY- some quotes did not stand out too strongly for me. Example- the promotion of newer products that would save water and energy-thru tax breaks ( Cullingworth & Caves, 2009).
OVERALL RATING- MORE THAN SATISFACTORY
Research Log #7 – Gail
ReplyDeleteRe: Federal Government Management of Private Contracts in Iraq (Jane Doe)
Evaluation for reasoned/discipline analysis/critical thinking (#3)
Again, I feel as though I’m living in a glass house at the moment . . .
1. Reflects openness to exploring alternative interpretation(s) of topic; uses balanced language. Yes, it appears to do so.
2. Clear, logical presentation of ideas. The topic and points discussed were fairly straightforward. There were times when it seemed as though points were repeated throughout the paper, but I think this level of reinforcement is appropriate for a research project of this genre. As discussed in class, the use of bullets and numbering was not beneficial and should not have been used in this manner in the proposal.
3. Acknowledges/is aware of multiple points of view and demonstrates openness to authentic/alternative points of view. Yes, the student seemed to reflect an open mind in this regard.
4. Demonstrates critical analysis appropriate to area of concentration. The project appears to require a sufficient amount of analysis and the goal appears to be challenging, yet achievable. It might be useful if the student also explored the subject of cultural and communication issues that can occur due to differences in the way business is conducted in high context cultures versus low context cultures and/or other cultural differences. Also, the transparency issue – addressed in early in the proposal – it might be useful to explore in the methodology section. A discussion of forensic accounting/investigative measures, and/or how the application of law affects the project might also be beneficial. These may be implied based upon the project description.
5. Rating: More than satisfactory Satisfactory Less than satisfactory Unsatisfactory. I think this student chose a challenging and interesting research project that could prove to be quite useful for contractors and government officials. I chose an overall satisfactory rating in when evaluating this project using criterion #3.
A few additional thoughts: The student’s disciplines include government, business and management, and the student’s coursework appears to be a great match for this project.
Three sections seemed to lack content: Background Literature Review, Methodology and the Works Cited (Reference) page. The references could have been more diverse and the bibliography did not meet the minimum of 20 sources. Maybe this is an early draft, and these issues were addressed later?
It appeared from the timeline that the student’s timetable is based upon a 10-week schedule. I suspect the timetable is a fluid document, and may have required adaptation for the fall semester.
Evaluation for reasoned/discipline analysis/critical thinking (#3)
Study of the viability of the (printed) newspaper business/How ethical and editorial standards will be affected during these transformative years – (My Proposal)
1. Reflects openness to exploring alternative interpretation(s) of topic; uses balanced language. I am trying to keep an open mind with this topic and hope I accomplished that.
2. Clear, logical presentation of ideas. At first, I was struggling to get my ideas, topic and outline narrowed and focused. I am hopeful that with each section drafted, the proposal will present itself more clearly to the reader.
3. Acknowledges/is aware of multiple points of view and demonstrates openness to authentic/alternative points of view. I think that my proposal meets this criterion.
4. Demonstrates critical analysis appropriate to area of concentration. I think that I require more feedback to properly respond to this.
5. More than satisfactory, Satisfactory, Less than satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory – I am very uncomfortable rating myself. And I don’t think it’s possible to do so at this point in time. May I take the Fifth?
Research log #7, part 1
ReplyDeleteFirst, I’m sorry to have missed class. I understand that topics were assigned; I’m assigning myself one. If you want to give me a different one, Aaron, I will happily do it as well.
6.Structure and organization
Clear structure and organization; structurally appropriate and helpful subheadings.
My critique is limited because I am not sure if there are certain headings – like ‘background literature review’ – that are required. Having just completed mine, its lack was apparent.
The organization of this proposal is that the “Purpose” section contains much that should be in the “Background” section. While there is excellent material on the depth and breadth of money and waste in the awarding of contracts, I was a little befuddled by the amount of information presented before the project itself was described.
The only research-related section was related to current initiatives to prevent fraud. The purpose statement did not address only fraud, but also contract management. I think an additional subheading regarding contract management would be beneficial.
Additionally, I am concerned with the introduction of a new direction should the research prove that the contracts are not handled differently, in the methodology section. If the researcher is not sure of the answer to his question, his topic should be re-worked to include all possible outcomes. The “if” statement in the purpose should make it clear that both the yes and the no answers will be covered. That might add content and arguments to the overall framework.
That concern may be addressed with a reworking of the conclusion/purpose sections. This is one of those papers where it seems the author did not reexamine the purpose after writing the conclusion. He concludes more than his purpose statement addresses. Beefing up the ‘purpose’ section and moving some of the background to the ‘history’ section may be the cure for this problem.
Effective transitions between paragraphs and sections.
This paper had nice flow between sections. It was readable (except for the typos!) and repeated themes within each section, which adds continuity.
Appropriate distinction between background research and project plan.
I believe this student has made this distinction. His research on the process by which contracts are awarded, in addition to his research on current efforts to improve those processes, are separate from his conclusions. He will be adding to the processes, or improving outside processes, but not merely conducting a book report.
The concern here is that he has not conducted enough research to establish his problem completely. Having two separate concerns could lead to a lot of blind alleys during the investigative phase. It seems as though he currently has two research/project plans to juggle. That adds some confusion to this topic.
Reasonable timeline.
This is a big weakness of this project. The overall timeline for research is only ten weeks. To conduct a thorough analysis of these billions of dollars in contracts in a little over two months seems ambitious, to say the least. Because the problem could have a negative answer, which will lead to further background research, I would recommend adding to the timeline, or limiting the problem. I am saying that from the point of view of someone who works full time; it could be that this project is the only thing on the student’s plate for the next ten weeks. That could change my perspective. I would recommend, however, that there be strict check-ins with his mentor to assure the timeline is being met.
OVERALL RATING: I think I will give this a satisfactory. I think within that rating there is wiggle room for improvement.
Research log #7, part 2
ReplyDeleteWhere I stand:
Clear structure and organization; structurally appropriate and helpful subheadings.
I think this is one of my strengths. I enjoy building a framework for my research (and for other people’s too, a weakness!) and refining its structure. I would like to know what subheadings are required, but I feel confident that my three main subheadings are appropriate to my project and to keep me moving forward.
Effective transitions between paragraphs and sections.
I can struggle with transitions between the sections. I have been working to get from research background to my conclusions without sounding too clunky. I have confidence that as I get further along in my research, these transitions will come together. I will have to do a little extra work on the 390 project, but I think 490 will flow nicely.
Appropriate distinction between background research and project plan.
I hope that this is working in my project. I feel a little uncertain about the definition of this section of the rubric. If it means no book report, I feel that I will be doing enough original research on my organization to distinguish it from the research of others. I aim to present recommendations based on my research: that will be my project plan, which seems separate from my research.
Reasonable timeline.
Here is where I am the most worried, in this particular section. There is not enough time in the day for me in 390. I can only imagine how harried I will be in 490. Additionally, I will be relying on the time schedules of others, especially the director of Amadeus, who is insanely busy himself. I will have to make sure that I take time off work to get some things done. The spring can be a very challenging time in my business – it’s when we lay people off, which is my responsibility to manage – so I can only hope for the upturn in the economy to be real. I am also hoping to start some work in the winter break, if my project is approved.
GENERAL QUERY:
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have suggestions for writing the hypothesis section? I have banged something out, but it looks suspiciously like my methodology section, with a little speculation added in.
Thanks.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the conference 11/29, 11/30 or 12/1 would work for me.
Dec. 2 is not good because I have an exam.
Thanks,
Laura
Log # 7 –
ReplyDeleteGreen Building Techniques in New Orleans
6. Structure and organization
- Clear structure and organization; structurally appropriate and helpful subheadings.
I think the structure is clear and reasonably well organized. I was able to understand the purpose of the project and follow the writer’s trend of thought. Although we are not supposed to use bullets in this type of paper, I found that they make reading less tedious. The subheadings were appropriate.
- Effective transitions between paragraphs and sections.
The transitions are effective, perhaps the writer could have used more in the background section.
- Appropriate distinction between background research and project plan.
I think there is a clear distinction between both. The plan gives the right amount of detail, not too many, not too few. In general I get the sense that the writer has a clear picture of what she needs to do to complete the project.
- Reasonable timeline.
I feel that I can’t really comment on how reasonable the timeline is since I’m kind of clueless about my own but overall it looks doable.
I would rate the structure satisfactory. I understood the objective of the paper and what the final product will be.
7.Mechanics
- Consistent and correct citation style.
I am not sure what citation style this is but looks like MLA. Not all citations are consistent, some have pages numbers and others don’t. The reference list is very long but it doesn’t look like all works in the reference list were cited.
- Appropriate signal phrases
Looks fine to me, perhaps not enough signal phrases in some parts of the paper.
- Consistently clear sentences.
This part is fine, the sentences were clear enough for me to understand the purpose, plan, details, etc. of the project. I did not have difficulty understanding any sentence.
- Smooth sentence-level transitions.
There may be some room for improvement here to have a better flow between paragraphs but I’m not sure how the writer could do it better.
- Subject/verb and subject/pronoun agreement.
This is correct.
- Correct punctuation.
Also correct
- Use of standard English.
Also correct. It would have helped if she explained what the software does besides mentioning it. Although I kind of figure out what Final Cut Pro and Adobe do.
I would say the mechanics are more than satisfactory.
HOW MY PAPER COMPARES WITH THIS ONE
I think this paper is better organized than mine. This one is clearer in what it is trying to achieve and the steps to take it. The final product is more evident. I am reasonably satisfied with my literature review section but the introduction needs improvement. I think I've covered a lot of ground with my bibliography and citations so I'm most confident with this part of my project.
Research Log #7
ReplyDeleteQuestion #5- Use of Supporting Information:
Paper #2-Green Building Techniques in Urban Planning:
• Claims are supported by appropriate warrant and evidence.
Satisfactory- Supporting evidence provide on green technology, what it is and its impact on rebuilding from mostly Journal on these subjects with current information. Not sure why the writer has in paragraph one “This research project will take a closer look at historic urban planning methods compared to green building projects, using New Orleans”…Historical planning in New Orleans means keeping the buildings in a historical way ( color of the bricks, building built the same way in the past) how would this affect going “green”?
• Includes substantative background information from appropriate expert sources
Satisfactory – background provided about topics of New Orleans, environmental changes from expert sources.
• Uses accurate statistical data or other evidence
LESS THAN SATISFACTORY in that they talk about newer products are supposed to be better for the environment but show no charts or grafts to support this. Also they talk about New Orleans flood worsened the city’s capabilities – how? Maybe a graft on how many building were destroyed.
• Differentiates treatment/use of popular and scholarly sources, using variety of sources appropriate to topic.
Satisfactory – most of Journals, organizations involved in “greening”.
• Quotations strengthen argument or position:
Satisfactory in supporting what green is and green building techniques but not so much in the short film or photo journal side (maybe not necessary?)
OVERALL RATING- SATISFACTORY
HOW MY PAPER COMPARES WITH THIS ONE
I’m in no position to judge other papers! In comparing my paper, I don’t feel that my paper flows in data like this paper. What I mean by this is that I feel I’ve completed assignments, revised them and when it’s all put together it doesn’t ready or flow like a paper. Over all I like Paper #2 but I think they have the same problem that I do, a large subject and trying to narrow it down to fit exactly what you want to say.
Elena Thompson Research Log #7: Assignment: evaluate Proposal according to criteria 1 from syllabus:
ReplyDelete1.Interdisciplinary (deal breaker)
Project proposal is interdisciplinary, with clear connection(s) to concentration.
Identifies complex problem that demands investigation from two or more disciplinary perspectives.
Includes references that reflect interdisciplinary concentration.
And rate as:
More than satisfactory
Satisfactory
Less than satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Project proposal is interdisciplinary, with clear connection(s) to concentration.
Rating: Satisfactory
The concentration is stated as Contract Management, but I would ask for clarification to include this is Government, even more specifically, Defense Department Contract Management.
The separate areas are Government, Business and Management.
Identifies complex problem that demands investigation from two or more disciplinary perspectives.
Rating: Satisfactory
Does a good job of highlighting the problem of civilian contract management by the Government Defense Department. Frames it as a clash of organizational culture and process that is currently not as efficient or effective as it could be.
Includes references that reflect interdisciplinary concentration.
Rating:Less than Satisfactory
Found the works cited heavy on the governemnt side, but little to none on the civilian business side.
Log # 7 – Federal Government Management of Private Contracts in Iraq
ReplyDelete6. Structure and organization
- Clear structure and organization; structurally appropriate and helpful subheadings.
The structure is not totally clear but the subheadings help to better understand.
- Effective transitions between paragraphs and sections.
The headings help to identify sections but more transitions are necessary between paragraphs.
- Appropriate distinction between background research and project plan.
There should be more distinction between background research and project plan.
- Reasonable timeline.
I think the project is too big to analyze in a semester. It would be necessary to have more time to complete such a complex project or perhaps narrow it down to certain aspects of the problem.
I would rate this paper less than satisfactory. I found that only the paragraph describing the
purpose of the project was clear and specific.
7.Mechanics
- Consistent and correct citation style.
The citations are not correct. The writer cites the title of journals or reports instead of the author. Some citations only indicate the page number, perhaps this is a just a draft and not the final version?
- Appropriate signal phrases
I could not identify signal phrases. When they appear, they are in the middle of paragraph not at the beginning.
- Consistently clear sentences.
The sentences are clear but not well connected.
- Smooth sentence-level transitions.
Same as above. Transitions between sentences are not well connected, except in the paragraph about the purpose of the project
- Subject/verb and subject/pronoun agreement.
This is correct.
-Correct punctuation.
Also correct
Use of standard English.
This is correct.
I would say the mechanics are satisfactory but still need work.
I think that my project like this one needs a lot of work in terms of organization and structure but I’m doing better in the mechanics, i.e. more accurate citations and signal phrases. I probably need to keep working on the transitions like this writer.
ME AGAIN
ReplyDeleteSo now I'm reworking what I had before to try to take more into consideration Aaron's advice "So let's re-name this something more like 'hypothesis and outline of major ideas/arguments.' That would also include anticipated objections, which is a major emphasis in both Craft of Research and They Say / I Say. As well as any preliminary reasons or evidence you do have at this point."
Employing THIS technique, I sound more like my lit review!!
Is anyone else having these problems???
log #7
ReplyDeleteIris White
Federal Government Management of Private Contracts in Iraq
Rating:
1.
The interdisciplinary section is clear as government, business and management seem to be the logical areas to understand to solve the issues of corruption and theft within the contracting world on Iraq.
The issue is complex and the matter of solving it is referenced well to the three chosen disciplines.
2.
I would like to see the problem statement in the first few sentences of the purpose section, which is not the case in this paper. I want to know immediately what the point of this paper is. All other points of section 2. are met. I am not sure how realistic the expectations are, although I am finding this to be a very important undertaking.
3.
I am finding the author to be well informed about the current situation. I am not sure how he/she should be exploring an alternative interpretation of the topic. It is a clear problem with missing solutions that work fully. The analysis is appropriate to concentration.
4.
The methodology section seems too brief in my opinion. I would like to read more in sentence form about how this complex problem can or should be solved. The paper seems very theoretical. Also, what about suggestions of forms of punishment to prevent violations? I guess the problem is violators simply disappear because of no records in place? Again, this is a gigantic undertaking. I think that much more than one can anticipate is involved and that is why people have failed to put a better plan in place so far. The remaining criteria is met.
5.
As I said, the writer seems well informed of existing methods. I am not sure how accurate the data is. There could have been examples of “real world scenarios” to make it more interesting for the reader. I like to read about specific cases then it will also make much more sense (at least to people like me). There are not many sources in works cited but it seems that what we needed to know was conveyed.
6.
I am finding the structure to be clear. The transitions could maybe “flow” a little better but the purpose was always clear. The work on background research and the project plan makes sense, but again, I like more details.
7.
I struggle so much with citations myself, that I can not be the judge of this. The paper was thought through in a logical manner. Overall, I found the paper “a bit dry” maybe that comes with the subject matter. Again, more attention to the flow would help as well.
I give it a “Satisfactory”.
This is a helpful exercise in regards to working on my own paper. I should have started much sooner with my research because the data of these findings is the basis for everything else we are doing (I am only telling this myself). Research, in my case, was a slow process. I am glad that we will have the opportunity to do some more of it in BIS 490. Although, I found more of what I was missing only yesterday and hope to patch up the gaps. I tend to look not far enough “into the distance”. I always learn by doing, which can “hurt” sometimes when I realize I am not prepared enough. So, I am working on my Methodology section tomorrow. I am actually excited about that part of the paper as it is much more personal (self encouragement). See you next Wednesday.
It's me again: iris
ReplyDeletemore about how my work relates to the criteria from the rubric:
I think that my purpose is clear and my project statement is clear as well. I also believe that I am addressing a real problem, which is manageable and feasible.
As I said above in my last entry, I expected to find more relevant information in my areas more quickly. I have noticed about myself that I became better at searching for crucial information. That was actually a "turning point" for me. I felt, arrogantly so, that I knew what I was doing, but finding and learning about new information that backs up my believes or informs me otherwise is refreshing.
I feel that I can move forward now with the information I have in front of me. I am sure I will add and drop things as I continue.
I will try my best for the sections 6 and 7 of the rubric. I've learned in the process to make notes of sources immediately or I will never find anything again in my pile of printed out articles, books, etc.
Jenifer Murdock
ReplyDeleteLog #7
Assignment: evaluate Proposal: Green Building Techniques (criteria 1)
1.Interdisciplinary (deal breaker)
Project proposal is interdisciplinary, with clear connection(s) to concentration.
Identifies complex problem that demands investigation from two or more disciplinary perspectives.
Includes references that reflect interdisciplinary concentration.
Rate as: More than satisfactory; satisfactory; Less than satisfactory; or Unsatisfactory
Project proposal is interdisciplinary, with clear connection(s) to concentration.
Rating: Satisfactory
The concentration stated is Geography through Multimedia. She is also including other disciplines such as economics, engineering, marketing, statistics, sociology, photography and film to make the connection between the process of building, costs and other important information when building living spaces.
Identifies complex problem that demands investigation from two or more disciplinary perspectives.
Rating: Satisfactory
she does a good job making identifying the problems. One of the reasons why a community dies is because of lack of sustainability; green building techniques will help urban communities develop culturally and financially.
Includes references that reflect interdisciplinary concentration.
Rating: Satisfactory
Contains a well balance of work cited in different disciplines used in the paper.
Research log #7
ReplyDeleteShareen
Evaluation of proposal
"The use of green building techniques"
Criteria #3
Reasoned/disciplined analysis/critical thinking
1. Reflects openness to exploring alternative interpretation of topic; uses balanced language
Rating: Satisfactory
In reading this proposal, I think the author did a very good job in reflecting openness and using balanced language. This topic has many different avenues and can go in many different directions and the language used was very understandable and clear.
2. Clear logical presentation of ideas
Rating: More than Satisfactory
I enjoyed the order the ideas were expressed in and thought that it gave this proposal a unique flow. The author gives an overview of how we come to the point of thinking about "green building" and then goes step by step explaining why this is important. It gave me a great understanding of where we were before and told me the reasons why we need to go in this new direction. Keeping the public informed was also an important factor.
3. Acknowledges/is aware of multiple points of view and demonstrates openness to authentic/alternative points of view
Rating: Satisfactory
This proposal demonstrated openness but I am not sure about the multiple points of view. it does go into detail about the points of view of the consumers as well and it talks about the impact it will have on communities and how urban redevelopment is needed. I am not 100% sure I can say that it looks at it from all points of view.
4. Demonstrates critical analysis appropriate to area of concentration
Rating: Less than Satisfactory
When reading this proposal I didn't get a sense that there was a critical analysis taken. I thought it was pretty straightforward in describing a problem, giving examples (Hurricane Katrina) and providing a "green building" solution.
(I am not sure that I am even qualified to evaluate this paper because I am having problems trying to get my topic narrowed down and it seems to me like this is a problem that many people are having. the scope of my project is a lot smaller then it was but I am concerned that this author may be having the same issue I am having with what to include and not to include in their paper and how to make sure it relates to the disciplines.)
Where I stand as it relates to my paper and topic:
1. Interdisciplinary-I believe that my topic is interdisciplinary because I have combined business, communication, economics, as well as statistics into my proposal.
2. Problem statement-The problem is definitely stated. There is a real problem, the need for better regulation of the financial market as well as the need for better communication to consumers as it relates to the financial market. My topic has relevance to the disciplines outlined and it has an audience. I am not sure if it presents a reasonable solution.
3. Reasoned/disciplined analysis/critical thinking-I am completely not sure that my proposal satisfies this criteria. I need some help in this area. It is aware of multiple points of view, but the subject is very broad.
4. Sound Investigative framework-The methodology is still being worked on and is is not clearly articulated in the proposal; this is something that still needs some work
5. Use of supporting information-I have many sources/evidence that I plan on highlighting in the proposal and I believe that my audience is defined well
6. Structure and organization-I am screaming for help in this area. I am so unsure of what should come first, second, or third and I find myself at a loss of words. I am getting a lot better at understanding the difference between the literature review and the introduction but it’s still kind of fuzzy about the methodology and the project plan.
7. Mechanics-I am very certain that I will have to work on mechanics throughout this proposal.
I am so glad that we have more time in BIS 490 to work on this. I underestimated how much work this project was going to take.
GMUBIS390-Research Log #7
ReplyDeleteThe Iraq proposal - Structure and organization (Mainly satisfactory)
Subheadings were mostly used correctly, but the first subheading was lined up incorrectly. Also, the author waited too long before placing a clear definition of the research problem into the proposal, instead of doing it closer to the beginning. The organization of the paper suffered from this delay, because the introductory information should have been in the background section, which should have also been moved to right after the project description for a smoother transition.
The transitions between sections weren’t very good because the author waited too long to define the problem clearly but he author did use some effective transitional words and phrases.
This is the main problem I see in this proposal. The author waited too long to sum up what the research problem was in the project description portion of the paper and should have moved much of the introductory material back to the background research section of the paper (the main problem with this paper.
I think the 10-week time line is enough to complete the paper and the author has carefully explained the tasks to be done within each phase.
My proposal - Structure and organization – Satisfactory (a work in progress)
I feel that the structure of my proposal is fairly clear and appropriately organized. I have written each section separately, hoping to integration the sections better in the final version. I organized each section by grouping like issues together so that each issue can be discussed completely before moving on to the next topic. The overall organization and subheadings are set up to take the reader from topic to topic, building upon ideas that will end up supporting my overall conclusion.
I have tried to use effective transitions between paragraphs, and between sections, so that I can keep the reader engaged and in order to keep the flow of the proposal moving along smoothly. I have also tried to use some of the effective transitional words and phrases from our book, “They Say, I Say”, although I still need to read that chapter again to better master this.
I tried to define what the research problem was in the project description portion of the paper and also tried to discuss what will be needed in order to come to the best conclusion, leaving the background information mostly for the background literature review section of the paper and have pointed out where each of the three disciplinary concentrations of my paper will come into play within my proposal.
Since I haven’t formalized it yet, I won’t really know until I have had time to determine what amount of time I will need to write a satisfactory paper.
Log #7
ReplyDeleteWhere my capstone proposal is -
Clearly defined thesis voice:
I use first person declarative statements to clearly define my voice in juxtaposition with my sources. Having a defined perspective allows me to have an active dialogue with my sources in my research. I approached my literature review like it was a official hearing. My sources had to introduce themselves,
engage my ideas and defend their expertise.
Construction of a strong research foundation:
I developed my hypothesis and my concepts around the available resources and the pre-existing counterinsurgency models that are in existence. I was able to find a niche in the already turning wheel, with out having to
invent a new one.
Background research supporting thesis:
There is linear line between my thesis statement and the resources that I have been able to aggregate.
Timeline:
I have not nailed down specifically whom I am going to interview. This lack of development makes my timeline approximate not definite.