Hey readers!
Phew... it feels so good to be back. After over 1 month without blogging, we are now going to be consistently blogging every week as school comes to a close (!?), and we all go our separate ways to implement our methods.
Right now, we have submitted a working version of the methods section that will appear in our final papers. Now, our job for last week and the next week was to divide up into groups and fix our mistakes (they were plentiful, but it's all part of the process).
Although I will be receiving feedback from my group on this upcoming Wednesday, I think writing about what I perceived as strong and weak in my methods beforehand will allow me to critique my own methods from the lessons I learned last week and go into the feedback session with the methods fresh in my mind. So without further ado... let's do this!
The first weakness of my methods is the limited credibility that I used. This limitation was a by-product of my methods section exceeding the word limit of 1,000 words; the places where I tried to cut was the credibility because many sources overlap from my literature review. However, from going over other methods and doing a bit of introspection, I realize that some parts of my methods section are not supported fully. I need to fix this by explaining the methodology of the source and expanding upon the credibility of the authors.
In order to do this, I will have to fix another weakness of my methods: its length. I am 587 words over the word limit. I think the best spot to cut words is towards the beginning when I explain the type of method I chose. Although I tried to make this part extremely clear, it could be shortened. In my group editing session, I will also try to ask for spots that are unclear, as this often correlates with verbosity. One potential way for me to shorten my methods would be to insert my sample matrix as a table instead of describing it in so much detail (so the reader can see it). Max had a similar situation with this instructions. Just a thought?
Finally, I would like to explain some of the technical terms in my methods in more detail and more thoroughly because I feel that they were slightly esoteric (major L) at some points. These include the concepts of 3LCAA and Rutherford Backscattering and the qualitative markers of dis-uniformity.
These weaknesses sum up the general trend of my methods -- needing to say more in less space. However, I am confident that with the help of my group and by looking over my methods even more carefully, I should be able to mitigate these problems. Another solution would involve chopping 200 words or so from my literature review, so my word count is still on track. I am very happy with the level of detail I could provide about my method including the various validity and ethical precautions (except I forgot to talk about the course -- RIP).
Identifying these weaknesses is the first step, and by working on my methods with my group, I am confident that I can make my methods more concise, more understandable, and better!
Phew... it feels so good to be back. After over 1 month without blogging, we are now going to be consistently blogging every week as school comes to a close (!?), and we all go our separate ways to implement our methods.
| Senior year encapsulated with a meme... |
Although I will be receiving feedback from my group on this upcoming Wednesday, I think writing about what I perceived as strong and weak in my methods beforehand will allow me to critique my own methods from the lessons I learned last week and go into the feedback session with the methods fresh in my mind. So without further ado... let's do this!
The first weakness of my methods is the limited credibility that I used. This limitation was a by-product of my methods section exceeding the word limit of 1,000 words; the places where I tried to cut was the credibility because many sources overlap from my literature review. However, from going over other methods and doing a bit of introspection, I realize that some parts of my methods section are not supported fully. I need to fix this by explaining the methodology of the source and expanding upon the credibility of the authors.
In order to do this, I will have to fix another weakness of my methods: its length. I am 587 words over the word limit. I think the best spot to cut words is towards the beginning when I explain the type of method I chose. Although I tried to make this part extremely clear, it could be shortened. In my group editing session, I will also try to ask for spots that are unclear, as this often correlates with verbosity. One potential way for me to shorten my methods would be to insert my sample matrix as a table instead of describing it in so much detail (so the reader can see it). Max had a similar situation with this instructions. Just a thought?
Finally, I would like to explain some of the technical terms in my methods in more detail and more thoroughly because I feel that they were slightly esoteric (major L) at some points. These include the concepts of 3LCAA and Rutherford Backscattering and the qualitative markers of dis-uniformity.
These weaknesses sum up the general trend of my methods -- needing to say more in less space. However, I am confident that with the help of my group and by looking over my methods even more carefully, I should be able to mitigate these problems. Another solution would involve chopping 200 words or so from my literature review, so my word count is still on track. I am very happy with the level of detail I could provide about my method including the various validity and ethical precautions (except I forgot to talk about the course -- RIP).
Identifying these weaknesses is the first step, and by working on my methods with my group, I am confident that I can make my methods more concise, more understandable, and better!
 |
| We are optimistic on this blog, and for good reason! |
Here's to another great week -- I will keep y'all updated on my progress on my methods and implementing my research!
Talk to you next week (for real)!
Cheers,
Yash
(593)
P.S. I tried to experiment with the formatting/layout (doesn't deserve to be called an aesthetic) of my blog. Let me know if you think it looks worse or better!
P.S. I tried to experiment with the formatting/layout (doesn't deserve to be called an aesthetic) of my blog. Let me know if you think it looks worse or better!
Hey Yash,
ReplyDeleteI really like how you pointed out the more overarching problem that if you fixed would organically begin to help you mitigate your other problems: length. Because of how long your methods section was you were prevented from being able to include more credibility and explain technical terms. I think including that table can greatly help this and even shortening your literature review to allow for more explanation in your method is a good idea. Because the method is our own, dedicating more words to it will allow us to completely explain and justify because as high schoolers doing a research project we need all the credibility and citation we can find.
If you can find a way to justify your method in a more concise way then that the introduction to the methods section is an area you can cut down makes sense to me, too. Overall, I think all your problems can be solved with just concise wording, so you are on the right track! These are limitations you should definitely think about and fix but in the same vein I know you are capable of improving this. There are no gigantic holes or misunderstandings throughout your method, so I trust your method will be essentially perfect by the time you begin your researching!
Good luck!
Sunskruthi
(556)
Hey Yash!
ReplyDeleteI can roll with the “formatting/layout/doesn’t deserve to be called an aesthetic” going on with your blog.
Anyways, it seems as if the major problems with your methods are like exceeding the word limit yet at the same time not explaining enough stuff, so your logic and organization is probably pretty solid.
For credibility, you should definitely make that really strong. I feel like it’s ok if you repeat stuff from your literature review in your methods to further that credibility. If you’re worried about word count, I would definitely say to insert the sample matrix as a table. It’s also easier to see and probably easier to understand because your topic is so specific and full of technical terms. Speaking of technical terms, those should be explained really well otherwise you’ll lose your audience really easily.
That’s it! Good luck! I believe in you! Optimism!
I think the blog now looks better -- the colors actually go with each other, haha. I think that concision is going to be really important for you, and I almost feel as though you do a little bit of repeating when you transition from the literature review to the methods section, so maybe we can work on it there.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I think that you often disconnect the choices you make from the rationale behind those choices, so if you're able to synthesize those two things together, I think you'll find an improvement in clarity as well as word count. I look forward to meeting with you and discuss it all in detail.