ABOUTThe research was about how gamification, a person's trait competitiveness, and competition will affect their ability to brainstorm as many ideas as possible. One of the many things I learned from reading this paper is that a person's competitiveness will not affect their performance if the situation does not 'call' for them to be competitive, for example if a task is for extra credit rather than a mandatory task. I think that this paper does follow the steps for a scientific research paper as it included all the parts necessary for the paper and mostly used the guidelines for each part (guidelines found in POINT section). POINTTitle: Style— Contains key words associated with the content Length—no more than a sentence, but usually a fragment, no more than 25 words Informative or Descriptive—verb or outcome keyword is associated with type of research, remembers audience Authors included in alpha order Includes the school and the place where the research was performed Abstract: -Brief, doesn’t add stylistic flourishes, defines terms used in the paper, utilizes the key words for database cross-referencing -250 words or less, written after research is done. Format— Starts with background info —past study on topic -Details on experimentation question, hypothesis, research plan/methods, and overall conclusions. -Be written in a way that it can be read independently from the paper. References: -CSE*--numbered list at the bottom, superscript number corresponding -Direct quotes are considered plagiarism, paraphrase is paramount -Not necessarily in alpha order—usually in order of appearance. Introduction: -Identify the problem and the justification for its import —style is rhetorical (ethos and logos…NO PATHOS) , -structure is a funnel —begin with broad concepts, focus down to---background, importance of research, question/hypothesis —no subheadings in this section) -Include prior research influencing your work —reference heavy -Overtly state your hypothesis(es) -Don’t give the conclusion -Should be about 15-20% of whole paper length -Use literary present tense for background research and accepted theories, use past tense for your work or unestablished theories -Assume that the reader has previous knowledge of topic—don’t need to explain basic common knowledge of that field - Introduction of variables -End with an overt statement of hypothesis. Methods: -Introduces the procedure of how you answered your research question -Should have research plan and data analysis subsection and other subsections appropriate to your research -Provide sufficient detail for replication, but avoid redundancy and superfluous info. -Includes WHY choices are made —the justification for methods and materials Elements — Study design-type and how collected data -Setting (details about environment for test) -Subjects (how you chose your population) -Data Collection—what was investigated, how collected, properties of the measurements -Data Analysis—statistical techniques, name and description—what tests will you use for relevance testing? -Research plan—dependent and independent, Covariates/Influences (how will you mitigate your potential influences), include what to do if you have missing data Results: -Presented in the order of the experimentation (follow the storyline from the methods section) -Should be in service to, and overtly answer the research question -Past tense Report the experimental group findings before the control group findings -Graphical displays designed with reader in mind (clearly labeled, captions, titles, etc) -Don’t use excerpts from the text as captions. -Use horizontal lines on bar/line/plot graphs for readability. -Address figures, tables, graphs and images in the narrative section. -Graphs and tables, and images, should be numbered and referenced by number in the narrative. -Primary, secondary, and ancillary analyses are included -DON"T...
-Inverted funnel—brief description and interpretation of main findings, address the strengths and limitations of your results, widens to implications and connection to past work -Comparison of findings to other researchers’ work—especially if attempting to replicate results -Address outliers and influences on findings (errors, bias) -Include how research plan could have been improved. -Address theoretical and practical applications of outcomes -What does data add to existing body of evidence? -Use words that are less “sure” in assertions—may, might, could; avoid words like “prove” REACTTitle:
Δ Title's word arrangement was hard to read. + Title used words and phrases such as "role of gamification" to provide an insight to what the paper was about. Recommendation: Remove the word "competition" from title as it makes readers believe that competition and gamification are not related words. Abstract: Δ Did not include background information. + Abstract included hypothesis, methods, and conclusions that were described briefly. Recommendation: Provide a brief piece of information (this can even just be definitions/descriptions of what the words competitiveness and gamification mean in your experiment) so the reader knows what you are thinking. Also go back and check for some present tense verbs, abstract should be past tense for most sentences) References: Δ References at the end were alphabetical order (not much of a delta however, good job!) + All references were properly cited throughout paper Recommendation: Sources could be arranged from order of appearance rather than alphabetical order to help guide readers to citations. Introduction: Δ A little over 30% of whole paper (whole paper being interpreted as intro. to discussion which is about 9 pages) + Proper citations, included with author(s) and/or year being referenced, in appropriate places Recommendation: Certain sentences could be condensed and combined together to create a shorter passage. Ex. "While studies show that extrinsic motivators increase performance when executing simple tasks, the same is not true for more complex tasks. For more difficult tasks which require one to evaluate and reevaluate in order to achieve success, extrinsic motivators don't benefit performance and sometimes will actually hamper it." could be condensed to "While studies show that extrinsic motivators increase performance when executing simple tasks, extrinsic motivators do not benefit and may hamper performance for more complex tasks." Methods: Δ Method for mitigation of outside influences and environment of experiment was lacking. + Method was properly divided into subsections (participants, measures, and procedure). Measures was divided further to intrinsic motivation, competitiveness, and task performance. Recommendation: Include methods of how you controlled possible outside influences and what the environment of the execution of the experiment was like. This will help anybody who would like to replicate your experiment prevent any "bad" data. Results: Δ Tables mentioned in text were hard to find and reference to. + Tables were properly referenced and used frequently. Passage also described and elaborated on content on results within each table. Recommendation: Place tables before passage or before each section that the table is frequently referenced to. Ex. place table 1 before descriptive statistics section. Discussion/Conclusion: Δ Possible improvements to the experiments were discussed tangentially. + Error analysis and limitations were discussed and acknowledged. One limitation with this experiment was that only college students studying psychology were participating in the experiment. Recommendation: Elaborate more on possible improvements. May either help with those who want to replicate experiment or with those who would like to reference experiment for research.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorClass of 2018 Categories
All
Archives
June 2016
|