CINE 121 Lecture Notes - Topic Sentence, Semi-Continuity, Joseph Schumpeter

7 views4 pages

linaguessoussi

16 Mar 2023

School

Binghamton University

Department

Cinema

Course

CINE 121

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Adapted from how to write an abstract, online at http://www. okstate. edu/education/jshs/abstract. htm. Project/study title - keep it concise, but descriptive. Introduces the topic of the study and the reasons for its investigation: subject/purpose. Why is this project interesting or important: hypothesis/prediction. Briefly explain the approach/methodology you followed in order to test your prediction: findings/discussion. Why should anyone become excited or interested in your findings: language focus, topic sentence - introduction. It allows the writer to focus the reader"s attention on the topic of the study and the reasons why that subject is worth investigating. Here are some examples: according to recent evidence, racial and ethnic discrimination in housing continues to be widespread. [this paper : central city households who subsidize local public sector goods through local property taxes have an incentive to flee from the city or to change the jurisdiction"s boundary.

Related Questions

Article: Basal forebrain degeneration precedes and predicts the cortical spread of Alzheimerâs pathology

https://bbl.westfield.ma.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1058990-dt-content-rid-12869706_1/courses/wsu_BIOL0333001_2018fall/Alzheimers.pdf

-Please do not use direct quotes from the article-

2. Hypotheses:

a) What are the hypotheses? (list all hypotheses proposed)

b) Is the reasoning behind the hypotheses explained? What is the logic behind each hypothesis?

3. Introduction:

a) Does the introduction provide appropriate background for the study? Why or why not?

b) Is the introduction missing useful information that would have been helpful? If so, explain. For example, did you have to look up any additional information?

c) Is the relevance of the work clear? What is the relevance of the work?

4. Methods:

a) Summarize the methods that were used.

b) Were the methods appropriate? {Was this the best way to test the hypotheses? Were there problems with the methodology (if so describe them)?}

5. Analysis:

a) Were there any problems with the data analysis, including use of statistics?

b) Did the authors present quantitative data in a clear way (use of graphs/tables)?

6. Your OWN assessment of the results:

a) List YOUR conclusions from the DATA presented?

b) Do you feel that the author's conclusions are reasonable and justified? If there are any problems with the authorâs conclusions, explain them.

c) Does the author ignore any aspects of the results?

7. Discussion:

a) Did the authors compare their results with previous published papers? If so, provide at least 1 example.

b) Are the implications of the results properly discussed (how do these results relate back to the âbig pictureâ of what is being studied)? What are the implications?

c) Are the conclusions clearly stated? If so, what are they?

d) In addition to what the authors discussed, what further studies would YOU find interesting to pursue?

8. Abstract (if there is one):

a) Does the Abstract really give an appropriate summary of the paper?

Article: Transplantation of Autologous Olfactory Ensheathing Cells in Complete Human Spinal Cord Injury

https://bbl.westfield.ma.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1058976-dt-content-rid-12869721_1/courses/wsu_BIOL0333001_2018fall/OECs%20SCI%281%29.pdf

1. Research question:

a) What is THE OVERALL research question?

b) Is the research question clearly stated in the introduction of the paper?

c) Why is the author interested in this question (why is this question important?)?

2. Hypotheses:

a) What are the hypotheses? (list all hypotheses proposed)

b) Is the reasoning behind the hypotheses explained? What is the logic behind each hypothesis?

c) Are some alternative hypotheses ignored? If so, explain.

3. Introduction:

a) Does the introduction provide appropriate background for the study? Why or why not?

b) Is the introduction missing useful information that would have been helpful? If so, explain. For example, did you have to look up any additional information?

c) Is the relevance of the work clear?

4. Methods:

a) Summarize the methods that were used.

b) Were the methods appropriate? {Was this the best way to test the hypotheses? Were there problems with the methodology (if so describe them)?}

Read: "Global metabolic impacts of recent climate warming" -----> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09407

1. what is the overarching issue? (usually in paragraph 1)

2. what specific hypotheses and predictions did the authors claim to investigate? (often but not always in last paragraph of intro)

3. did the methods and tests address the stated hypotheses?

4. what was the major finding? (often in the 1st paragr of discussion; sound address their most important hypothesis)

5. how did their data support their conclusions?

6. do their conclusions imply anything about the overarching issue in paragraph 1 of the introduction?

limesalmon102

CINE 121 Lecture Notes - Topic Sentence, Semi-Continuity, Joseph Schumpeter

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

CRCJ 3002 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Nonprobability Sampling

PSYC 4750 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Research Question, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PSYB01H3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Digital Object Identifier, Engineering Council, Newsbank, Inc.

Related Questions