Discussion Topic: Proofreading Techniques and Graduate Online Writing Studio Feedback.
1. Use several proofreading techniques described in the videos and proofread your Literature Review.
2. For the initial discussion post, state the specific proofreading techniques you used (from the videos) and describe the mistakes you discovered. Cut and paste examples from your paper to show the class exactly what your mistake was and how you fixed it. Similar to the following example:
EXAMPLE: I used a scanning technique to review all in text citations and noticed one citations was formatted like this (Smith and Jones, 2017), but should have been formatted like this (Smith & Jones, 2017) using the ampersand symbol.
The goal here is to learn how to effectively proofread, AND help others learn how you applied the proofreading techniques.
3. Attach your Literature Review to the initial discussion post.
Respond to at least two other students by Friday (midnight) with constructive feedback addressing THREE errors and/or sentences the student could improve.
This activity will help you and the others students improve APA formatting and writing style.EXAMPLE: Hello Dan, I reviewed your literature review and found three items that could be improved. First, I noticed you did not provide a title on page 2. According to the template and assignment we did in Week 1, you must have a title on the title page and page two. The second challenge I see is…
respond with some of the key feedback they received from the Graduate Online Writing Studio after submitting their Week 6 assignment
. Discuss what method was used (email, phone, skype) to get Writing Studio feedback, what writing skills were addressed, and what the overall experience was like when getting help from a Writing Consultant. If you did not use the Writing Studio in Week 6, please explain why to help us better understand what methods you did use to improve your scholarly writing skills.
COLLAPSE Discussion Topic: Proofreading Techniques and Graduate Online Writing Studio Feedback. PART I 1. Use several proofreading techniques described in the videos and proofread your Literature Rev
Running head: SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF VASCONCELOS’S 1 Summary and Critique of Vasconcelos’s Phenomenological Study of The Effect of Prayer on Organizational Life Dan Kuchinka Keiser University Research, Ethics, and Scholarly Writing Daniel G. J. Kuchinka, Ph.D. Week 3 Article Critique January, 2017 Summary and Critique of Vasconcelos’s Phenomenological Study of The Effect of Prayer on Organizational Life The following is a summary and critique of Vasconcelos’s (2010) phenomenological study of workers and their use of prayer to cope with common challenges in the workplace. Following a summary of the study, the information will be evaluated as strengths, limitations, and ethical considerations are addressed. Article Summary According to Vasconcelos (2010), empirical research on the topic of prayer in the workplace is limited. Vasconcelos examined prayer in the workplace using phenomenology as a qualitative approach, designed to explore the topic in-depth. In his study, Vasconcelos examined a diverse sample (N = 28) of workers from Brazil. Data revealed 93% of participants prayed every day (61% many times during the day). A common theme that emerged was prayer varied by length, time of day, place, and circumstance. Vasconcelos (2010) found all participants agreed prayer brought a “pleasure or inner peace” (p. 374). It was discovered prayer was useful to help workers cope with the daily challenges in the workplace. Article Critique Like any other study, the research design and explanation of the study had several strengths, limitations, and ethical concerns. Strengths and Limitations Vasconcelos (2010) investigated a diverse sample in terms of age, education, and Christian affiliation (e.g., 74% of population is Catholic; p. 372). A limitation was the lack of participation from Jews and Muslims, which could have added significant breadth to the study. Prayer is part of the daily life of Muslims and could be viewed very differently. Another strength of the study was the option to use email to respond to questions. This element of confidentiality may have helped promote honest and direct responses, without any fear of judgement. This strength of the study could also be viewed as a limitation. Prayer can be highly emotional and a lack of face-to-face interaction between the researcher and participant could have denied the investigator critical nonverbal and verbal, emotion-driven information. Perhaps the most significant limitation of the study was the qualitative design. Although qualitative research can help understand a topic, the information cannot be generalized to the greater population. The same research design applied to a sample from a totally different population may have revealed dramatically different results. Ethical Considerations Vasconcelos (2010) appeared to have conducted the study and reported on the findings in an ethical manner. For example, the author clearly recognized the limitations of the sample. Although he did not recognize the lack of Jews and Muslims in the sample, which was not so much of an ethical issue but rather an oversight when discussing limitations. The author also valued privacy by allowing participants to respond using email. If data was collected in the workplace, workers may have endured negative outcomes from individuals or an organization that viewed negatively on prayer in the workplace. Conclusion The previous discussion addressed the strengths, limitations, and ethical considerations associated with Vasconcelos’s (2010) phenomenological study of prayer used in the workplace to help cope with common challenges. Consistent with a case study or phenomenological research design, the study opened doors for future research. References Vasconcelos, A. F. (2010). The effects of prayer on organizational life: A phenomenological study. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(3), 369-381. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/748923600?accountid=35796