week 3 dq response to teacher

What would I do different. A scientific note has to have some framework from which to be able to produce the x of the =x.

All science has to have a mathematical foundation.

I would focus in on what the point to this survey was attempting to find out. I am sure this paper started out with a point, but in the review/revision of this study somehow the framework was altered beyond recognition of a decipherable point.

Whereas those events do happen, is it better to publish something scientifically good or better to just publish and hope the next paper will not have to be altered outside of scientific standards. How would I make this study better. Find out what caused the study to fall outside of usable data.

What environment altered this study? Many universities have “standards” from which they demand those in attendance to comport themselves. Find out what those rules are first. Then work to find out what the purpose of the study started out to be. In the reading, little could be less clear. In the explanation the point should be the entire explanation for the top. A bit about the data collection methods, did they intend for the study to be quantity or quality, or some very odd combination of both. Starting from scratch, do not have a theme to the questions, but more rewrite the questions and question sequence so that the language is so much less vague. The vaguer the questions the more quantity, the fewer the questions the more quality. However, if the questions are too vague the results value decreases.

Start with what the review board will allow, then what the university will allow, what does the head of the department want, then a faculty advisor, then the student body, then my very small amount of input is added. Depending on the university, defines how strict some parameters are. Those have to be considered first. No reason to waste time on a paper which has no ability to pass the established system.