Paper Trail

So last week, here's a trail of your paper creations...Wolverine claws, Spiderman figures, penguin patterns, a supercool dinosaur drawing, your handprints just the way we did it in school. One night you worked till about 10.30PM on these tiny drawings and you seriously wanted to do your handwriting exercises in your efforts to prove that you deserve to be at Grade 1. You're just too young, anak! Hmmmm, let's see?
Prove your worth, perhaps or if you can do something about your milk teeth, by all means join the class picture of Grade 1 Bungi's. Now isn't that a neat class name, like the rest of these: Grade 2 Bungal Pa Rin, Grade 3 Amoy Araw, Grade 4 Maasim, Grade 5 Malapit na, Grade 6 Anghit, Grade 7 Anghit at Iba Pa...Okie stopping here for your own sake.

What went wrong? and what now?

WHAT HAPPENED?

Well...I guess it's basically a stubborn attitude when it comes to writing.
I was bent on trying out narrative analysis only to find out, this requires something else. I wanted to try it cuz my previous papers were basically case studies.
I wanted to get out of that safe mode and try some other methodology.

In other words, research is not just about MY personal agenda because there is data which have to be considered and viewed beyond that personal agenda to practice!!!

Here's feedback we got about our paper:
Reviewer A:

Relevance: 5

Originality: 3

Significance : 3

Content : 3

Style and Clarity: 4

Soundness: 3

Recommendation The paper is OUTSTANDING and deserves to be shortlisted for a
best paper award.: No

Change of Paper Type: No

Revision: Revision required, see comments

Comments :
I suggest the author considers including reference to Downing et al (2007).
The full reference is Downing, K., Lam, T., Kwong, T., Downing, W.K., &
Chan, S. (2007)
‘Creating interaction in online learning: a case study’ ALT-J. Vol.15,
No.3 201-215, 2007.
This is because this study identifies some key interaction patterns highly
relevant to the authors paper. This could then be used to add weight to the
authors conclusion which is currently a little short/thin.


MORE QUALIFIERS HERE....
Review Criteria

Relevance 5
The paper is relevant to the conference theme and key areas.
The topic has the potential to encourage interactive discussion.
Originality 3
The paper presents a novel or innovative approach to the research in one of the three key areas.
Research and/or best practice that has not been frequently discussed or provides a different perspective.
Significance 3
The paper will make a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge in the field either empirically or practically.
Content 3
The paper will present a case to the reader that is logical and the reasoning is supported by specific facts.
Style and Clarity 4
The paper is presentable and well organized. The paper increases the understanding of the content to experts, practitioners and lay persons.
The paper is clear and there is an appropriate use of style (APA), standard English, correct grammar and spelling usage, free of errors, and ease of reading.
Soundness 3
Full/Brief Paper - Quality of the literature review, statement of purpose and research goals. Appropriate methodology (reliability and validity), analysis, findings, and conclusions are clear and believable.
Best Practice Paper - Quality of literature review, demonstration of use in professional practice, learning points, and conclusions are clear and believable.


WHAT HAVE I LEARNED?

-methodology is again based on your research aims and purposes plus the data gathered and made available.
-questions clearly reflect that it's a case study in the first place
-methodology has to be clearly stated according to the questions raised by Primo:
What type of data did you use?; covered dates and time periods, why did you choose to make use of the above mentioned data?

WHAT DO I NEED TO UNDERSTAND?

-if this is a case study...what is not? what is narrative inquiry or analysis?
-a question by co writer: what is significance vs relevance?