Discussion
NOTE: The work presented on this page was produced as part of a learning exercise. While the content was reviewed and controls were in place to improve accuracy and quality, it may contain gross inaccuracy or poor quality. The emphasis was on the learning process and the sharing of information. Furthermore, this content may still be under revision. For more information about the process, see About UniCommons.com. For more accurate subject content related to this work, see Subjects.
Comments
Looks like you have a great start on your paper. Are you having trouble finding enough studies done on your topic?
Thanks, I think once I get the rest of my sources in there it will fill out better and have more organization. And I narrowed my topic so much that alot of studies I found were not specifically what I was looking for. And actually, 2 of the sources that fit perfectly the library people said they could not find it anywhere even with interlibrary loan. But I think we only need 5 at the minimum, and I have 6 so I hope I'm okay on that...
I was just wondering because after playing basketball in junior high and highschool your topic intrests me. I always felt that home court advantage was inportant and we always did well on our home court so am anxious to see what others have to say.
That is what brought on my interest as well, so hopefully my paper gives you some insight!
Well chosen topic and your dialog is right on track. You should continue this style of comparison and contrast as you add in the other studies to your review. The opening paragraph needs some work though. You basically want to outline that the paper is a review of literature and define what your topic is. Then, get straight into the review.
There are some improvements you can make to the grammar in your paper. These include making it more formal (maybe 3rd person only), avoid double negatives (first paragraph), and limit quoting.
I found your work here to be outstanding. Your writing style was very easy to read, and your organization of information had nice flow. I do agree with Dr sather's pervious comments regarding grammer and direct quoting, but otherwise, very good.
One possible format change I would suggest is you could probably combine the abstract and introduction paragraphs into one section, which would then move things along a little faster. I do think the information in each section is relevant and important, but could be combined. I would see if Dr Sather has any thoughts on this.
As for the actual review section, terrific. First, I found the diversity of your studies to be great. As you said in your conclusion, having studies from multiple levels of competition as well as international strudies really lends some validity to your conclusions. Furthermore, I thought you did and excellent job summarizing the reports, and pulling out he important details. You also tied it all together and formed your own opinions, which I found to be in line with the data presented.
Overall, my humble opinion is that you have an excellent paper here, in need only of some editing and gramatical "clean-up" to be ready for final submission.
Great Job!!
Mike Walters
Excellent draft. You have done a good job discussing the studies within the context of the other studies. You can improve your paper by adding in more depth in your analysis of the papers. This is especially true of your conclusions. The paper would be improved by adding more depth to your conclusions from the research. You could really highlight a discuss a few common themes from all of the studies. The other form of analysis that is missing are some critical challenges to the studies. You could challenge the researchers' methodology or their conclusions from the research.
I like that you get into the review quickly. You're introduction could include a bit more information though, mainly in the form of referencing some information on home court advantage. For example, it would be good to include an official definition of home court advantage based on a good sport psychology source. You also mention "researchers" in the introduction. These researchers need to be identified.
There are a few grammar issues issues you could fix. Change "foreign" to "international" in referring to other studies (see second study you reviewed). Try to use less quoting. Also, add a blank line between paragraphs.
In your abstract, indicate directly that the paper is a review of research on the topic. You should do this with your title too, by adding "A Review of. . ."
Format: Remove some of the top information so that the paper just starts with your abstract. Your name and the title are already present in the article you present so this information is not needed in the body of the paper. For the APA format, you are mostly correct but there are some problems that need to be fixed including the following: page numbers on quotes in citations, minor issues in the reference list (e.g. omit "vol), and use et al where appropriate.
I agree with Michael's comments about the flow of the paper. This is exemplary. I don't agree with him on the abstract. The abstract is not an introduction, it is a summary that is stand alone from the introduction. Someone should be able to read your abstract and know the most important information about the paper.
You have done a nice job of laying out the information presented in your paper. I am looking forward to reading your finished product. I think you have done a nice job! Keep up the good work!!
This paper was very interesting. Great topic. Home court advantage is always talked about, whether it is true or not is a good question. The format was well. I thought the paper flowed fine. There were a few errors with grammar and punctuation. But it was a good paper to read.