POST 77: REVIEW MY REVIEW

Literature review assessment: (From Jill Morgan)
A good and thorough review of these two investigations. My overall comment is that your delivery is slightly haphazard. The reader needs to get a feel of the flow of ideas each linking to the other. I understand that you are attempting to compare the two studies as you write but I feel that your review would have been more convincing if you had addressed each study individually by stating aims, content, results, strengths and weaknesses. Try not to over complicate!
Minor point – too many commas and decide on the tense you are using.

Review 1 (Peer)

You describe how each piece of research was conducted clearly and in some detail and is related very well to your own research. The sources have clearly been studied rigorously and seem to be a good fit with your own project proposal. In order to improve, you could perhaps look at the structure of your review. It is often written in a list of short sentences almost like bullet points rather than prose and seems to have a distinct weighting towards the research by Redding and Quested. This, however, could just be because both pieces of research are written about concurrently. Perhaps if you had taken one piece of research at a time the weighting would not have appeared to fall so heavily on one study.

Self-evaluation

I feel that comparing one review against the other continuously throughout resulted in me constantly saying one did ‘this’ and the other did ‘that’.

Most weighting was to the Redding & Quested Journal as this had the widest impact. The other reference only had methodology linked to my own but no distinct impact. Both reviews followed similar methodology and so having described this for the first reference it repeated in the second reference. Stating this repeat meant there was less to discuss in the second reference.

I agree my sentences were short-I was over aware of the word-count.  I am more than frustrated by my incorrect use of tense.

I would change my structure if I was to redo. State for one journal then the other and then conclude for both. I would also state what my aims were after the first sentence as I feel this would link into the purpose of the research.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s