"goofs" that can occur often in papers. The first was trying to fit too much into one conversation. This means don't just talk about World War II, because that would be way to broad and wouldn't be specific enough. Instead, use your research to zoom in on a specific topic and you’ll actually be able to talk more effectively about. The next "goof" was treating the film as non-fiction. Basically, don’t blame friction for being fictional and instead, interpret the artistic choices such as the symbols and themes of the film. Also, replace yes and no research questions with interpretation; don't say "Is this realistic?", instead, ask a question like "How does this choice challenge a scholars interpretation of the topic." The final "goof' of conversations was the Buzzfeed Effect: Journalizing the academic conversation. Journalism is in NO way connected to Academia in any way. In terms of the audience, journalism is simplified for the public's understanding, whereas academia is an exchange for experts to share information, and is not explicitly written for the public. This makes academia's sometimes very boring, however they are jam-packed with information that comes from a credible source, which is very important in showing your credibility as a writer in your own paper. Also, under no circumstances should you write about things such as time travel in your papers. This is because this is fictional and you probably won't find any research or academia on the topic to support your paper. When writing your paper, don't be unrealistic when picking a topic, have research and evidence to support it.
The finished paper should be around 1300 to 2000 words, 500-750 of which should be your literary review. You also have to include resources, 2+ from a database and 1+ has to be cinematic. We discussed the structure for the literary review at the end of class. The first part of the structure is introducing major speakers, topics, and events. You need to discuss WHO is talking and WHAT they are talking about. Provide context and use precision to narrow down your research focus. For example: Psychology -> PTSD -> PTSD from Afghanistan -> PTSD treatment for veterans of Afghanistan. The next part of the structure we discussed was about distilling the current state of conversation. What are these scholars saying to each other about your selected topic/idea/question? Talk about key debates, what researchers are trying to prove/do today, and the research methods they are using to do it. There is a three part of the structure but we did not have time in class to get to it.
By Monday, have your films and lenses chosen, as well as your academic question, problem, solution, or connection(s) you will be writing about in your paper.
The finished paper should be around 1300 to 2000 words, 500-750 of which should be your literary review. You also have to include resources, 2+ from a database and 1+ has to be cinematic. We discussed the structure for the literary review at the end of class. The first part of the structure is introducing major speakers, topics, and events. You need to discuss WHO is talking and WHAT they are talking about. Provide context and use precision to narrow down your research focus. For example: Psychology -> PTSD -> PTSD from Afghanistan -> PTSD treatment for veterans of Afghanistan. The next part of the structure we discussed was about distilling the current state of conversation. What are these scholars saying to each other about your selected topic/idea/question? Talk about key debates, what researchers are trying to prove/do today, and the research methods they are using to do it. There is a three part of the structure but we did not have time in class to get to it.
By Monday, have your films and lenses chosen, as well as your academic question, problem, solution, or connection(s) you will be writing about in your paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment