Concept Experience #6

  1. It has been shown through research that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. If you see more positive posts than negative posts, then you start posting more positive posts as well.

“It has been shown through research” : This is definitely a fail and slightly made me cringe because it made me think that this is too vague, I want to know who did the research and how.

“If you see more positive posts than negative posts, then you start posting more positive posts as well”: This is definitely not okay because when talking about something such as a study, although keeping things simple is good, this makes the research almost seems disregarded and not credible, there needs to be a more in depth and specific explanation of the research results.

  1. There have been studies done on Facebook and all the emotions related to posts. “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”

“There have been studies done on Facebook”: the way this is phrased is definitely better than #1 however, still too vague and not explaining where the study has been done and from who?

“We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”: Okay so definitely better worded but still not quite there, I think saying “we have enough power” is not needed. I felt that linking “emotional expressions” would have been a lot better than linking “positive expressions” since emotional expressions encompasses both positive and negative.

 

  1. Researchers in a new study have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. They found enough data to show that “emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”

“Researchers in a new study”: Definitely better but we still do not know what researchers and from where?

However, the second sentence was fine.

The differences between #3 and #4 were still pretty significant in that #4 really went in depth about which the research was from and how they went about the research. What it also did was explain the results of the study better by providing more context and background. In Lawrence LeBlond’s article, he does a nice job with signal phrasing in that it is descriptive but not only that it flows well which is key in writing papers. The links that he provides were always to words that would make sense, in other words, words that we may want to explore a little more. Again, his words flowed and I realized that signal phrasing is something that is crucial and that I need to work on more.

Tags: , , ,

One Response to “Concept Experience #6”

  1. July 18, 2014 at 3:21 pm #

    Good thinking here Sarah. You miss a few things: The link for the study in #3 was not a link to the original study; instead it was a link to an article that mentioned the study. This is not accurate – if you link to a “study” it should be the original study – not an article that mentions the study.

    #4 links to the original study, hence it’s a more careful citation. The link for the journal in #4 also provides proof that the journal is a scholarly online journal, hence giving creditability for the source.

Leave a Reply