Talk:Final Paper

--MiguelALopezM 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Alex, mea culpa. it's great that you reworded a lot of the lit review and agree that it should be the main part of the paper. As for elimination of entries, would you mind marking the entries you propose eliminating to give the rest of the team the chance to double check to ensure we are not dropping anything of value in the process. Thanks!

--Aplachuta 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)I think the lit review is the main culprit. While it was very well written, can we consolidate each entry to two sentences if possible. I reduced and reworded a lot of the lit review and I do not think as much focus will be put on the lit review, as the main theme/part of the paper. Can any lit review entries be eliminated if they were not referenced?

--Aplachuta 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Yes that post was mine, Alex. I have updated the intro and conclusion (shortened it and added refs), as well as reduced the wording in the lit review. Please check, as I have the old versions and new versions saved in WORD, which I will email is anyone needs them.

--Linadiv 17:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)17:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Miguel, I think the entry was Aex's. I will look at my sections today and wait until tomorrow to look at the flow of the entire paper, after we have each looked individually at it.

--MiguelALopezM 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Who wrote the message below? The name didn't come across.

--204.108.246.2 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)I think the lit review can be reduced to each entry/article having a one sentence overview. I will consolidate my sections down quite a bit. I added the refs and will post that today.

--MiguelALopezM 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) All, I saw a warning regarding the size of this page, so I moved postings entered before 2/26 to Bud's Notes page.

I'll review myself. Let's look for possible repetitions across sections. Thanks.

--Wdeihl 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, This sounds good. I'm planning to do the same by tonight. I know I can be "wordy" so, I'll be hitting my own section hard, as well as making changes to others.

Alexander. Please look at your section and see how you can consolidate.

Let's all identify supporting references for our positions and get those in the text, so we can list the resources.

--Linadiv 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Good observations, Bud. I can look at the paper tomorrow and propose areas where we can say the same things with fewer words. That often is easy to do. I will also pay particular attention to the intro and the flow from topic to topic. Will provide an update tomorrow afternoon. Ok with everyone?

--Wdeihl 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)I think we need to review the requirments and regroup. 1. I'm concerned about size - we are way over (this is including the literature reveiw - maybe that does not go into the final paper -????)

2. I present several questions that I'm not sure we've answered see them below

Our paper size I put our current text into Word with 1 inch margins all around and the length of the body is 15 pages. That is with text set to Times New Roman and double spaced per APA.

Here are the (size) requiremets as posted: (review the requirements in the syllabus) This paper should be 5-10 pages long. By the end of Unit 8, this assignment should be completed and placed for all classmates to review. (Details later).

You will then have a period of time to redo sections of your paper, relevant to your reflection and your classmates comments. It will then be reviewed once again by the instructor for a final grade.

I'm asking myself serious questions for constructive criticism. Please consider these:

Do we have a clear introduction that says what we intend to research?

Is our literature review in the correct format? Many of the paragraphs start with "this paper ..."

Do our sections flow together logically? Does each section build on the previous one?

Does our summary confirm what we set out to proove?

Have we supported our writing with citations? --Linadiv 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Will do. I will work on content over the enxt couple of days, and look to all of you for your input as well. If we are ready for APA formatting by Friday (or sooner), I can start on it. Thanks, all!

--Wdeihl 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Lina, I agree with Miguel. Focus on overall content and final editing. IF you can handle APA that's great, but as Miguel said, we will be sure that gets done. I'd like to see us wrap the whole project up in APA, ready to submit by midnight Friday, Eastern time. We may choose to wait, but I like to know things are going to get done. That gives us Saturday for any emergencies.

I just re-read Miguel's proposed schedule which is 24 hours behind mine, but that's OK. We just need some cushion in case something unforseen comes up.

Anyone - Let me know what you need me to do tonight.

--MiguelALopezM 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, don't worry, I reckon the team will happily leave all next week's work in your very able hands. :-)

--Linadiv 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Miguel and all, I am happy to do whatever I can to help. I feel badly that I will not have computer access over the weekend when the paper is due, so that is why I suggested taking on the APA formatting so I can do my part. (I may be able to log in once I get to Basel, which will be Sunday, so I can check in with you then.) I completely trust you all, if you are ok with me skipping for the weekend :)

--MiguelALopezM 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, quite frankly, I'd prefer to see you focusing on improving the content, instead of "wasting" time on the APA format. What if we all keep working on the content until Friday, leaving to Alex/Bud/me to deal with the conversion to APA/Word on Saturday? Do you trust us?

Alex/Bud, what do you think?

--Linadiv 16:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Sure, I am happy to take this time to familiarize myself with the APA format, and work on it Thursday and a bit on Friday. I can throw it back to you all Friday as I fly out Saturday. Hopefully, I will have most, if not all, the work done. In the meantime, let's come up with a plan for the week. Per Bud's suggestion, let's each review our own sections, and the focus on the flow and continuity of the entire paper. Can we agree to get this done by Wednesday night?

--MiguelALopezM 14:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, got it! APA is the way to go for submission. Like Bud, I believe that "only works that are cited in the document should be in the reference list"

I thought this submission was a draft, but it seems that Datta Kaur is treating it as a final version subject to further enhancement - "All groups should make this Week 8 version of the paper as perfect as possible." Do you all still want to take a sanapshot tomorrow, or continue working on the content and take the snapshot Friday? I vote for the latter.

Also. I'd suggest to keep working on the wiki after Lina takes the snapshot. The disadvantage is that we'd have to apply any possible last minute changes to the word version and the wiki, but simplifies version control from that point on. What do you all think?

--Wdeihl 13:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Lina, I believe that one of the APA requirements is that only works that are cited in the document should be in the reference list. Thanks for taking this on. I'll review my section again tonight and make any final edits.

--Linadiv 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) all, I received a response back from Datta Kaur:

Lina,

All groups should make this Week 8 version of the paper as perfect as possible. Consider this your last chance (even though you get one more:). APA style and a word document is a 'strong' requirment.

Thanks for checking. ~ Datta Kaur

To this end, I am happy to give APA format a go. Can you all let me know if you feel we are ready to finalize the content (for now)? I can do the APA format tomorrow, send out for review, and spend a little more time on it again in a few days, before I fly out on Saturday. Does that work for all? I found a couple of good websites that talk about APA style, so I will reference those, and get a book as well. I'm sure it will come in handy for future courses too.

Bud, regarding quotes, pleaes don't feel like you have to use them. I just want to be sure we cite our references correctly. If the entire bibliography should stay as it, I am fine with that. Your point about doing the reading and then tying ideas together (Miguel's approach) is a good one.

--Wdeihl 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Lina, if you have too much trouble with the APA style, let me know and I'll try to help. I'm hoping you will be ok, but I don't want you to feel that you're on your own. I know that Miguel and I wrestled with this in another class.

--Wdeihl 04:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Alexander - thanks for your posting. It's good to see you here. The signature icon is the one to the left of the "-" above (to the left of "insert image". I had some posts like this until I caught on.

--71.169.78.218 03:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)I think the draft can be submitted through the WIKI, since Datta said it was ok. I will add in some refs to the intro and conclusion. The changes are fine and are aligned with what I was trying to explain. Thanks! (This is Alexander, my info is not being recorded properly in the date/time/user stamp?)

--Wdeihl 03:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I reviewed and edited my assigned sections several days ago. I'm not sure where we stand on that as a whole. I suggest that we all confirm that we've reviewed our assigned sections, so we know what's been done. I read a comment by Alexander in the BB Groups area that he would send his comments by e-mail. We seem to have 3 people in the WIKI and one working via e-mail, so I'm not sure how this works in the editing process.

-Wdeihl 03:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Lina and Miguel - thanks for contacting Datta and for thinking this through. Lina, I've only included one quote in my writing. Perhaps I (or we) need to provide more references. I know Miguel worked from reference and then tied ideas together (smart approach). I on the other hand, wrote from what I feel and the impact of recent learning. I'd have to try to find things to incorporate. If you want me to do that, I'll follow up tomorow night.

--71.169.78.218 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) The wiki for draft format would be ok with me. I can complete the final paper in word/rtf. I think Datta would really like to find out how this wiki worked and perhaps offer it for her students in a future course. Will we need to create a login account or can the info be ready without a Wikia account?

--Linadiv 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I think it's ok, and I did send an email a few minutes ago, before I saw your post, to Datta Kaur to verify. It sure would be alot easier.

--MiguelALopezM 01:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, to my question,


 * “I was wandering whether the team could use the wiki to deliver results to you and the class, including the final paper. I reckon it'd be a good learning experience for everyone. Please advise.”

Datta Kaur responded,


 * “I do think that it would be great to provide the team wiki at final project time, but the 'final edition' would need to be in APA style and in a word document.”

I'd say that for the draft it'd be OK to post the link to the wiki. What does everyone think?

--Linadiv 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Hi, all. One more question. Regardng the bibliography, it would be helpful to know if we used all the sources. Has everyone referenced their work appropriately? If so, I can proceed to identify the works we cited and adjust the bibliography accordingly. Please advise, and I can start on it.

Excellent Final Paper Notes
It is this Instructor's Opinion that an Excellent Final Paper would include the following:


 * 1) The work submitted demonstrates in-depth analysis and application of concepts and frameworks related to online community building.
 * 2) It shows a clear and complete understanding of the nature of the problem or instructions together with recognition of the wider social context within which a solution must operate.
 * 3) Takes the intended audience into account by producing a document, which is appropriate in style, content and language.
 * 4) Presents documentation, which in its organization, coherence, internal consistency and readability, is of a professional standard.
 * 5) Demonstrates critical awareness of the role of style and form of a document in establishing validity and meaning.
 * 6) Shows a high level of ability to locate, assemble, analyze and present salient information in an innovative and creative way.
 * 7) Produces relevant information that meets professional standards acceptable in the wider community.
 * 8) Shows a high level of flexibility in finding a solution with suggestions for future research and application.
 * 9) Demonstrate clear and eloquent verbal skills.
 * 10) Researches and references, APA style, all sources accurately where required.
 * 11) Presents documentation, which is highly accurate and contains an optimum level of detail.
 * 12) Produces well-structured, logical, cohesive and coherent documents, which are easy to follow, flow well and have no internal inconsistencies.