Best Writer

QALMRI Written Assignments Purpose of the QALMRI Writing QALMRIs will help you comprehend the empirical papers that you read on a weekly basis. Empirical papers contain a lot of information and it requires practice to extract the central important questions that are being asked, and the main findings that are being reported.

QALMRI is an acronym. It stands for the following components of empirical papers: What are the broad and specific questions?, what were the alternative hypotheses, what was the logic of the design, what was the method, what were the results, what inferences about the specific and broad question can be made from the results, what’s the next question?

QALMRI is a guide to focus your reading so that you can identify these aspects of the articles you read. If you can clearly identify all of these aspects of a journal article, then you are on your way to comprehending the research you read about. The best way to ensure your comprehension is complete is to write it out. Assignment Writing a QALMRI for any research paper is simply writing short answers to each of these questions using clear and concise language. It is a condensed, short-form, version of the research. You should think of this as an efficient way to summarize the paper.

If someone hadn’t read the paper, they should be able to get the gist of the paper from your QALMRI. You should not copy and paste any sections of the article- these summaries must be entirely in your own words to reflect your own understanding of the content in the article. To be even more specific, your task is to answer these questions for the paper that you read: Question:

What was the broad question? What was the specific question? Alternative hypotheses: What were the hypotheses? Logic: If hypothesis #1 was true, what was the predicted outcome?

What was the predicted outcome if hypothesis #2 was true? Method: What was the experimental design? Results: What was the pattern of data? What was the main finding? Inferences:

What can be concluded about the hypotheses based on the data? What can be concluded about the specific and broad question?

How long is a QALMRI? Long enough to answer each question with clear and brief sentences. Should be about one-page (single-spaced).

The goal for this Assignment is to analyze peer-reviewed articles on the same topic (human resource management) and evaluate what is being said about that topic. How are the articles different in terms of methodology, etc.?

Select two issues specific to human resources.

Examine the issues in greater depth by reading the 2 peer-reviewed articles attached.

Complete an analysis of the articles using the following prompts:

*Introduction
What were the objectives of the studies?

*Methods
What methods were used to accomplish the purpose (observations, surveys or questionnaires, interviews, case studies, etc.)?
What were the results of each study?
What type of analysis was completed in the study?

*Discussion
How were the results interpreted?
Were the authors able to answer their research question?
Did the research provide new information, a new understanding, or a new research technique?

*Consider the article as a whole.
Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the article?
Check the structure of the article. Is all the material organized under the appropriate sections?

*Establish the significance of the research.
Did the research make a significant contribution to human knowledge?
Did the research produce any practical applications?
What are the social change impacts of this research?

write a 2-page evaluation of the two peer-reviewed journal articles

Use the Course Paper Template for the paper guidelines and make sure that you follow APA 7 for references and citations.

Please substantiate your critical analysis with citations from the articles selected.

At Doctoral level please critically review and synthesize research rather than just stating your personal opinion.

Please remember to Complete an analysis that follows the prompts outlined above.

 

 

Write about Snapshot by Andrew Lund (2006). Then write a short introductory paragraph that explains the film’s basic narrative in its first sentence and then for the remainder of the paragraph explains the film’s central theme.That’s enough for the first paragraph: two, three sentences, tops. But please note that, as I note in Grochowski’s Guidelines, a theme of a film is not its moral. A moral is a lesson to be learned from watching it. A theme is a more abstract concept that is represented by the film – what the film is “about” in a general sense, rather than in a narrative, or plot, sense. Themes are often summed up in a short phrase. Having provided a succinct introduction, you are now to write four paragraphs – one for each of four different elements from the six above – in which you fully analyze that element and how it expresses the theme you’ve identified. You may write these paragraphs in any order you want, as long as for each paragraph you are analyzing one of four elements. Thus, were I analyzing, say, the short film Passengers, I would write about the contrasting performances given by all the characters as they are affected by the presence of the feather and I would note especially the performances of the two central characters, who are able to communicate so clearly without saying a word. Another paragraph would be about the way that the film’s mise-en-scene – especially its composition – serves to frame the characters before the feather “arrives” and how different that composition is as the passengers play with the feather. Another paragraph would discuss the importance of the sound to the film, both the realistic sounds of the train and the subway station and the crucial theme of the music once the feather “arrives on the scene.” Another would examine the cinematography and how it conveys the gritty realism of the New York City subway and how it still exaggerates the characters’ expressions. (Alternatively, I might write a paragraph about the film’s editing, or the way its narrative unfolds, instead of one of the above paragraphs, though the narrative is very much a function of the other elements, especially the music.) Again: you are only writing about four of the six elements of film as defined by Monahan and Barsam.
Because this is not an essay, you do not need to write a concluding paragraph; you only need to write that very short introduction and then four well-developed paragraphs that analyze the four cinematic elements. If you like, you can use the element in bold type to start each paragraph. Thus: Such a style is better than writing: “In this paragraph I am going to write about the acting.” (NO ANNOUNCEMENTS, PLEASE! Just analyze!)
In writing your analysis of each of the four elements, you must be sure to demonstrate that you are able to use the terms covered in Monahan/Barsam in an intelligent manner. You don’t have to define any of these terms in your writing. Rather, you must simply use them, correctly and effectively.
Some other guidelines:
I always defined a fully-developed paragraph as having at least ten sentences, when I taught remedial composition at the CUNY schools. It’s a good rule of thumb here.
Note that this means I have not given you a word-count range. Use your best judgment; be thorough, but do not be unnecessarily wordy. I won’t count how many sentences or words you write in each paragraph; I will assess the quality of your analysis.
If you are analyzing narration, don’t summarize the story events, and don’t do a plot-breakdown along the lines of what Monahan and Barsam do in Stagecoach. Focus on explaining how the film’s narrational style – its plotting, among other aspects – contributes to the film’s theme.
If you write about mise-en-scene, you can decide to focus mainly on either design or composition, but it would be a great analysis if you were able to do a thorough job on both in the paragraph.
The language you use for these paragraphs is analytical; I should see no “empty adjectives” like “amazing.” Be very wary of this, especially if you choose to write about the acting. (As that chapter noted, it’s hard to analyze – it’s so easy to get caught up in a good, or even really bad, performance.)
As I’ve noted in Grochowski’s Guidelines, avoid writing about the viewer experience: that means not writing about how much you liked/dislike the film (that’s the language of opinion, not analysis), and it also means not using language such as, “we see…”