Management accounting PM201/PT201

Voice education in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in teacher train" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing:an in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">investigation in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">into knowledge about the voice and voice care in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in teacher-train" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing students. Structure of the assignment: 1. Introduction: what is this essay about? Why is this important? What is the structure of the essay? Ensure you say which aspect of the article you will focus on (background, methods, results, discussion, etc.). Do NOT try to critically analyse every part of the essay but focus on a specific area and give an in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in-depth analysis. 2. Main" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in body of the essay: in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in this part you provide the actual critical analysis of your chosen article. Build up your arguments from general poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ints to more specific poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ints. Make reference to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) and Porte (2010) to back up your argumentation. You can refer to other sources too, but make sure the essay remain" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ins a critical analysis of your chosen article. Fin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ind a good title for this section (not “main" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in body”). 3. Conclusion. You summarise the main" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ints made in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in part 2 and poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">int out what the limitations of your approach are. Poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">int out what else could be done to analyse the article in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in more depth. References Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge (available in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in electronic form). Porte, G. K. (2002). Appraisin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing research in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in second language learnin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing: a practical approach to critical analysis of quantitative research. Amsterdam: John Benjamin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ins. You can add any relevant references. Critical analysis in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">involves: 1. Carefully considerin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing an idea and weighin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing up the evidence supportin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing it to see if it is convin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing. 2. Then bein" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing able to explain" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in why you fin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ind the evidence convin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing or unconvin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing. It helps if you ask yourself a series of questions about the material you are readin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing. Try usin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing these questions to help you thin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ink critically: • Who is the author and what is their viewpoin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">int or bias? • Who is the audience and how does that in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">influence the way in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">information is presented? • What is the main" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in message of the text? • What evidence has been used to support this main" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in message? • Is the evidence convin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing; are there any counter-arguments? • Do I agree with the text and why do I agree or disagree? Some ways to get more critical analysis in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">into your essays Avoid unnecessary description – only in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">include general background details and history when they add to your argument, e.g. to show a crucial cause and effect. Practice distin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inguishin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing between description (tellin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing what happened) and analysis (judgin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing why somethin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing happened). Interpret your evidence – explain" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in how and why your evidence supports your poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">int. Interpretation is an important part of critical analysis, and you should not just rely on the evidence "speakin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing for itself". Be specific - avoid makin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing sweepin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing generalisations or poin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ints that are difficult to support with specific evidence. It is better to be more measured and tie your argument to precise examples or case studies. Use counter-arguments to your advantage – if you fin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ind viewpoin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ints that go again" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inst your own argument, don't ignore them. It strengthens an argument to in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">include an opposin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing viewpoin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">int and explain" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in why it is not as convin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing as your own lin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ine of reasonin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing.