final week 1.1

on a final note it is worth mentioning about specific difficulties with writing the report. our first litterature review we handed in in advance for paul to look at was terrible, we had no one assigned to make sure it fitted together nicely, or read over the whole piece as a whole even once. this problem was seen to when finalising the report for handing in. the need for an editor is especially great as two members (myself and jeff) have terrible grammar unless we concentrate and read it through again. on the otherhand simons grammar is much better, but his content can be very shady, we needed to re-write the introduction he wrote, as it did not put the report into context what so ever, mainly focusing on the methodology. Also, simon has a habit of write in the first person, putting we, I and they into sentences, this is clearly not an appropriate method of writting for a report. One lat point that is note worthy is that one member decided to go home early and was not with us at all to have any input into the discussion, results or conclusion, they did this without telling us and along with loosing a member who was unable to pay their tuition fees, has greatly increased our work loads. Instead of the work on discussion, results and conclusion being devided by four people, it was instead divided by three of us.
i'm also dubious as to whether we will get motivated and get the third litter survey done, i think that theres a strong possibility we will not get one done, as we cannot put it into the report, but it would possibly give our data more validity and more to talk about in our presentations. presentations and reflective writting could be a rocky patch for some members, especially as paul has stated that he does not know what dave and simon will write about, as he is aware of the input they have had. however david has also had a lot going on in his personel life he has had no control over so he has been going home on regular occassions, making working with him harder to organise.