Review Of Kelly Elliots Research Prosthetics

Running Head: PEER REVIEW 1

Review of Kelly Elliot’s research (Prosthetics)

Name

Institutional affiliation

PEER REVIEW 2

This paper is an evaluation of the personal research on prosthetics by Kelly Elliot.

Preliminary, the research was well conducted, it is indicative of how well the student (Kelly

Elliot) journeyed through the research process, gaining knowledge all through from the very

beginning to the end. She begins by defining the term prosthetics, elaborates her prior knowledge

about that field and gradually develops her research indicating her discoveries on the types of

prosthetics and how they are designed, attached and regulated. She also includes several tenets

related to the same field and concludes with an affirmed desire to research and learn more.

Kelly defines in clear stages the steps she undertook during her research; she begins by

consolidating information about prosthetics that she independently knew prior. Then collected

more data on the same topic through the library and Internet amidst other sources. She further

corroborated that data by visiting actual hospitals and medical centers that dealt with prosthetics,

and in that way authenticated her findings.

She is indeed clear on the limited knowledge about her topic before conducting her

research; this is evidenced in the way she introduces the issue and identifies it as a field that is

dear to her. Moreover, her prior knowledge scope appears vast, since in her research she provides

information about prosthetics that is quite intricate, the knowledge that could only have been

well attained through conscious efforts.

Kelly further presents in clear details her findings during the research process. She details

how she learned about the various types of prosthetics, their methods of production and how they

are neurologically incorporated into the motor and sensory cortexes of the body. She further

presents, even more, details on the history of prosthetics as from 300 BC and how they have

developed up to the current technologically modified prosthetics.

PEER REVIEW 3

Kelly presents an ideological argument in her research. Her findings are directed towards

providing information on prosthetics not for knowledge sakes but rather to demystify the aura

that surrounds the field. Her argument is geared to desensitizing the ideological stigma and

anxiety that people have on the disabled. She emphasizes on how the war veterans in the US

army ought to be embraced and rehabilitated back to civilian life through the aids of prosthetics

and support from the communities surrounding them.

Kelly's report is well ordered and flows seamlessly. She well incorporated her citations

from different sources and uses transitions and cues to assimilate that foreign content into her

work without plagiarizing neither jeopardizing the logical flow of her idea. Although her

transitions are few and mostly repeated, she nonetheless manages to incorporate them into her

works without unnecessarily breaking the paragraph or introducing a different idea within the

same paragraph.

However, the research has a reasonably strong introduction that is primarily based on her

own experience and knowledge on matters; prosthetics. She also the thesis statement is not

identified, she manages in her way to define the intention of the research and thus charts a course

for her work.

As a personal research, Kelly has managed efficiently to use the first person pronoun. She

has also been able to personalize her paper and her comments on the matter under research. She

had even in her way thrown in her independent sentiments about the topic and expressed her

opinion s on the different sets of data she managed to unravel in the course of her research. That

is indicative of a well personalized and own research work.

PEER REVIEW 4

Kelly's work is ordered into independent paragraphs. She states her idea in the very first

line of the paragraph and then elaborates more on the same in the other lies and phrases

constituting the paragraph. She further has chronologically presented her work, one idea leads to

the other seamlessly, without repetition or redundancy of terms.

The research is well sourced; Kelly referred to ten sources that are credible and

sufficiently cited them in her study. She further has cited the in-text citations well and appears to

have consulted a wide variety of resources spanning from topics directly related to the issue and

also on the subsidiary topic associated with the significant research topic.

Moreover, the research is based on more than six of scholarly sources. Her reference list

is composed of journals, and articles from credible sources as required by the rubrics. They are

also well cited and referenced in an alphabetical order and links provided for the relevant

citations.

Kelly's research topic is a medical terminology, which means her work is dotted with

medical terminologies. However, she has well elaborated and simplified the meanings and

understandings of the terminologies she has applied. They are concise and well placed in context.

With regards to the concepts in the article; They/I say, Kelly has incorporated two

strategies applied there in her research work. The primal strategy well implemented is the; ‘What

they say the first concept.' Kelly in her elaborations always begins with what has been

commented by other authorities on matters Prosthetics and then appends her own opinion in the

latter phrases of the paragraph. That approach enables the reader first to know what has been

authoritatively commented on that topic or the other variant opinions about it, then narrows

down to the students (Kelly) own synthesis on the same. Another concept also applied is the

PEER REVIEW 5

‘Three ways to respond; Yes, No, Okay but, Kelly has well applied the Yes module of response.

Being a student researching on a topic to which much of the content is scientific and

authoritative, she preferred to take an affirmative position in presenting her opinions and

synthesis. She preferred not to use the other modes of response (No, Okay but) since she is a

student in learning and not an authority in that prosthetic field to have the intellectual audacity to

challenge any idea, to which it was a humble state of mind.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Review of Kelly Elliots research Prosthetics

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams