51Due教员组给各位留学生分享一篇纯原创代写范文essay，文章主要这两篇精选文章讨论了同一个话题，即社交媒体暴力对青年的影响。虽然涉及同一问题，但这两篇文章属于不同的学科，如巴顿等人（2014年）属于人类行为研究，安德森等人（2003年）属于心理科学。选题与当前社会发展趋势密切相关。首先，社交媒体设备和工具的日益便利、普及和可承受性增强了在线活动对用户的影响。其次，越来越多的年轻用户可以使用社交媒体，因此很容易受到社交媒体的影响，因为年轻用户在批判性和独立思考方面可能还不成熟，在为自己的行为负责方面也不成熟。基于以上两个原因，本课题被选为值得讨论的话题。
希望这篇可以帮助到各位留学生，同时需要代写也可以直接联系我们51Due客服vx（vx：Athey520）进行咨询。
Introduction
In this project, two academic articles, Patton et al., (2014) and Anderson et al., (2003), will be reviewed and evaluated through the lens of academic language and writing genre. There will be compare and comparison on the two selected articles in the perspectives of argument presentation, evidence use, and other elements of academic writing genre. Both articles are written in APA format.
The two selected articles discuss the same topic, which is the impact of social media violence on youth. Although addressing the same issue, the two articles belong to different disciplines, as Patton et al., (2014) belongs to Human Behavior study while Anderson et al., (2003) belongs to Psychological Science. The topic choice is closely related with current social development trends. First of all, the increasing convenience, popularity, and affordance of social media devices and tools enhances online activities’ impact on their users. Secondly, more and more young users get access to social media, and thusly are vulnerable to its influence as young users may not mature in critical and independent thinking and not mature in taking responsibility for one’s behavior. For the above two reasons, this topic is chosen and considered as worthy discussing.
Summary on the selected articles
In Patton et al., (2014), the authors examined research articles and studies within the scope of social media violence and its impact on youth. In reviewing articles, the authors classifying articles by four categories of online violence including cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, gang violence, and cyber-suicide. The review result shows that youth violence through social media is occurring and increasing, which leads to the conclusion that online youth violence phenomenon is worthy of public attention and that prevention research is wanted.
Anderson et al. (2003) investigated five questions including: “what does research say about the relation – both short-term and long-term – between media violence and aggressive and violent behavior?”, “how does media violence produce its effects on aggressive and violent behavior?”, “what characteristics of media violence are most influential, and who is most susceptible to such influences?”, “how widespread and accessible is violence in the media?”, and “how can individuals and society counteract the influence of media violence?” (p.82). For each question, the authors conducted literature review on related studies, carefully examined data from the selected studies, and presented review conclusion. The ultimate implication of this article is that multilayered solutions are needed for social media violence’s impact on youth.
It is clear that both articles belong to literature review and discussion category, since there is no empirical research question, method, and date generated from the authors. Another similarity is that a developmental view is embraced in both articles, as the authors acknowledged that new tools for violence behavior and new factors for influencing youth violence are evolving.
Evaluation
As for argumentation, both articles evaluated works from other scholars through selecting relevant literature, summarizing selected study contents and results, and discussing on results and implications. However, as for readers, argumentation in Anderson et al., (2003) may appear more straightforward and clearer than in Patton et al., (2014), because the five research questions in Anderson et al., (2003) are clearly stated and listed as bullet points in the introduction section. Through listing the research questions, the authors give readers a clear clue about what would be discussed and focused on next. Further more, it allows readers, at least for me, to think and reflect on the research questions while reading the content, that if the current discussion is directed towards the intended investigation questions.
Although both articles are substantially reviewing relevant literature within its own field, ways of presenting evidence are essentially different. First difference appears in the process of selecting literature. Instead of choosing literature according to its citation popularity and research date period, Patton et al. (2014) searched relevant studies in seven research databases (ERIC, PsychINFO, Social Service Abstracts, PubMed, and Scopus), and on site only authorized with .edu and .gov. They assessed 105 articles and finally reported on 56. The selected studies cover the following research types: quasi-experiment, survey, review, qualitative, case study, and editorial studies. Then, the authors classified the selected literature into four social media violence types and reviewed for each. In Anderson et al. (2003), on the contrary, no clear illustration on how literature was selected. Relevant studies were classified according to types of social media such as television and music video, and research methods from literature included randomized experiments, cross-sectional surveys, and longitudinal surveys. From a reader’s perspective, Patton et al. (2014) covered literature more thorough than Anderson et al. (2003), and thusly might provide a whole picture of the current issue; however, Anderson et al. (2003) provided illustration more detailed.
The disparity in selecting and using literature may lead to evidence presentation difference. For the types of research literature, Patton et al. (2014) covered more research types and therefore its discussion appeared to be more thorough. However, most of the evidence is descriptive and only data that reports on results is mentioned. For example, “according to a study of 30 gang members ages 16-20 in a large city in Israel, the degree to which gang members are engaged in social media activities may be impacted by their technical proficiency (Sela-Shayovitz, 2012) (Patton et al., 2014, p.551) is a piece of descriptive evidence. In Anderson et al., (2003), on the contrary, the majority of evidence presenting is quantitative and statistic. While reviewing date from literature, there are statistic figures to be interpreted. For example, in discussing the television and movie social media type and its influence on youth violence, the authors introduced a longitudinal survey that “Eron and his colleagues found that a boy’s exposure to media violence at age 8 was significantly related to his aggressive behavior 10 years later, after he graduated from high school (r = .31, N = 184, p < .01)” (Anderson et al., 2003, p.87). Compared with descriptive evidence in Patton et al., (2014), Anderson et al., (2003) allows readers to truly understand and interpret the reviewed literature, as it presented and clarified what descriptive words such as “more and more”, “increased”, and “have greater impact” mean and indicate in the current discussion.
In conclusion, within the field of Psychological Science, Anderson et al. (2003) presented argumentation with more data evidence, while Patton et al. (2014) for Human Behavior discipline appeared to be covering a bigger picture with general and descriptive evidence. Therefore, from a reader’s point of view, Anderson et al. (2003) might appear to be more persuasive than Patton et al. (2014), for a detailed identification of the investigated questions and detailed evidence presentation. However, Anderson et al. (2003) might be difficult for readers to understand or confuse readers with all statistical figures. Patton et al. (2014), on the contrary, might be more reader friendly, especially for readers with little background knowledge and statistical data interpretation knowledge.
标签：代写,作业代写,北美代写,论文代写
http://www.51due.com/writing/essay/
http://www.51due.com/writing/research-paper/
http://www.51due.com/writing/report/
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写、论文代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的论文代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供论文代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
站点标题 