# data[].attributes.body
Please gather your feedback in 1 post + put your BreakOutRoom number above, so if I want to ask something I know who to contact

# data[].attributes.body
+ The introduction is attention seeking
+ It is clear what the study is on
+ the references are clear

# data[].attributes.body
- unnecessary repeating sentences
- wrong APA in text references
- well formulated research question

# data[].attributes.body
+ Many sources used
- Confusing use of references
- Missing a clear research gap

# data[].attributes.body
- Not in APA style
- Not a good Research Question
- The model isn't right

# data[].attributes.body
Like
- starts with a statistic which hooks the reader
- lots of references

Dislike
- the model is wrong --> 2 times paradox mindset
- not a good RQ
- quite a few grammatical errors

# data[].attributes.body
- too many opinions
- not clear what the study is about
- a lot of jumping to conclusions
- the hook of the introduction is not that interesting
- APA not respected

# data[].attributes.body
+ lots of resources
- Unnecessary use of italic quotes
- Unnecessary repeated sentences

# data[].attributes.body
+ Good amount of evidence and support for idea
- Incorrect sequence
- Confusing model (twice the same variable)

# data[].attributes.body
-It is immediately clear it is focused on proactive behaviour, but not exactly what is being researched about proactive behaviour.
-The “what we don’t know section isn’t so clear- it doesn’t address a clear research gap.
-APA completely disregarded.

# data[].attributes.body
- hook is interesting as it includes a scientific fact
- well structured
- figure not very clear

# data[].attributes.body
+ seek attention through accurate situations
- No APA style
- The model uses one variable twice

# data[].attributes.body
- strong introduction
- model has not got the same variables as expressed in the introduction
- well defined research gap

# data[].attributes.body
+ Logical argumentation
+ Clear structure
+ Well defined constructs
+ Compelling communication
+ Good explanation of relationships
- Placement of hypotheses could be better

# data[].attributes.body
·      Interesting hook to start the intro, however not an immediate clear indication of what the main focus of the research is.

·      Concise breaking down of terms and defining each term briefly.

·      Clearly stating how everything is planned on being solved.

# data[].attributes.body
Like
- well structured --> 4 paragraphs explaining all
- variables explained nicely taking into regard word count and everything

Dislike
- paragraph 2 they mention motivation and mindset, but creativity as well which should come later. therefore, it feels mixed up

# data[].attributes.body
- clearly structured
- H1 lacks Positive/negative/enhancing relationship
- not perfectly apa

# data[].attributes.body
- not clear definitions;
- weird structure;
- not clear arguments for Hypotheses;

# data[].attributes.body
- definitions are not clear
- hypothesis are not explained
- not well structures, very misleading

# data[].attributes.body
+ Clear variables
- Hypotheses in the wrong place
- Confusing lay-out

# data[].attributes.body
- clearly stated hypothesis and their relationships
- well structured framework
- clearly defined variables

# data[].attributes.body
- Incorrect APA formatting
- Informal and unclear communication
- Incomplete model argumentation (explanation of the hypotheses)

# data[].attributes.body
- clear structure
- various sources
- could expand on variable definition
- hypotheses too simple/lacking positive/negative relation
- some incomplete sentences

# data[].attributes.body
+ Structure is clear
+ References are good
- Incorrect APA

# data[].attributes.body
- hypothesis at the end of each paragraph
- definitions are clear
- well structured
- hypothesis are maybe too convenient

# data[].attributes.body
- Clear structure
-Very clear definition of variables + build up to hypotheses
-Very effective use of references