It was quite a while since part 1 of the lecture, so I've had a look through the notes from it, as it was quite dry and not very memorable due to the nature of the content of the lecture. So if I miss anything or say something that doesn't make sense that may be why.
Part 1 was very factual, whereas Part 2 was considerably more philosophical. While it didn't seem like there was anywhere near as much content in Part 2, I think it definitely think it merited being split into a separate lecture. Had it just been stuck on the end of Part 1 I think I'd have been quite bored and not in the right mindset to appreciate it.
I think I personally could've done with having this lecture a lot earlier, as it eased a lot of my worries about the essay I'll be writing. The idea that "Research is creating knew knowledge by using what is already known" isn't something that I'd considered up to now. I'd been worrying that I had to come up with a completely original idea for my essay, when this wasn't the case, something which Fred referred too directly.
The idea of constantly looking at research in different ways (as illustrated in the diagrams) was also something that made me feel more comfortable, as I was worried that I wouldn't be able to focus very narrowly on a particular subject, and so knowing that looking at a subject in different ways is an acceptable thing to do has made me feel a lot more comfortable about the task of writing an essay in general.
Part 2 was probably the most useful lecture so far in my opinion, although I didn't end up going to the one on ethics, which is annoying given that my essay is ethics-based. That said, I wouldn't imagine it would've been as useful without the understanding that I got from Part 1.
Given how poorly I did in my essay last year, I'm quite motivated to use these lectures to my advantage and do considerably better this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment