In addition to the lack of philosophical literacy and professional theory, there is also an important common problem that the author does not use his head at all, resulting in many low-level errors. Of course, in a broad sense, the root cause of mistakes without thinking is still the lack of philosophical literacy and professional theory. However, this situation more reflects the author's cognitive and behavioral characteristics, which can be investigated as a kind of phenomenon alone. Understanding this kind of phenomenon is not only conducive to reducing the low-level errors in the dissertation, but also conducive to cultivating the work style of graduate students and promoting their all-round progress and growth.

Here, based on a master's thesis I have reviewed, I will list some such phenomena for comment. In order to avoid hurting the author of the paper, I did some technical treatment. As usual, first present my comments and understand the overall situation of the article.

This paper takes the school adaptation of primary school students under the condition of small class teaching as the research content, and the topic selection meets the professional characteristics and requirements. The author investigates pupils' school adaptation, emotional adaptation, teacher-student relationship, partnership and behavior through questionnaire survey. The workload of the paper is large. However, the author has obvious deficiencies in research ideas, writing norms and statistical analysis, especially:

First, the problem consciousness is not strong. The author doesn't seem to know what problem he wants to study. In particular, what is the significance of studying such a problem, that is, he found five ready-made psychological measurement tools to test the students (and parents) of grades 1 ~ 6 in two schools, and then made some statistical analysis, and the author doesn't know what problems these statistical analysis can explain.

Second, the literature foundation is weak. The author has limited grasp of the research on small class teaching and school adaptation, does not define the core concept of "small class teaching", and does not do a good job in literature review. The comments on the existing literature only borrow the views of others. There are many non-standard expressions in this paper, and journals are often used to replace the authors. See p.11 for details; There are many mistakes in the writing of references. At the same time, the literature appears old and has no in the last four years.

Third, improper statistical analysis. The author's data analysis is disorganized, and many tables and graphs are not necessary at all. In particular, when the sample is large, the author relaxed the standard of difference significance test at will, resulting in many wrong results. In table 4-44 (p.50), in terms of "social problems" in small classes, the average value of "city" is 10.55 and that of "township" is 10.56. The significance of the difference between the two is actually 0.061; In terms of "violation of discipline", the average value of "city" is 13.74 and that of "township" is 13.79. The significance of the difference between the two is p < 0.0001. The author's interpretation of the data results is often wrong.

It is suggested that the author should clarify the research problems, consider the research ideas, refine the preface, pay special attention to the norms of statistical analysis and writing, and further enrich the discussion part.

The following are some manifestations of this article's lack of brains.

Phenomenon 1: extreme description. This is actually an inappropriate writing style. For example, "the most gratifying thing is that changes are quietly infiltrating: teachers are no longer ferocious; students are no longer victims under teachers' authority" (P.1). In order to show the advantages of small class teaching, non small class teaching is described extremely unbearably. With a little thought, the author will not write such words that deny non small class teaching, especially vilify teachers.

Phenomenon 2: changing concepts. This is actually an inappropriate habit of thinking. For example, the author describes the "traditional teaching conditions" (i.e. non small class teaching conditions) as worthless, "brooms, mops, garbage cans and other things are stacked around the corner, which are filthy, and the back door does not open all year round", which is a manifestation of taking sanitary conditions or management problems as "traditional teaching conditions". For another example, the author lists the advantages of small class teaching in 8 aspects in 7 pages (pp.4-10), sanctifies "small class teaching", and "small class teachers' strong communication ability and communication skills can not only become a model of students' learning and communication, but also become the object that students are willing to hand in" (p.10). Obviously, the same is true for non small class teachers.

Phenomenon 3: self contradiction. This is actually a bad writing feature and a typical performance of not using your head. This kind of phenomenon is very prominent in this article. We might as well look at a few more examples——

Example 1: "although people's evaluation of small class teaching is mixed, most of them are positive evaluation." (p.13) if "mixed reputation" can not be strictly understood as "half of the reputation", it can be said later that "most of the positive evaluation", then "the relationship between teachers and students is divided into three categories: avoidance type, safety type, resistance type and contradiction type" (p.15), Obviously, it doesn't make sense.

Example 2: "336 questionnaires were distributed, 304 questionnaires were recovered, 32 invalid questionnaires were excluded, and 304 valid questionnaires remained" (P.18). The number must be wrong. At the same time, in the sample of small class teaching, there are three classes in grade one, the effective sample is 132, and the average number of people in each class is 44. Is this still the small class mentioned by the author?

Example 3: "go to the selected schools for random survey and test" (pp. 21-22), which is inconsistent with the previous statement that "this study adopts cluster sampling" (P.18). The author may not understand what is "random survey" and what is "cluster sampling". Incidentally, the "random sampling" and "cluster sampling" in many dissertations are actually written at random, because it is impossible to speculate from the description that they are random sampling and cluster sampling.

Phenomenon 4: charts are not divided. This is actually a bad cognitive style, which is manifested in carelessness and ignorance in learning. For example, tables 4-7 to 4-26 (pp. 30-41) are not tables, but figures. At the same time, it can be seen from the figure that there are problems in the author's statistical analysis. For example, in Figure 4-7 (p.30), there are gender differences marked "social problems", but there are no differences in the figure. In fact, these figures are completely unnecessary, especially figures 4-11 to 4-18 (pp. 32-36).

Phenomenon 5: ignoring reality. This is actually a bad research tendency. In the study, the author ignored the large sample size and lowered the standard of statistical significance test to 0.10, so a large number of invalid results were obtained. For example, from table 4-43 to table 4-46 (pp. 49-54), the corresponding comparison is meaningless. It has been pointed out in the comments that the urban and rural mean values of "social problems" in small classes are 10.55 and 10.56 respectively, and the difference significance between them is 0.061. The urban and rural mean values of "discipline violations" are 13.74 and 13.79 respectively, and the difference significance between them is p < 0.0001. For the data with test tool accuracy of 1, the actual difference is only 0.01 and 0.05, which has no practical significance. Not surprisingly, the author's interpretation of tables 4-43 to 4-46 (p.54) can only be nonsense and absurd.

In short, if there are errors in the dissertation due to not using your brain, it at least reflects the author's improper writing style and thinking habits, as well as the poor writing characteristics, cognitive style and research tendency. Graduate students need to use their brains to write their dissertations. They should be rigorous and serious, take care of the reality, constantly revise and correct their mistakes.