In life, study and work, people sometimes don't know what to do. They often turn a blind eye or don't know what to do if they just look at what others do without necessary explanations or tips. For example, this is the case for many graduate students to write their dissertations. Although they have read a lot of literature, they may still not know how to write properly. Next, based on a master's thesis I reviewed, select some typical errors to describe, analyze, explain and prompt, hoping to be beneficial to relevant people to carry out research and write papers. In order to avoid hurting the author of the paper, I did some technical treatment. According to the Convention, first present the comments I wrote, and then analyze the examples of typical errors.

This paper takes the relationship between teacher-student relationship, peer acceptance, self-control, academic procrastination and academic achievement of junior middle school students as the research topic, which meets the professional characteristics and requirements. Through chain intermediary analysis, the author tries to comprehensively investigate the complex mechanism of junior middle school students' teacher-student relationship and peer acceptance affecting their academic performance, and make innovative research work. However, the actual results are not satisfactory. Although the literature review of this paper is relatively standardized, there are many problems in other parts, especially at least:

First, forced demolition research. This paper is presented as study 1 and Study 2. In fact, there is only one study, and the data are the same. Only from the analysis content, one study is strongly said to be two studies.

Second, the title is inconsistent. The performance of study 1 is that it can not be included in the title of this paper, and can not demonstrate the related problems of chain intermediary, and analyze the impact of teacher-student relationship and peer acceptance on academic achievement separately.

Third, the academic reason is groundless. What is the relationship between teacher-student relationship, peer acceptance and self-control? This paper holds that teacher-student relationship and peer acceptance affect self-control. However, the opposite relationship seems to be more reasonable. The discussion and educational suggestions in this paper have no theoretical depth.

Fourth, the statistics are rough. This paper does not introduce the possible data conversion in statistical analysis, which makes the mean value of important variables incomprehensible and the excessive standard deviation questionable. This paper presents two chain mediation models, and it is estimated that the author does not quite understand what this model means. Therefore, in the report, only tables can be presented mechanically, and the corresponding meaning cannot be clarified.

See the paging tips for other questions (omitted here).

Generally speaking, there are four typical errors in this paper - these errors actually have a common root.

One of the typical mistakes: keen on difference analysis.

This paper specially set up study 1 to test the difference of demographic variables on the basic data of the test. However, this kind of content has nothing to do with the title of this article. Investigating and presenting such a result is tantamount to painting the snake and adding feet to the water. At the same time, since there are grade differences in teacher-student relationship and self-control, the subsequent intermediary analysis should consider the adjustment variable of grade, but the author no longer considers the grade variable.

In particular, this paper comes to the conclusion that "the teacher-student relationship of grade three students is better than that of grade one and grade two students, and the teacher-student relationship of grade one students is better than that of grade two students". If there is no theoretical explanation, such conclusions are rarely meaningful. This article does not have a theoretical explanation, and it is unlikely to have a theoretical explanation.

Typical error 2: no research purpose.

In this paper, the four three-level titles of the discussion part of research I are all "difference analysis of". The three-level titles of the discussion part of research II are exactly the same as those of the result part. This reflects that the author can't distinguish the discussion from the result, confuse the discussion with the result, and don't know that the discussion is at the theoretical level. The root of this error is that the author did not find and put forward the real research problems. He can only mechanically analyze the measured data, rigidly describe the results and reluctantly discuss them. There is no research problem, in fact, there is no research purpose. Therefore, the discussion naturally falls into a dilemma of aimlessness, that is, I don't know what to discuss. For example, this paper tests the demographic difference of basic variables. Even for intermediary analysis, the author's understanding is shallow. It is not clear what theoretical value and practical significance the tested model has. Of course, it is difficult to discuss it. Reflected in the title, it is to follow the results.

Typical mistake 3: do not understand the significance of research.

The "practical significance" mentioned in this paper is to "enrich the research quality in this field" and "make the research content in this field more comprehensive". Not to mention whether "enrichment" and "research quality" can be matched, but to mention the two points listed does not belong to the significance of practice - in fact, it does not belong to the significance of theory.

Both academic and professional dissertations will describe the research significance in two aspects: theoretical significance and practical significance - it should be discussion, but the actual situation is description. However, many papers present the above content. This still reflects that the author has not found the real research problem, so he is unable to determine the unique contribution of his research to the corresponding field. The statement of "enriching the research in XXXX field" and "further enriching the research in yyyy field" is completely meaningless.

In addition, some dissertations are not clearly positioned when describing the significance of research. For example, academic dissertations show much more practical significance than theoretical significance, while professional dissertations give much more theoretical significance than practical significance.

Typical mistake 4: play subjectively at will.

The essence of a paper is in the discussion section. However, there are too many problems in the discussion. Therefore, I would like to specifically point out the improper in the discussion. The article describes that "with the increase of grade, the relationship between teachers and students is more intimate and harmonious", which is inconsistent with the score of teacher-student relationship presented in the article, and the statement is unreliable. "Girls should be physically and psychologically more mature than boys of the same age. They often have bad emotions such as anxiety and irritability. They have no initiative in behavior, which helps boys get higher recognition from their peers." there is no specific goal in the process of school study and no strict requirements for themselves "not only seems inexplicable, And the statement seems to play at will.

For another example, "a good teacher-student relationship or peer relationship can enable individuals to learn to better control themselves, so as to improve the level of self-control", which also belongs to subjective speculation. More likely, a higher level of self-control can promote teacher-student relationship and peer acceptance.

On the whole, the discussion of this article has no theoretical content at all. The discussion of correlation analysis is just to describe the relevant phenomena again. The discussion of intermediary analysis is still only a subjective explanation of the superficial phenomena, and the so-called comprehensive discussion is just to roughly repeat the corresponding contents of previous research I and Research II, plus some reasons for subjective speculation.

I deeply realize that the root of these typical errors in the dissertation is that the author did not use the philosophical point of view of contradiction theory to guide his research and writing papers, and did not find the real research problems. Any paper should have its own main contradictions and the main aspects of the contradictions. Too many dissertations in psychology present a lot of irrelevant contents. For example, the difference test results of demographic variables are neither necessary nor interesting. If the author has the philosophical thought of contradiction theory, it is easy to avoid such mistakes. Therefore, it is very important for graduate students to strengthen the study and application of philosophy.