START: INTRODUCTION (Background of the Study)

Answer It in complete sentence, concise, not very obvious that you

don’t know how to edit this research.

Q1: Why did you start your Background of the Study with a general definition
of media?
A: To establish a baseline understanding of media before discussing its
specific influence on criminology students’ perceptions.
Part: Introduction – Background of the Study
Correction Note: Panel may say this is too textbook-like. Background
should focus on the local issue/problem rather than dictionary definitions.
Suggestion: Move definitions of “media” to RRL and start with the
local/media problem in MPSU context.

Q2: Why is the rise of social media in the Philippines emphasized, but not
directly linked to your respondents in MPSU?
A: Because the national context sets the stage for how local students also
consume media and form perceptions.
Part: Introduction – Background of the Study
Correction Note: Lacks connection to respondents.
Suggestion: Add data/statistics of MPSU students’ social media usage to
make it more relevant.

Q3: You claim “the role of media in shaping perceptions of crime and justice
is undeniable.” On what basis is this “undeniable”?
A: Based on numerous cited studies and visible trends of media influence in
the Philippines and globally.
Part: Introduction – Background of the Study
Correction Note: Strong wording (“undeniable”) is unacademic.
Suggestion: Rephrase to “significant” or “strongly supported by literature.”
Q4: You said “few studies examined criminology students’ understanding of
media portrayals.” Can you cite at least one proof that there is a gap?
A: We based this on reviewing available Philippine and Cordillera literature
where criminology-specific focus was rarely highlighted. Mention the article.
Part: Introduction – Background of the Study
Correction Note: Gap statement is weak. Needs explicit citation or review
evidence.
Suggestion: State clearly which studies exist and where the gap is.

Q5: Why is “media literacy” emphasized heavily in the Background instead

of being fully explained under Recommendations?
A: Because developing media literacy is both a rationale and a solution to
the problem; thus, it was introduced early.
Part: Introduction – Background of the Study
Correction Note: Repetition. Media literacy is discussed in Background,
Significance, Results, and Recommendations.
Suggestion: Avoid redundancy, streamline placement.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE (RRL)

Q6: Why are most of your first citations foreign studies?

A: They provide a foundation and show that media influence is a global
issue. Provide other reason directly emphasizing it here in the Philippines and
at cordillera.
Part: RRL – Media Portrayal and Public Perception
Correction Note: Over-reliance on foreign works before presenting local.
Suggestion: Balance early with Philippine and Cordillera-based research for
better contextualization.

Q7: Some citations like “The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perception of
Crime and Criminal Justice System, n.d.” lack complete details. Why?
A: Because the source had no author or year, so it was cited as “n.d.”
Part: RRL – Media Portrayal and Public Perception
Correction Note: Weak reference.
Suggestion: Replace with academic journal articles or government/NGO
reports with full citations.

Q8: How does your review justify the need for your study specifically in
MPSU?
A: It shows that while media effects are widely studied, criminology students
in the Cordillera context remain underexplored. Be more specific
Part: RRL – Philippine & Cordillera Context
Correction Note: The justification is scattered.
Suggestion: End RRL with a clear “gap and rationale” paragraph.

Q9: Some Philippine studies you cited (e.g., Reyes 2017, Santos 2019) focus
on corruption/media sensationalism. How do these directly link to
criminology students’ perceptions?
A: They establish how Philippine media portrayals shape public mistrust in
justice, which may similarly affect criminology students.
Part: RRL – Philippine Media Context
Correction Note: Needs bridging sentences.
Suggestion: Explicitly state how public mistrust translates into criminology
student perceptions.

Q10: Why is Cordillera literature mentioned briefly without deep analysis?

A: Due to limited available regional studies, only a few sources were cited.
Part: RRL – Cordillera Context
Correction Note: Appears underdeveloped.
Suggestion: Expand with CAR-specific studies on youth, indigenous
perceptions, or local justice issues to strengthen originality.

*explain in our manuscript why if wala talagang ma site na para ma

strengthen yung originality ng RRL.
THEORETICAL / CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Q11: Why did you choose Cultivation Theory as your main theoretical basis?
A: Because it explains how prolonged media exposure can shape an
individual’s perception of crime and justice over time.
Part: Theoretical Framework
Correction Note: Needs explicit connection to criminology students.
Suggestion: Add a sentence clarifying how media cultivates fear, mistrust,
or acceptance among student populations specifically.

Q12: Is Cultivation Theory enough to explain media influence, or did you

consider other theories?
A: We focused on Cultivation Theory as it directly addresses media effects on
perception. Add more explanation or provide different explanation
Part: Theoretical Framework
Correction Note: Panel may see this as insufficient.
Suggestion: Include or mention at least one supporting theory (e.g., Social
Learning Theory, Agenda-Setting Theory) to defend theoretical grounding.

Q13: Where is your Conceptual Paradigm and how does it connect to your
theories?
A: The paradigm shows the interaction between media exposure and
perceptions of fear, trust, and safety among criminology students. Be more
specific
Part: Conceptual Framework
Correction Note: If the paradigm is visual, ensure it labeled properly with
arrows and variables. Some panels require identification of IV (media) and DV
(perception).
Q14: Why is “fear of crime” a variable when your title does not include it?
A: Because fear of crime is a major perception shaped by media, making it
relevant to the study’s objectives. Add explanation that you have been
planning to change the title to make it relevant on the objectives but -explain
why you haven’t change it yet.
Part: Conceptual Framework
Correction Note: Inconsistency. Title does not mention fear, but results and
framework do. Align title, objectives, and variables.

Q15: Your variables (Media Exposure, Trust in Justice System, Sense of

Safety) are not formally defined in this section—why?
A: We assumed their meanings are clear from the literature and findings.
Change this explanation. Never use the word assume.
Part: Conceptual Framework
Correction Note: Operational definitions are missing or unclear.
Suggestion: Include definitions and how they were measured.

METHODOLOGY

Q16: Why did you use a descriptive research design?

A: Because the study aims to describe the effects of media on perceptions
rather than manipulate variables.
Part: Research Design
Correction Note: Needs justification over correlational or mixed-method.
Panel may ask why not qualitative or comparative.

Q17: How many respondents participated and how was the sample
determined?
A: (Insert number) criminology students participated using purposive or
convenience sampling. Double check this question
Part: Participants/Respondents
Correction Note: If sampling type is non-probability, panel will ask why.
Suggestion: Justify based on accessibility, population size, and
representativeness.

Q18: Why did you not include faculty members or other year levels?
A: The focus was only on criminology students currently enrolled at MPSU.
Add more explanation
Part: Scope & Delimitation / Participants
Correction Note: Narrow justification. Suggest adding rationale for
excluding other stakeholders.

Q19: What research instrument did you use and who validated it?
A: We used a researcher-made questionnaire validated by experts. Double
check
Part: Research Instrument
Correction Note: Must specify: number of experts, validation process,
reliability score (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha), and revisions.

Q20: How were ethical considerations addressed?

A: We ensured confidentiality, voluntary participation, and informed consent.
Part: Ethical Considerations
Correction Note: Needs detail—Were letters approved? Was there parental
consent? Was anonymity explained? -yes(itakin han letters just in case)

Q21: What statistical tools were used?

A: Frequency and percentage were used for quantitative interpretation.
Double check
Part: Data Analysis
Correction Note: If Likert scale was used, you must specify weighted mean
or other analysis tool.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Q22: Your results mention “most respondents reported moderate exposure
to crime-related media.” What makes exposure “moderate” in your study?
A: We based it on the frequency scale used in the questionnaire (e.g.,
sometimes, often). Be more concise
Part: Results – Media Exposure
Correction Note: The criteria for “low,” “moderate,” or “high” exposure are
not clearly defined.
Suggestion: Specify numerical ranges or weighted mean interpretations.

Q23: You presented findings on fear of crime, but your title does not
explicitly include “fear.” Why was this included?
A: Because fear of crime emerged as an effect of media influence during the
study.
Part: Results – Perception of Safety
Correction Note: Must align with objectives and title. Either revise
title/objectives or revise variables in findings.

Q24: In your discussion, you said students “expressed mistrust toward the
justice system due to media portrayal.” How was mistrust measured?
A: Through questionnaire items addressing confidence in courts, police, and
legal processes. Be concise
Part: Discussion – Trust in Justice System
Correction Note: Needs exact sample question or Likert scoring
explanation. Panel may demand operational clarity.

Q25: You mentioned social media as the most influential platform. Where is
the supporting data table or chart?
A: The frequencies were included in the results section based on student
responses. And explanation
Part: Results – Media Platform Influence
Correction Note: If charts/tables aren’t included, panel may criticize lack of
visualization.
Suggestion: Add pie chart or frequency table.

Q26: Why did you mix narrative explanation and interpretation without
separating Results and Discussion clearly?
A: To maintain flow and avoid repetition. Double check
Part: Results & Discussion
Correction Note: Some panels require separate chapters. If combined,
must follow IMRAD style. Clarify formatting based on department guidelines.

Q27: You stated that media contributes to students’ fear, but do you have
comparative data before and after exposure?
A: No pre-exposure data was gathered; responses were perception-based.
Part: Discussion – Media and Fear
Correction Note: Panel may critique lack of baseline. Suggest
acknowledging this as a limitation.

Q28: You said “students often generalize crime realities based on media
reports.” What evidence supports this claim?
A: It is based on response trends indicating strong influence from televised
and online crime news. Be specific
Part: Discussion – Interpretation of Crime Reality
Correction Note: Statements must connect back to specific data points.
Add references to survey items or frequency values.

Q29: Were there any differences across year levels or gender in perception?
A: This study did not include comparative demographic analysis. Double
check
Part: Results – Demographics
Correction Note: Panel may ask why demographics were collected but not
analyzed. Suggest adding cross-tabulation if applicable.
Q30: You used only descriptive statistics. Why didn’t you apply inferential
tests to determine relationships?
A: The study focused on description, not correlation or prediction. Double
check
Part: Data Interpretation
Correction Note: Panel may challenge this. Suggest defending with time
constraints, scope, or research design justification.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

Q31: Your conclusion repeats parts of the discussion. Why is it not

synthesized?
A: It was written to summarize the major findings. Explain it properly concise
and specific
Part: Conclusion
Correction Note: Needs synthesis — conclusions should be concise
takeaways, not restatements.

Q32: You concluded that media “shapes fear, trust, and safety perceptions,”
but were all three significantly shown in your findings?
A: Yes, these emerged as the dominant perception variables in the results.
Part: Conclusion
Correction Note: Ensure consistency — if one of these wasn’t strongly
supported, remove or rephrase.

Q33: Some of your recommendations are too general (e.g., “promote media
literacy”). Who exactly should act on them?
A: They are intended for MPSU, criminology instructors, and students.
Part: Recommendations. Double check other answers na hindi ka sure kung
tama kung tam aba ito na ito ang isasagot.
Correction Note: Panel may say recommendations must be directed: per
stakeholder group (administration, curriculum developers, faculty, students).
Q34: You recommended future research but did not specify the direction.
What gap should the next researchers fill?
A: They can expand on comparative analysis or include qualitative methods.
Answer the questions that needs specific answers weather it was not in the
study but u answered it like you know the answer to that question but you do
not know where to place it specifically in the editing of manuscript, and add
explanation that will cover up or will reason out the flaws in which will
hopingly they’ll end up understanding it and not critizizing it.

Part: Recommendations
Correction Note: Be explicit: e.g., “future researchers should examine…”
and name variables, groups, or methods.

Q35: Why is there no section for limitations of the study?

A: The focus was on presenting results and recommendations. Not concise
masoktan very rude
Part: Conclusion / Missing Section
Correction Note: Almost all panels require acknowledgment of limitations.
Suggest adding a subsection before recommendations.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Q36: Why did you choose criminology students as the main beneficiaries of
the study?
A: Because they are future law enforcement and justice practitioners whose
perceptions influence their future roles.
Part: Significance of the Study
Correction Note: Needs deeper justification. Add why criminology students
specifically at MPSU need this research and how findings can realistically
help them.

Q37: You included “future researchers” as beneficiaries. How exactly does

your study help them?
A: It can serve as a reference and basis for expanding related topics on
media and perception. Add more
Part: Significance of the Study
Correction Note: Too generic. Suggestion: Specify which aspects (method,
variables, context) can be built upon.

Q38: Why were stakeholders like media practitioners or policymakers not

included in the significance?
A: The focus was on the academic community and criminal justice learners.
Double check
Part: Significance of the Study
Correction Note: Consider briefly acknowledging broader institutional or
societal impact for stronger justification.

*October 12, 12: 33 am End of checking plan to do,

 research yellow highlights,
 double check the red highlight,
 continue check other questions,
 comply your own suggestion using AI sag saggaysa,
Violet -easy or possible questions that panels won’t ask.
Yellow -search meaning
Red -correction or warning
Letters color grey- similar answer
 Search also the manuscript’s what are the need to be highlighted.
 Don’t forget to Add the all-suggested questionnaires
Q39: How will the study benefit educators and curriculum developers?
A: It may guide them in integrating media literacy and critical thinking into
criminology subjects.
Part: Significance of the Study
Correction Note: Needs specificity — which subjects or modules? Provide
an example or context.
Q40: The section mentions “general public” in passing—was this intentional?
A: It was meant to show that perceptions of justice affect society as a whole.
Part: Significance of the Study
Correction Note: If not fully explained, remove or limit mention of
beneficiaries beyond your sample population.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS

Q41: Why did your study only focus on MPSU and not include other
criminology schools?
A: Due to time, accessibility, and focus on the immediate academic
community.
Part: Scope and Delimitation
Correction Note: Justify why results remain meaningful despite limited
location.

Q42: You only included selected year levels. Why not all criminology
students?
A: Because participation depended on availability and class schedule.
Part: Scope and Delimitations
Correction Note: Must justify whether exclusion affects representation and
credibility.

Q43: The timeframe of the study is not clearly stated. When was it
conducted?
A: It was conducted during the academic year of data gathering.
Part: Scope and Delimitations
Correction Note: Must include clear duration (e.g., Month-Year to Month-
Year).

Q44: Why were faculty, justice professionals, or community groups not

included?
A: The focus was specifically on students still in training.
Part: Delimitations
Correction Note: Add justification explaining exclusion to avoid
assumptions of generalizability.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Q45: Are your definitions based on conceptual or operational meaning?

A: A mix of literature-based conceptual definitions and how terms were
measured in the study.
Part: Definition of Terms
Correction Note: Must label each as "Conceptual" or "Operational" to avoid
confusion.

Q46: Why define terms like “media” or “trust” if they are common
knowledge?
A: To ensure that readers interpret the terms the same way the study
intends.
Part: Definition of Terms
Correction Note: Keep only terms that are technical or directly measured in
the instrument.

Q47: Were the terms alphabetically arranged or grouped by concept?

A: They were listed as needed in the study.
Part: Definition of Terms
Correction Note: Panels may require alphabetical order or logical grouping.

ABSTRACT

Q48: Why does the Abstract not mention the sample size or sampling
method?
A: Due to focus on summarizing results and purpose.
Part: Abstract
Correction Note: Include number of respondents, instrument used, and
method — common academic requirement.

Q49: Your abstract ends with a recommendation. Is that acceptable in your

format?
A: It was included to highlight practical relevance.
Part: Abstract
Correction Note: Abstracts usually include objectives, method, results, and
conclusion only. Remove recommendation if not allowed.

TITLE DEFENSE QUESTIONS

Q50: Why did you choose the title “The Role of the Media in Shaping
Perceptions…” instead of specifying variables directly?
A: To create a broad but descriptive representation of the study focus.
Part: Title Page
Correction Note: Consider aligning exact variables (e.g., fear, trust, safety)
in the title for precision.

Q51: Why is “Criminal Justice System” or “Trust” not in the title if discussed
in findings?
A: They are implied under perceptions shaped by media.
Part: Title
Correction Note: Panel may require explicit mention for alignment.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS / OBJECTIVES

Q52: Do your research questions align with your results and variables?
A: Yes, they were designed to capture perception on fear, trust, and media
influence.
Part: Statement of the Problem / Objectives
Correction Note: Recheck wording — ensure each objective is answered by
your findings.
Q53: Why are there only three main research questions?
A: They were crafted to directly address the core perceptions targeted in the
study.
Part: Research Questions
Correction Note: If any emerged theme (like crime fear) was not included
in objectives, revise for consistency.

FORMATTING & REFERENCES

Q54: Some references use APA 6th while others follow APA 7th. Why
inconsistent?
A: Formatting adjustments were not fully checked before finalization.
Part: References
Correction Note: Standardize all references — spacing, hanging indents,
capitalization, italics, and retrieval details.

Q55: Why are there “n.d.” and missing page numbers in some in-text
citations?
A: Original sources lacked that information.
Part: In-text citations
Correction Note: Replace weak sources or verify missing publication details
if possible.

✅ Strengths to Prosper/Consider:

✔ You were not silent — every question had an answer

✔ Responses made sense and were relevant
✔ You showed that you understand your study
✔ You accepted that there were limitations and areas needing revision
✔ The tone sounds calm and logical, not memorized

⚠️Weaknesses to Avoid:

⚠ Some answers sound safe but not confident (“we assumed”, “it was meant
to…”)
⚠ Some answers need stronger academic justification (ex: sampling, theory
choice)
⚠ Some responses sound like explanations, not defense
⚠ There were parts where a panelist could easily ask follow-up questioning

ADVISE:
Our panel will likely:
APPROVE with revisions (rather than reject or major overhaul)
Ask us to revise:
 Title alignment
 RRL gap justification
 Sampling method & instrument validation
 Conclusion & recommendations formatting
 APA formatting
 Require manuscript polishing before binding/publishing
“Our group would NOT fail but we would be asked to
revise and resubmit corrections after defense only,
which is normal”