Hi I need a writer who has a PhD in Education who can address only the comments of the supervisor. Just to address the comments
The overall comments are here:
Try to show your understanding of research knowledge in your writing. At the moment, you tend to use a lot of indirect quotes without explaining them. It is very important to interpret these references in your own research context. For details, please see my in-text comments. • You need to develop your understanding of social constructivist ontology in more depth and clarify how this links with the acquisition of technological skills. In fact, can these skills be innate? Can they be anything else than acquired/constructed?
• Your section on interpretive epistemology is quite short and does not really explain this paradigm, nor does it justify it.
• Similarly, your explanation of CHAT is still quite opaque at times. I think this may be due to using terms and concepts that are not always appropriate (see my comment on “one reality” page 3).
• Why is a longitudinal study the best choice of method? You need to convince me further!
• You are quite convincing for the most part when you talk about limitations of your chosen methods, and the remediation. In fact you are much more convincing on the limitations than when you talk about the justification of your methods; that is because when you mention the limitations you very specifically link and talk about your own study. Do the same for the justifications.
The in-text comments need to be addressed.