Your literature review should consist of 5-6 pages of the following:
Using 8-10 empirical articles that you chose to investigate your myth…
What is your myth and why is it important? Explain it.
Reminder: Organize your paper by the points you’re making to support your hypothesis and/or answer the guiding research question(s). Within each main point present the findings from at least one (preferably more than one) empirical article. For example, you could present four main points with 2-3 articles supporting each point.
To support each main point, summarize the findings from the research articles. What do the findings suggest?
Throughout your paper, reflect on the level of confidence the consumer should have in those research findings’ ability to inform the argument(s) in your paper (e.g., specific myth, hypothesis/guiding research question(s), main points). What is your assessment of the research designs and methods used in the empirical articles you found? For example, how effective were those researchers in terms of adding knowledge to the psychological literature (e.g., explaining or predicting something to reveal a truth that is relevant to the myth topic)? How did they test the myth or a related hypothesis in a highly reliable/valid way to reduce error, limit bias, rule out potential alternative explanations, etc.? In other words, no study is perfect, so what are your major critiques of the methodology they chose? Demonstrate your understanding of why/how the researcher(s) chose that methodology and think about how a future study could be designed differently to perhaps do a better job informing people about your myth topic. Do not include extraneous details about the methods that you do not understand – you can only effectively communicate something if you understand it. If you need help or clarification, please reach out to either Professor G-R or the TAs during office hours.
What conclusion do you make based on the studies you read? Are you convinced that there’s enough evidence for or against your myth? Why or why not?
If needed, go back to Myth Project #7: Draft of Literature Review for more information/guidance on how to organize your paper.
Carefully review the rubric below. You will be graded on the following criteria to earn up to 75 total points. The first six criteria are worth 12 points each: purpose, content, organization, critical thinking, use of references and quality of references, and use of APA (7th edition) formatting. Writing/grammar is worth 3 points, but you may lose points in other areas as well if the reader cannot comprehend your intended meaning.
To earn full points on grammar, please follow the Grammar Guidelines to avoid both Major & Minor Mistakes.
THE FINAL VERSION OF YOUR PAPER SHOULD CONTAIN A REVISED LITERATURE REVIEW BASED ON FEEDBACK THE INSTRUCTOR AND/OR GRADUATE TA PROVIDED ON YOUR DRAFT, AND SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN A CLEAR CONCLUSION.
Rubric
Psych Dpt Writing Intensive Paper Metric_RM 2 Rubric (1)
Psych Dpt Writing Intensive Paper Metric_RM 2 Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose
12 pts
Exemplary
The writer’s central purpose or argument is readily apparent to the reader.
9 pts
Good/Competent
The writing has a clear purpose or argument, but may sometimes digress from it.
6 pts
Acceptable
The central purpose or argument is not consistently clear throughout the paper.
3 pts
Unacceptable
The purpose or argument is generally unclear.
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent
12 pts
Exemplary
Balanced presentation of relevant and legitimate information that clearly supports a central purpose or argument and shows a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of a significant topic. Reader gains important insight.
9 pts
Good/Competent
Information provides reasonable support for a central purpose or argument and displays evidence of a basic analysis of a significant topic. Reader gains some insights.
6 pts
Acceptable
Information supports a central purpose or argument at times. Analysis is basic or general. Reader gains few insights.
3 pts
Unacceptable
Central purpose or argument is not clearly identified. Analysis is vague or not evident. Reader is confused or may be misinformed.
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization
12 pts
Exemplary
The ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose or argument. They flow smoothly from one to another and are clearly linked to each other. The reader can follow the line of reasoning.
9 pts
Good/Competent
The ideas are arranged logically to support the central purpose or argument. They are usually clearly linked to each other. For the most part, the reader can follow the line of reasoning.
6 pts
Acceptable
In general, the writing is arranged logically, although occasionally ideas fail to make sense together. The reader is fairly clear about what writer intends.
3 pts
Unacceptable
The writing is not logically organized. Frequently, ideas fail to make sense together. The reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and loses interest.
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking
12 pts
Exemplary
The writer engages effectively with the ideas addressed in the paper and demonstrates that they understand the complexity of their arguments.
9 pts
Good/Competent
The writer engages effectively with the ideas addressed in the paper.
6 pts
Acceptable
Critical thinking about ideas addressed seems incomplete and less than effective.
3 pts
Unacceptable
The writer fails to engage effectively with the ideas addressed in the paper.
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of References and Quality of References
12 pts
Exemplary
Compelling evidence from professionally legitimate sources is given to support claims. Attribution is clear and fairly represented. References are primarily peer-reviewed professionally journals or other approved sources (e.g., government documents, agency manuals…). The reader is confident that the information and ideas can be trusted.
9 pts
Good/Competent
Professionally legitimate sources that support claims are generally present and attribution is, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. Although most of the references are professionally legitimate, a few are questionable (e.g., trade books, internet sources, popular magazines…). The reader is uncertain of the reliability of some of the sources.
6 pts
Acceptable
Although attributions are occasionally given, many statements seem unsubstantiated. The reader is confused about the source of information and ideas. Most of the references are from sources that are not peer-reviewed and have uncertain reliability. The reader doubts the accuracy of much of the material presented.
3 pts
Unacceptable
References are seldom cited to support statements. There are virtually no sources that are professionally reliable. The reader seriously doubts the value of the material and stops reading.
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Most Recent Edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
12 pts
Exemplary
APA format is used accurately and consistently in the paper and on the “References” page.
9 pts
Good/Competent
APA format is used with minor errors.
6 pts
Acceptable
There are frequent errors in APA format.
3 pts
Unacceptable
Format of the document is not recognizable as APA.
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting/Grammar
Punctuation, word agreement, clear pronouns, word choice, & scientific writing.
3 pts
Exemplary
No obvious mistakes.
2 pts
Good
No more than a few minor mistakes.
1 pts
Acceptable
No more than a few major mistakes.
0 pts
Unacceptable
More than a few major mistakes.
3 pts
Total Points: 75
