1.Include a Title Page and format everything APA. An example is included below. You do not need an abstract. You should include a Reference page that references your article and any other work you discuss in your summary. Do not include the entire reference in your paper text. Instead cite it as you would any other piece of literature. E.g., “Rubenstein and Alcock (2018) examined the effects of…” Use the headers below (Method, Results, Discussion, and Critique) to separate your sections.
Your summary will be graded on the extent to which you demonstrate (1) a clear understanding of each of the three main sections of the article and address all points therein, (2) the clarity of your writing, including your ability to stay within the page limitations and follow APA format and style where applicable. Points will be deducted if information is not provided, is provided but is incorrect, or is poorly written.
*****This is the information I will be looking for in each section*****
Introduction: (10 points)
a) Problem statement: What is the main issue, question, or problem that the authors seek to investigate? Include the species under investigation.
b) Lit Review: How is the problem contextualized in the literature? Summarize the previous research reviewed in the paper… what has already been done, what we learned, what questions remain?
c) Theoretical framework/rationale: What is the rationale behind this research and/or the authors’ hypotheses? What overarching theoretical account are they trying to support or disprove (it will likely be one we’ve covered in the text).
d) Research variables: IV(s) and levels and DV(s) – This may be less clear for studies that are observational, use comparative designs, etc. In this case, you will need to describe the approach and identify the variables.
e) Hypotheses: What is the author’s hypothesis(es) and predictions?
Method: (10 points)
a) Sampling: How many subjects were there and who were they? How were subjects chosen?
b) Research design: What research design was used (within subjects/repeated measures, between subjects, observational, comparative)?
c) Data collection methods: How were the data collected? Describe the general method/procedure.
Results: (5 points)
a) Interpretation of results: What did the results indicate? What conclusions were drawn? Don’t include any specific numbers/statistics here. Instead, describe the effects that were observed and the findings. Were hypotheses supported?
Discussion: (5 points)
b) Limitations and Future Directions: What did the authors mention as some limitations and/or future directions for their study? What are the next steps in this line of work?
Critique (20 points)…. Now you will critique the article
1. Review the questions listed at the end of this document. These questions are meant to serve as a reading guide – you should ask yourself these questions when reading the article you have chosen. You are not required to answer all of these questions in your paper. These questions only serve as a reading guide to help you identify strengths and weaknesses of an article or study. I’ve highlighted those topics that might be particularly relevant to your critique. Review the article with these questions in mind, and then base your critique on what you feel are the most noteworthy strengths and weaknesses.
2. Start a new section of your paper labeled “Critique,” and critique the article primarily on its scientific merit. This critique does not have to be all negative – you may feel that there are some particularly strong points of the research that you wish to highlight and so you should do so. The key is that you must justify the basis for your positive or negative evaluation by including specific reasons and examples related to the article content.
a. Some Do’s and Don’ts:
i. Do NOT simply state, “The authors’ literature review was adequate.” You’ll want to explain and give support for why the authors’ literature review was adequate: “The authors clearly indicated how the research problem was related to other findings in the literature. For example, the authors described that the findings of Harris and Nunez (2000) indicated that children can reason about social exchange from the age of five years, but did not indicate whether any development could be expected between the ages of five and seven.”
ii. Do NOT say, “The authors did a good job of using APA format.” This is a peer-reviewed and published APA paper. Of course they used the right format!
iii. Be careful criticizing sample size. Sample sizes could ALWAYS be bigger. But if the authors find a statistically significant difference, this means their sample size was sufficient to do so. You may critique how well they can generalize to a larger population based on their sample, but again, you need to support this argument.
3. You should organize your critique around four main points (a combination of four strengths or weaknesses). At the beginning of each paragraph, you should write a topic sentence (e.g., “The authors’ literature review was adequate”) followed by a few supporting statements and then a concluding sentence. When you are ready to discuss the next point of your critique, start a new paragraph.
4. The final draft (summary and critique) should be no more than 3-4 pages of double-spaced, typed, 12-pt. Times New Roman font (excluding Title page and References). Be concise, but also organize information into distinctive paragraphs. Editing is 95% of the writing process, so be sure to leave yourself time to write, set your work aside, and then edit/revise when you can read it with a fresh pair of eyes.
5. Your critique will be graded on (1) your ability to provide an insightful, thoughtful critique, including how well you justify your criticisms or lack thereof, and (2) the clarity of your writing, including your ability to stay within the page limitations and follow APA format where applicable.
READING GUIDE*
INTRODUCTION
The Problem – what is the point of this study?
Is it worthwhile/important? Why?
Is it narrowed down enough to be researchable?
Is its relationship to previous research clear?
Literature Review
Does it critically evaluate the relevant studies? How so?
Does it identify gaps in knowledge about the problem?
Are important references omitted? (Consider research we’ve reviewed in class, but also conduct a literature search on your own to determine if any important information has been excluded here)
Theoretical Framework
Are concepts adequately defined and the relationships among the concepts clear?
Research Variables
Are extraneous or intervening variables identified? Are they controlled for?
Hypotheses
Do the hypotheses flow logically from the theoretical framework?
METHOD
Participants
What population can the findings be generalized to?
Research Design
Is the design appropriate for the problem?
Does the design control for threats to internal and external validity?
Data Collection Methods
Are the methods appropriate for the study?
Do the measurement tools have adequate reliability and validity?
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Data Analysis
Were the statistical analyses appropriate?
Interpretation and Discussion
Was the hypothesis(es) supported? What does that mean?
Are interpretations based on the actual data obtained?
Are the findings related back to previous research and to the theoretical framework?
Are the limitations of the results identified?
What contributions have been here?
How has the study helped to resolve the original problem? What conclusions and theoretical implications can be drawn from this study?
Are unwarranted generalizations/conclusions made?
