Article To Critique is Attached
The critique should critically review (not summarize) the article discussed. You should concentrate your analysis and critique on the data and the analysis of the data (statistics) presented. Do they support the conclusions reached by the author(s)? Why or why not? You do not have to agree with the conclusions reached during the discussion. If you do not agree, you should argue why you do not based on information contained in the article you are critiquing. If you believe important information or analysis is missing, you should also reference that. Similarly, if you agree, you should state why based on information presented in the article.
NO MORE THAN 3 PAGES DOUBLE SPACED! IF ALL OF THE QUESTIONS BELOW ARE ANSWERED UNDER EACH SECTION IT SHOULD BE 3 PAGES. PLEASE NO MORE!
Guidelines for each section listed below:
In the opening sentences, introduce the research topic, including the rationale or purpose for conducting the research and its objectives. What question(s) is the researcher trying to answer? Include identification of independent and dependent variables.
State the author’s hypothesis or research question(s)?
Briefly state the research methodology. How did the researcher study the topic? Survey? Experiment? Statistical Analysis? A combination of methods?
In-depth critique of the article (Discuss how well the research is conducted)
Consider the following: (Do not do include any checklists. This must be a narrative discussion)
- Is the research problem clearly stated? Is it easy to determine what the researcher intends to research?
- Has a research question or hypothesis been identified? Is it clearly stated? Is it consistent with discussion in the literature review?
- Ethical Standards Applied
- Were the participants fully informed about the nature of the research? Was confidentiality guaranteed? Were participants protected from harm?
- Are all terms, theories, and concepts used in the study clearly defined?
Is the research design and methodology clearly identified? Has the data gathering instrument been described? Is the instrument appropriate? How was it developed? Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the results discussed? Was a pilot study undertaken?
Consider the following in your discussion:
Was the population defined?
What is the source of data used in the article?
How the sample was selected (probability or nonprobability)?
Which descriptive statistics were used? Are they meaningful?
If statistical analysis was conducted, was it appropriate and well defined?
Do the tables and/or figures appropriately (or inappropriately) display the collected data?
- What type of data and statistical analysis was undertaken? Was it appropriate? How many of the sample participated? Significance of the findings?
- If a hypothesis was identified was it supported? Were the strengths and limitations of the study including generalizability discussed? Was a recommendation for further research made?
- Were all the books, journals and other media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
- Considering all of the evaluation categories, is the article well or poorly researched?
- Brief restatement of thesis that does not simply repeat it.
A summary of the conclusions and supporting points.
If you were to conduct the study, please explain the changes you could make to strengthen the validity of the study.
Concluding remarks. Drive home the main thrust of your paper. Deepen the idea of the thesis without introducing new topic(s).
|Due By (Pacific Time)
||11/20/2014 01:00 pm