Article Review Instructions
You will write two article reviews for this course. Each review is worth 100 points. The review should be 1-2 single-spaced pages in a 12-point, Times New Roman font. It is in your best interest to submit your review before it is due so you may check your originality report and correct any spelling and grammatical errors identified by the software program.
The purpose of the review is to provide students knowledge of how research is conducted and reported. The main part of your review needs to include the following information. Please comment on these aspects of the article as part of your review. Provide only the briefest summary of content. What I am interested in is your critique.
Reference. Listed at the top of the paper in APA style. Introduction. Read the introduction carefully. The introduction should contain:
· A thorough literature review that establishes the nature of the problem to be addressed in the present study (the literature review is specific to the problem)
· The literature review is current (generally, articles within the past 5 years)
· A logical sequence from what we know (the literature review) to what we don’t know (the unanswered
questions raised by the review and what this study intended to answer
· The purpose of the present study
· The specific hypotheses/research questions to be addressed.
Methods. The methods section has three subsections. The methods sections should contain:
· The participants and the population they are intended to represent (are they described as well in terms of relevant demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, education level, income level, etc?).
· The number of participants and how the participants were selected for the study
· A description of the tools/measures used and research design employed.
· A detailed description of the procedures of the study including participant instructions and whether incentives
Results. The results section should contain a very thorough summary of results of all analyses. This section should include:
· Specific demographic characteristics of the sample
· A thorough narrative description of the results of all statistical tests that addressed specific hypotheses
· If there are tables and figures, are they also described in the text?
· If there are tables and figures, can they be interpreted “stand alone” (this means that they contain sufficient
information in the title and footnotes so that a reader can understand what is being presented without having to go back to the text)?
Discussion. The discussion is where the author “wraps up the research”. This section should include:
· A simple and easy to understand summary of what was found
· Where the hypotheses supported or refuted?
· A discussion of how the author’s findings compares to those found in prior research
· The limitations of the study
· State the overall purpose of the paper. What was the main theme of the paper?
· What new ideas or information were communicated in the paper?
· Why was it important to publish these ideas?
The implications of the findings to basic and applied researchers and to practitioners Critique.
Once you provide the main critique of the article, you should include a final paragraph that gives me your overall impression of the study. Was the study worthwhile? Was it well-written and clear to those who may not have as much background in the content area? How does it relate to other weekly readings?
APA Format Review
If you are unfamiliar or a bit “rusty” on your APA format, you may want to use the tutorial available through the APA website which is listed on your syllabus.
I will grade your paper based upon:
· How well you followed directions (as indicated in this page)
· How thoroughly you used examples to support the critique
· How accurately you used APA format
· And your organization, grammar, and spelling
· Integration of assigned weekly readings
In your opinion, what were the strengths and weaknesses of the paper or document? Be sure to think about your impressions and the reasons for them. Listing what the author wrote as limitations is not the same thing as forming your own opinions and justifying them to the reader.
· Were the findings important to a reader?
· Were the conclusions valid? Do you agree with the conclusions?
· If the material was technical, was the technical material innovative?