300 W1 Discussion

Class,

I thought you might find it useful to have additional input regarding the Week 1 Discussion (formatting and expectations).  In the following, I provide a “translation” of the instructions created by the Course Developer.  I then offer hints and access to additional needed resources.

Original instructions are in black, bold text.  I go through the original instructions in a sequential manner, inserting hints and resources.

Week 1 Discussion Thread Instructions

Using the textbook as your guide (this means citing it) (1) and a database available through Park’s library(2), find, summarize, and discuss 1 peer-reviewed academic article using the steps recommended in the book (3). The articles should directly relate to the subject area you are thinking about focusing on for your core assessment project (4).

Then for that article, show how you could do it in a completely unscientific way by changing the question and method using everything (5) you read from the book about what a good study is.

You may not copy any part of the article; your summary and discussion should be your own words, though in-text page based citation is required.

Neuman, W. L. (2017). Understanding research. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

1. Hint: an online resource to help you learn about proper APA citation is  http://www.bibme.org/  (Links to an external site.)  .  Try typing in the ISBN for an older version of our textbook (978-0-205-47153-9) and click “Find Book”.  Then click “Select.”  On the right hand side of the screen, you will find the citation.  Now select “APA” from the bibliography list menu.  This resource works for almost any reference source (book, magazine, newspaper, website, etc.) 

 

Note, when you are in the Park online library, several of the databases enable you to generate the citations for articles.  Additional citation resources are listed at the end of this document.

  

2. Park University Online Library:   http://www.park.edu/Library/ Links to an external site.

 

3. Chapter 2 : Within Chapter 2 you will find the needed steps for reviewing an academic article. (Yes, I know this was not part of the “assigned” readings for the week.)  The reading “What to Record in Notes” provides good ideas.

 

4. In course overview module  you will find a description of the Core Assessment project.

 

5. This part requires a little clarification. Here you should have some fun.  Think about how you could alter the study in order to create a “pseudo-science, pop-media, newsstand worthy” result.  How would the question of study (the hypothesis) need to change?  What method of approach could you use to totally wreck any chance of a valid outcome? Once you have “overhauled” the study methodology, challenge your classmates to explain why your “replication” of the study is a bust.  What principles of basic research have you violated, based upon your readings from Chapter 1?  Why is it not “scientific”?  Let’s see if they can figure it out – providing their explanations in their peer-follow up responses for the week.

 

To help create a clear format for the Main Entry responses posted this week, let us apply the following outline, breaking your main entry into 8 distinctive segments.   Following this outline will ensure you complete all elements of the assignment and will facilitate peer feedback.  Please label each section (e.g., Topic, Research Type).  This will also expedite the grading of your discussion entries. 

 

1.    Article Citation 2.    Textbook Citation
3.    Topic	Describe the focus on the research conducted.
4.    Research Type	Describe the study as exploratory, descriptive, explanatory, or evaluative (and offer why you think so).
5.    Variety of Research Applied?	Was it a survey, an experiment, a content analysis, etc?
6.    Overall Intended Application?	Was the research intended for basic social research of applied social research?
7.    Your UNSCIENTIFIC Re-Do Ideas	Here you should have some fun.  Think about how you could alter the study in order to create a “pop-media, newsstand worthy” result.  How would the question of study (the hypothesis) need to change?  What method of approach could you use to totally wreck any chance of a valid outcome?
8.    Evaluate your Re-Do	Now challenge your classmates to explain why your “replication” of the study is a bust.  What principles of basic research have you violated, based upon your readings from Chapter 1?  Why is it not “scientific”?  Let’s see if they can figure it out – providing their explanations in their peer-follow up responses for the week.