summary of article
PSYC 181 Recitation Paper: Guidelines & Rubric
Assignment Overview: Two of the objectives of this course are for you to learn to consume and analyze psychological science effectively, and for you to draw appropriate connections between psychology as a research discipline and its important human applications. To help you achieve these objectives, you will learn about psychological science firsthand through exposure to psychological research via reading a peer-reviewed empirical journal article, summarizing and critiquing that research, and applying it to your own life in a written paper, much as a scientist would do when reviewing the research literature in an area of interest.
Instructions: Read the article “Test-Enhanced Learning in a Middle School Science Classroom: The Effects of Quiz Frequency and Placement,” posted in our lecture section Canvas site > Modules > Recitation. Then write a paper that summarizes, critically reviews, applies, and reflects upon the article. Use the requirements described in detail below as an organizational guide, and answer all the questions listed in the sections below.
Length/Style: Your paper should be 4-6 full pages of text, double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins. Organize your paper according to the description below, with the appropriate headings, answering all of the following questions. Use complete sentences; write in paragraphs rather than in bullet-point or outline format. Deductions will be assessed for academic dishonesty (including plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional), failure to put the paper entirely into your own words, or files submitted in an unacceptable file format. Papers that are not in one of the accepted file formats (.doc, .docx, .rtf, .txt, or .pdf) will be assigned a grade of 0.
Submissions & Revisions: If you are not satisfied with your grade on the first draft, you may revise your paper. We will keep the higher of your two attempts (though note we may retroactivity assign deductions for plagiarism or other issues discovered after the fact). Late or missing drafts will earn a grade of 0, and you will not have the benefit of feedback before your revision. Late or missing revisions will earn a grade of 0, and your paper grade will stand as it was on your paper draft. If you fail to submit or are late submitting both your draft and your revision, you will earn a score of 0 for the paper.
Submit your finished paper on Canvas > Modules > Recitation > Recitation paper DRAFT (for the paper draft) or Canvas > Modules > Recitation > Recitation paper REVISION (for revisions).
First Draft Due on Canvas Friday Oct. 26th 11:59pm
Revision Due on Canvas Friday Nov. 30th 11:59pm
Review the detailed description (p. 2-4 below) and the detailed grading rubric (p. 5-7 below) BEFORE you submit your draft and AGAIN before you submit your revision.
Section 1: Summarize each section of the article (24 points)
1. Create the title “Summary” and center it at the top of the page.
2. Address all points in the Background section of the rubric (1-2 paragraphs).
a. In 1-2 sentences, summarize the background research that led to the current investigation. In other words, explain what brought about this current research. Describe what is known/not known from the research literature described in the introduction to this article. (2 points)
b. Explain the purpose of this research. In other words, what do the researchers want to understand, and why do they say that this research is important? What is their research question? (2 points)
c. What is/are the hypothesis(es) of this study? In other words, what do the researchers expect to find? State the hypothesis(es) using your own words. (2 points)
d. What justification do the authors provide that gives support to their hypothesis? In other words, why do the authors make such a prediction? (1 point)
e. Why are there multiple studies in this article? In other words, what additional benefit do the authors expect to get from conducting more than one study on this topic? (1 point)
3. Address all points in the Method section of the rubric (1-2 paragraphs).
a. Describe the participants in EACH study reported in the article, what groups were used, and how the groups were created. (2 points)
b. Describe the procedure of the study—that is, what participants actually did in each study reported in the article. (2 points)
c. Indicate what type of research design was used for EACH study (Experimental? Correlational? Descriptive?) and how you know. (2 points)
d. Describe each of the variables of interest for EACH study and how they were measured or manipulated. (2 points)
e. For each variable: Was it used as an independent or dependent variable in this study, and how do you know? (2 points)
4. Address all points in the Results section of the rubric (1-2 paragraphs).
a. What were the results for EACH study described in the article? Do not cite statistics or numbers; summarize the findings in your own words. (2 points)
b. Indicate whether or not the results support the hypothesis(es). (2 points)
c. Describe the overall conclusions of this article. In 2-3 sentences, what conclusions do the authors make? (2 points)
Section 2: Provide a detailed critique of the article (10 points)
1. Create the title “Critical Review” and center it just below your Summary.
2. Address all points in the Significance section of the rubric (1-2 paragraphs).
a. Describe the significance of the results of this article. To do this, specifically address why these results are important. What do the results contribute to our understanding of people’s thoughts and behaviors in real-world situations? Do not use personal experience or anecdotes; instead discuss the significance as it applies to people and psychology in general. (4 points)
3. Address all points in the Critique section of the rubric (1-2 paragraphs).
a. Provide, in paragraph form, a thoughtful critique of the article. Do not tell your personal experience; instead, use the steps involved in critical thinking to assess the strength of the methods the authors chose to test their hypothesis(es). Indicate whether the authors’ conclusions are logical in light of their findings. Use the questions below to consider in your critique. (6 points)
i. Were there any other variables, besides the ones the researchers studied, that might have affected the results of this research and hence, cause us to question their findings?
ii. How realistically do this article’s methods reflect how people behave in real life? How could the research have been designed differently to address their research question, perhaps in a different setting or for a different population?
iii. Is there anything that the authors could have done to make their findings easier to understand (for instance, graphs, pictures, tables, real-world examples, etc.)? Explain.
iv. What other investigations should be done in the future to better understand the relationship between the variables that the authors were studying? Why?
v. What other critiques can you make, beyond those listed here?
Section 3: Apply the article to your own life (10 points)
1. Create the title “Application” and center it just below your Critical Review.
2. Address all points in the Application section of the rubric (1-2 paragraphs)
a. What connections are there between the article and your own life? Identify and describe at least 2 specific ways in which you see connections, and explain the importance of those connections. (4 points)
b. Describe how you could use the results of this research to change your own personal behavior for the better. Be as detailed as possible. For instance, rather than saying, “I can use these results to change the way I do X,” you could say, “I could use the techniques described in the study by doing X, Y and Z in settings A and B. I think these techniques would help me by changing the way I… because the study demonstrated that….” Be sure to include why you think this strategy would improve your behavior or outcomes. (3 points)
c. Discuss the extent to which you actually plan to use the strategy(ies) you described. For instance, what might make it easier or harder to use that strategy? How feasible is your strategy? How successful do you think it would/will be? (3 points)
Section 4: Style and References
1. Center and in bold font, type the word “Reference”.
2. Use the information in the “Details on APA style references” section below to reference the article in APA format. Additional examples of APA style references can be found in the References section of your textbook. (2 points)
3. Read your paper carefully and specifically for accuracy, clarity, and errors. . (2 points)
4. Your paper should be between 4-6 full pages of text, typed, double-spaced, with 1” margins on all sides and in 12-point Times New Roman font. Do not include “filler” information (e.g., your instructor’s name, recitation number, date of birth, astrological sign) to take up additional space. (2 points)
Details on APA style references
Please note:
· The authors’ names should be listed in the same order as they are indicated on the first page of the article—do not alphabetize.
· The doi (digital object identifier) may be listed as a URL in your article (beginning with “http://dx.doi.org/”), but only the doi number itself—which begins with “10.”—should be included in your reference. Note that “doi” is not capitalized in the reference.
APA format example (screenshot of the title page shown below for your reference):
McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435-442. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1470
PSYC 181 Recitation Paper Detailed Grading Rubric
Summary / 24 points
Background
Background research __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Describes prior research but does not clearly relate to current research
· 2 points: Describes prior research and its relevance to current research
Purpose __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Indicates research question and its broader purpose/relevance
· 2 points: Clearly indicates research question and fully examines its broader purpose/relevance
Hypothesis(es) __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: States the hypothesis incorrectly OR states only some of the hypotheses
· 2 points: States all research hypotheses clearly & correctly
Justification __ / 1 point
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Indicates why the researchers posed the hypothesis they did
Multiple studies __ / 1 point
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Indicates why the researchers conducted multiple studies on the topic
Method
Participants __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included or missing important components
· 1 point: Includes relevant info about participants (e.g., number, type) and how groups were created for only 1 study in the paper
· 2 points: Includes relevant info about participants (e.g., number, type) and how groups were created for all required studies in the paper
Procedure __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Describes the procedure for one study but not all, or is missing important components
· 2 points: Describes the procedures for all studies clearly & correctly
Research design __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Identifies correct design but does not indicate how they know
· 2 points: Identifies correct design and indicates how they know
Variables __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included, or incorrect
· 1 point: Describes only some of the key variables, or is missing operational definitions
· 2 points: Describes all key variables and their operational definitions
Variable types __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Correctly identifies 1 key variable type and indicates how they know
· 2 points: Correctly identifies all key variable types and indicates how they know
Results
Summary __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 points: Summarizes key results (in OWN words) for one study but not for all studies, or describes results using numbers rather than words
· 2 points: Summarizes key results (in OWN words) for all studies
Support for hypothesis(es) __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Included, but incorrectly identifies whether the results support the hypothesis(es) OR only addresses support for one hypothesis when there are multiple hypotheses present
· 2 points: Correctly identifies whether the results support all hypothesis(es)
Conclusions __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Included, but misses key aspects of the article’s conclusions
· 2 points: Identifies all key aspects of the article’s conclusions
Critical Review / 10 points
Significance __ / 4 points
· 0 points: Does not address the importance of the article’s results
· 1 point: Briefly mentions the importance of the article’s results, but bases response on personal experience or anecdotes
· 2 points: Describes the importance of the results within the context in which the study was conducted but does not draw connections to real-world situations; response indicates only shallow understanding of the significance of the research
· 3 points: Describes the importance of the results as they relate to our understanding of people’s thoughts and behaviors in real-world situations, but response indicates only shallow understanding of the significance of the research
· 4 points: Thoroughly describes the importance of the results as they relate to our understanding of people’s thoughts and behaviors in real-world situations, indicating in-depth understanding of the significance of the research
Critique __ / 6 points
· 0 point: Not included
· 1 point: Attempts to critique the article, but bases response on personal experience or anecdotes
· 2 points: Critiques the article using a shallow approach to critical thinking, such as nitpicking details of the subject population (e.g., “This study looks at high schoolers rather than college students”) or methodology (e.g., “They only used one survey when two surveys would have been better”)
· 3 points: Critiques the article involving at least 1 of the provided questions, but does so shallowly
· 4 points: Provides a thoughtful critique addressing at least 2 of the provided questions, but does not address suggestions for future research
· 5 points: Provides a thoughtful and strong critique addressing most or all of the provided questions; makes suggestions for future research but does not indicate clearly how these suggestions would overcome limitations of the current research
· 6 points: Provides a thoughtful and strong critique addressing most or all of the provided questions; poses their own critique not listed in the assignment document; provides clear suggestions for future research and indicates how these suggestions would overcome limitations of the current research
Application / 10 points
Connections __ / 4 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Draws only vague connections between the article and their own life (e.g., “This can help me learn in my classes”)
· 2 points: Draws 1 specific, distinct, and well-reasoned connection between the article and their life
· 3 points: Draws 2 specific, distinct, and well-reasoned connections between the article and their own life
· 4 points: Draws 2 specific, distinct, and well-reasoned connections between the article and their own life, and explains clearly the importance of those connections
Strategies for behavior change __ / 3 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Provides a vague strategy for behavior change (e.g., “I will do more self-testing when I study”)
· 2 points: Provides one or more concrete and detailed strategies for behavior change, but does not indicate why, based on the research article, the strategy(ies) would work
· 3 points: Provides one or more concrete and detailed strategies for behavior change, and indicates why, based on the research article, the strategy(ies) would work
Analysis of strategies __ / 3 points
· 0 points: Not included
· 1 point: Indicates whether they plan to implement the strategy, but does not discuss factors that might influence the ease of implementation, feasibility, or likelihood of success
· 2 points: Indicates whether they plan to implement the strategy, but discusses only vague or weakly-related factors that might influence the ease of implementation, feasibility, or likelihood of success
· 3 points: Indicates whether they plant to implement the strategy, and includes one or more well-reasoned responses to factors that might influence the ease of implementation, feasibility, or likelihood of success
Style and References / 6 points
APA style reference __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Missing 2 or more pieces of required information, or contains 5 or more formatting errors
· 1 point: Includes all required information, but contains 2 or more formatting errors
· 2 points: Includes all pieces of required information and presents correct formatting
Writing style __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Writing includes excessive errors in formatting, grammar, spelling, etc. that interfere with the clarity of the message the author is trying to convey
· 1 point: Writing contains frequent errors in formatting, grammar, spelling, etc., but errors do not interfere with the clarity of the message the author is trying to convey
· 2 points: Writing is clear and contains few or no errors in formatting, grammar, spelling, etc.
Length __ / 2 points
· 0 points: Paper contains less than 3 full pages of text or more than 7 full pages of text (double-spaced, 1” margins on all sides, 12-point Times New Roman font)
· 1 point: Paper contains less than 4 full pages of text or more than 6 full pages of text (double-spaced, 1” margins on all sides, 12-point Times New Roman font)
· 2 points: Paper contains 4-6 full pages of text (double-spaced, 1” margins on all sides, 12-point Times New Roman font)
Deductions / points TBA
· Academic dishonesty (e.g., cheating, plagiarism—including quotations or paraphrases without attribution)
· Failure to put writing into own words (i.e., direct quotations longer than 4 consecutive words, even with attribution)
· Submitted in an unacceptable file format or late – will receive a grade of 0
TOTAL / 50 points
2