critique paper

Full Title in Upper and Lower Case Letters A Critiqué Submitted by Name of Student Psychology 2301, Section 51005, Spring 2012 Abstract The abstract is a summary of WHAT the entire article is about. Read the author’s abstract as an example of how an abstract is written but DO NOT copy their abstract. Look at the article(s) on which your assignment is based and notice the Abstract, the first part of the article under the title. Read the abstracts of all your articles, and you will begin to get a “feel” for what is contained in an abstract and how yours might be phrased. Your abstract can be a summarization of the author’s abstract, but in your own words. DO NOT quote the author(s) verbatim; to do so constitutes plagiarism, and that is a crime. Possibly more important, and for your purposes in this class, plagiarism will earn you an automatic zero (Ø) on the assignment. The abstract is generally written AFTER you have completed the assignment, as it is a summary of what you have written. For the Abstract, you will be required to write 150-250 words. This is the only page that is NOT first-line indented and is flush with the left margin of your page (i.e. left justified). Full Title in Upper and Lower Case Letters Summary Beginning on the following page, please note that the words Summary, Review, and Comments. This is the one time you ARE allowed to use font effects (i.e., bolds or italics). The Summary is ONE paragraph of approximately eight to ten sentences that explain WHY this research is important. The Summary for your article follows the Abstract page. As soon as you state something that you learned from your research/reading, you must IMMEDIATELY cite your source(s) within the text. If it is found that you have plagiarised without having given due credit, you will receive a zero (Ø) on the assignment, and this activity will be reported to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences division. Plagiarism IS a serious issue and will NOT be tolerated. Review After having read the material for your assignment and thought about it, give an overview of its contents. Briefly explain WHAT types of research or experiments were conducted, WHO were these conducted on, WHERE were they conducted, WHEN were they conducted, and HOW were they conducted. For example, you might list the organization by name (Western University) or location (“an inner city high school in Chicago, Illinois”). Include ages and gender of the subjects, and whether or not parental consent was required in order to assess this sample. Include details of how much research was investigated and the conclusions of the research. DO NOT list names or refer to these individuals in THIRD person (do NOT use I, my, he, she, them, etc.). Writing in third person takes us back a step and removes our subjective opinion (i.e., your personal thoughts or opinions) in favor of an OBJECTIVE approach (spoken from the perspective of an uninvolved observer) by such statements as, “The researchers determined that a multiple regression analysis of the data was sufficient to assess the validity of the research methodology.” Third person makes you a reporter of the facts. With the exception of the last section, Comments, your opinion is not relevant. Further, when writing about an experiment, you must also indicate what the hypothesis’ were (there is rarely only one hypothesis, so include them all), and what the researchers expected to find. State the findings (conclusions) and whether or not they were consistent with what the researchers had anticipated. “Negative results” are all right …we do not always find what we hope to, but we DO report everything. It is not necessary for you to give a synopsis of the statistical and data analysis methods used by the researchers. Comments This is your opportunity to express your opinions on the article. You should NOT use first person (i.e., in MY opinion, I think they failed to comply with the Scientific Method, etc.). In this section, answer the following questions: • Were the researcher’s findings significant? • Are there additional questions one might have, especially when addressing the hypothesis? • Were the findings more or less interested? • Should additional research be conducted– perhaps with additional questions (hypotheses) ? This is your rare opportunity to actually criticise what a researcher has done, so make the most of it. If you disagree with how the research was conducted, say so, and TELL WHY this is so, BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD as discussed in lecture and your textbook. Such comments on your part show that you have actually thought about the article you have read. If your article was based on an experiment (a report or experimental research), do you think the researchers results were appropriate to their research question(s) (hypotheses)? If your article was a meta-analysis – a comprehensive review of the research done in a specific area of interest (e.g., depression) – do you think the review was well done? Did it answer some of the questions you have about that topic? Do you feel the author(s) reviewed enough of the various opinions regarding your topic to provide a thorough and realistic assessment of the topic? Are there additional questions you would like to have seen the writers address in their hypotheses (if your article was the report on an experiment)? If the article was the report of an experiment , do you feel the researchers followed all appropriate scientific protocols such as: o Identification of the target population; o Obtaining a random sample; o Using random assignment to groups; o Providing clear definitions (operationalization) of their dependent and independent variables; o Provision of their specific methodologies; If the article was a meta-analysis ( a “review of the literature” ), do you feel that the writers gave adequate consideration to various aspects of their topic by having read the research of a number of researchers in this area. Did the findings leave you more or less interested in this topic? Would you like to see more articles in this area of research or meta-analysis …perhaps with additional questions (i.e., hypotheses) in the future? This may be your only opportunity to criticise the work of professional psychologists …that is, after all, the purpose of a critiqué. The CRITICAL issue to keep in mind in your critiqué effort is to base your comments (criticisms) on sound, scientific principles as detailed in the Scientific Method. If your article was a report of research, do you agree or disagree with how the research was conducted? Explain YOUR position, and TELL WHY you feel as you do. In doing so, you must consider the following questions: • Did the researchers violate the principles of scientific methodology (e.g., the Scientific Method) in some way? • Did the researchers obtain Informed Consent from all participants? Was parental consent (or that of a legal guardian) required if the subjects were minors? • Were the principles of the Scientific Method followed appropriately? • Your responses to the questions and issues in this document will tell me whether or not you have actually THOUGHT ABOUT the article at issue. References 1st Authors Last Name, Initial. & 2nd Author’s Last Name, Initial. (year published). Full title with correct capitalization. Full Journal Name in Italics 12(1). pp. 120-151.