Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
64 lines (61 loc) · 6.22 KB

2017-11-24-scholarly-article-review-3.md

File metadata and controls

64 lines (61 loc) · 6.22 KB
ID post_title author post_excerpt layout permalink published post_date
1288
Scholarly Article Critique (Assignment 4)
Colin Madland
post
true
2017-11-24 04:49:50 -0800

Scholarly Article Critique

One of the distinguishing features of scholarly writing is the practice of critical thinking. Critical thinking is "that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing and reconstructing it" (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2015). In addition, critical thinking also involves creating new and original information, conclusions and ideas (Heady, 2013).

Scholarly writing, should reflect higher levels of learning. According to Bloom's (1956) taxonomy there are six levels of learning: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. When you are writing a scholarly paper, the focus should not be on just identifying, comprehending material and applying it, your writing should also reflect analysis, synthesis and evaluation. What this means is that your writing (and your thinking) should be able to:

  • Break down ideas into parts and see how those parts relate and are organized to demonstrate analysis.
  • Re-arrange ideas into a new whole to demonstrate synthesis.
  • Make judgments based on internal evidence or external criteria to demonstrate evaluation.
In this assignment, you will write a critique of a journal article using the guideline provided below.

This assignment may be a maximum of 5-6 pages in length (including the title page and reference page). Note that this is rather brief, requiring you to synthesize a lot of information in a concise way, which can be challenging at first. Writing drafts of each section and then editing these to consolidate information is recommended.

STEP 1
Select one published, peer-reviewed journal article of your choice from your literature search, then watch the following video on "How to Read an Academic Paper".
STEP 2
Summarize the article you selected by answering each of the following questions:
  • Introduction – Give a brief introduction to provide a context for the study. In your own words, state what the problem is, what is the purpose of the study, what the study is aiming to address. Were there any hypotheses? if so, what were they?
  • Methods – In your own words, describe the procedures for the study. Who were the participants? How were the participants recruited or selected? What did they have the participants do? What was measured? Were there any experimental manipulations or interventions? If so, what was being compared? What type of study design was used?
  • Results/Findings – In your own words describe what was found. Were the results significant?
  • Conclusions – In your own words, summarize the important findings. What was the major outcome of the study?
  • Reference – provided at the end in APA format.
STEP 3
Discuss the study with a critical eye for both its strengths and its weaknesses. Consider the following questions in your discussion:
  1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study? Include both what the authors tell you and your own thoughts.
  2. Does the abstract accurately summarize the article?
  3. Does the purpose statement in the abstract match the purpose statement in the introduction?
  4. Is all of the information in the introduction organized well?
  5. Does the information presented in the introduction allow you to grasp "the problem" under investigation and provide a "broad context" for the problem?
  6. Is there a review of precedent literature on the topic and does the introduction lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
  7. Do you think the methods are appropriate for studying the problem? Explain your reasoning.
  8. Do you think the study could be duplicated from the information provided in the methods section?
  9. Is the sequence of the methods section clear?
  10. Review the results in light of the purpose of the study. Do the results reveal what the researcher intended?
  11. Does the discussion just repeat the results or does the author(s) interpret the meaning of the results?
  12. Is the author's interpretation supported (or backed up) by other research?
  13. Are there limitations identified?
  14. Are there suggestions for future research?
STEP 4
Speculate on how you might expand upon this research based upon the limitations you have identified. This can be general or specific. That said, a sweeping statement such as “I would like to study this phenomenon more” doesn’t help us to understand why that might be an acceptable new direction without including sufficient justification for your claims. Thus, concrete ideas about your rationale are expected in this section, although explicit details regarding the next study or series of studies are not crucial.
STEP 5
APA formatting is required for this assignment. Please refer to the APA formatting requirements and APA rubric for further information.
STEP 6
Submit a draft of your assignment for peer review to your assigned partner via email. Please submit the draft at least one week before the due date to allow for feedback and revisions. Your partner will review your assignment and provide you with feedback following the peer review protocol. Submit your assignment, along with the feedback that you received from your partner with a brief rationale for the changes that you made or didn't make. Please submit this assignment using the link at the bottom of the assignment page.
Evaluation:
[table id=6 /] Submit Scholarly Article Review in Moodle