+1 862 207 3288 EDUC 6130– Article Critique 40 Points
Selecting the Article Choose an article from a peer-reviewed journal that you obtained while conducting your literature review. The article should NOT be a review of existing literature, but should be primary research, and should implement one of the qualitative or quantitative methodologies discussed in class, such as experimental design, survey research, ethnography, case study, etc. If you are unsure about whether your journal is a ‘peer reviewed’ journal, visit the journal home page. The article must describe primary research and CANNOT be secondary research such as a review article. Attach a copy of the article when you turn in your critique.
Writing the Critique
Your critique of the article should be organized into the following 6 sections. Your critique should include a summary and critique of each section. The summary statements you make should be written in your own words. For example, don’t just “cut and paste” the author’s statements. The length will depend on the article, but consider the range of 3-6 typed, double-spaced pages. The following is a description of the aspects that should be addressed within each of the 7 sections of your critique. While there is some summary in each section, the main point of this assignment is for students to critique. Be sure to provide a critique related to each area. The article should NOT be written in first or second person.
1.Overview/Purpose of Study – Describe the type of research that is being conducted. Describe the purpose of the study. Provide an overview of the general context in which the study is placed. Describe the sample and target population. Describe how the study “fits in” with previous research and how it fills a gap in the knowledge base. Critique the overall purpose in terms of relevance, substance, and contribution to the field. Discuss whether the purpose is relevant, whether the sample is appropriate and whether appropriate methods were used to select the sample, and whether the methodology is appropriate to answer the research question. (5 points)
2.Research Questions/Variables — State the research question(s) in the study as well as the research hypotheses (if the author makes predictions). Describe the major variables in the study and how they were measured. If appropriate, distinguish between the independent variable(s) and the dependent variable(s). Critique the instruments in terms of quality and ability to measure the dependent variable(s). Discuss whether the research questions are relevant and clearly stated, and whether the variables are clearly defined and adequately measured. (5 points)
3.Analyses – Describe the method for analyzing the data. For a quantitative study, describe the statistical procedures that were used in the study. For a qualitative study, describe the method that was used to analyze the data. Explain how these procedures are used to answer the research questions. Critique the analyses in terms of their adequacy and appropriateness. Discuss whether the methods are described with enough detail, whether they were correctly carried out, and whether they were appropriate for answering the research question(s). (5 points)
Results – Describe the results of the analyses for each research question(s). In a quantitative study, were the respective null hypotheses accepted or rejected? Are the major results reported in tables and/or graphs described clearly, completely, and accurately? In a qualitative study, were the results summarized clearly? Explain whether or not the reporting of the results adequately answered the research question(s). Is there any other important information, not in included in the results, that you would like to know? Critique the results section in terms of adequacy and appropriateness. Overall, discuss whether the results are appropriate based on the methods that were carried out. (5 points)
Discussion/Conclusion – Describe conclusions made regarding the results. What limitations did the author identify in this study? Critique the quality and appropriateness of the conclusions that were drawn. Discuss whether or not you agree with the author(s) interpretations and conclusions and why or why not. (5 points)
Overall evaluation – Discuss the overall strengths and/or weaknesses of the article from a research viewpoint. In your opinion, were the analyses designed, carried out, and interpreted properly? Are there limitations or shortcomings of the study that the author did not mention? Discuss the overall quality of the research study. (5 points)
Reference/primary research article – Provide the reference in correct APA format. The article must be primary rather than secondary research. (5 points)
Writing/Grammar/Organization – The writing must use correct grammar and mechanics. First person should not be used. The critique must be well written and organized. (5 points)
Rubric for evaluating the sections of the article critique
Each of the 6 sections of the article critique is worth 5 points.
The rubric below will be used to assign a score from 0 to 5 for each section. In addition, 5 points will be allotted to writing style, grammar and organization.
5 points – All aspects of the section are addressed completely, accurately, and clearly. Shows a complete understanding of research concepts. Uses terminology appropriately. Descriptions and support for answers to the questions are comprehensive, giving evidence of the student’s thoroughness in reading, summarizing, and reflecting upon the aspects within the section. The critique portion of the section is complete, thorough and appropriate.
4 points – Same as above, except there may be some lack of clarity or accuracy in the description of one of the section’s aspects. There are gaps in the critique of the section.
3 points – Most or all aspects of the section are addressed to some extent, however, several aspects are incomplete, unclear, and/or inaccurate. Terminology may not be used correctly. Descriptions are not comprehensive. The critique portion of the section is missing or lacking in substance.
2 points – Not all aspects of the section were addressed. Those that were addressed were done so in an adequate fashion but giving evidence of some incomplete or incorrect understanding of the research and statistical concepts. There is little to no critique.
1 point – Not all aspects of the section were addressed, and those that were addressed were done so in a poor fashion indicating a lack of evidence of understanding the research and statistical concepts and/or a lack of thoroughness in reading, summarizing, and reflecting. There is little to no critique.
0 points – The section was missing from the article critique.
ContentServer.pdf
