Description
o Take notes on the reading – this is critical!!!
o Review notes and highlight what’s important
Organize!
• Determine the important points from the article
• From your notes, look for what seems to go together – I like to look for…
o consistencies – themes,
o inconsistencies – disagreements,
o arguments – pro or con on certain points
SUMMARY SECTION: Necessary for all good papers – first half double-spaced (about 1 ½ pages)
• Introduction
o includes a little background of prior research - “why” this research was conducted and the hypothesis(ses) or research question(s)
o summarize briefly the “why” and the hypotheses/research questions
• Methods
o includes participants, measures, procedures
o summarize these briefly – don’t get tangled into too much detail
• Results – skip it unless you really understand it!
• Discussion – what do the researchers say in plain English were the important findings either supporting or not supporting (or a little of both) the hypotheses/research questions
CRITIQUE SECTION: second half double-spaced (about 1 ½ pages)
• The critique states what worked and what didn’t – usually the researchers do this in the Discussion section – be sure to credit them for the part of the critique that they offer
• The following do’s and don’t are meant to help guide your thinking for what you write
Writing a Critique: Don’ts
• A critique should not be an endless list of negatives. In fact, a good critique looks at what is helpful, useful, relevant, important, etc. about the information in advancing our understanding of human functioning and adaptation
• Don’t criticize the length of the article, how big or technical the words are, how “boring” it is!!! In other words, your critique should not contain trivial or insignificant points.
Writing a Critique: Do’s
• The following questions should not be directly answered but again are meant to guide your thinking. For example, the first question – “Does the research question or hypothesis make sense and is it based on a sound theory or model?” – should be addressed by thinking about whether the researchers gave a good foundation for why this research should be done in the Introduction. Writing something like…”The hypothesis made sense”… is obviously not a good idea! Use the following questions as a way to think through your critique:
• Is the purpose of the research clear? Does the research question or hypothesis make sense and is it based on a sound theory or model?
• If no hypothesis, do the researchers explain why the research is being conducted?
• Is it well designed? Think: research: methods – subjects, measures, procedures. Is it generalizable? Why or why not?
• What do the researchers say worked/didn’t work. What are your own ideas to add to this?
• What suggestions do the researcher have that might improve this research? What are your suggestions?
• What suggestions do the researchers have for future research? What are your suggestions?
• What real world applications do the researchers suggest? What suggestions do you have?