Article Review
Instructions
The goal of this assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to practice being critical and constructive consumers of developmental research. Every week, students are required to provide a brief critical review of the readings assigned for that week.
Reviews should be DBOULE SPACED 4-5 pages, with APA formatted citations, and should not exceed 6 pages.
Students should be sure to touch on the following areas in their review:
• A brief review of the main goals and findings of the articles (yours). What question did they set out to answer and what support did (or didn’t) the author(s) find.
• A description of how the articles integrated theory (yours). Did the author(s) specifically describe a theory? Did they make statements that lead you to believe that they are (or are not) being guided by theory? How could you interpret the study through the lens of the theory, or theories, we discussed in class on that week?
• A discussion of the primary strength, or strengths, of the articles (yours). Focus on one or two large strengths. What did you like about the study or the article? What were the major successes?
• A discussion primary weakness, or weaknesses, of the article (yours). Focus on one or two large concerns you have. These should be weaknesses that you believe undermine the authors’ ability to draw conclusions about the study.
• A brief description of how the current study could be changed to address these weaknesses (yours). What could they authors have done differently? What should future studies do to make sure they do not have the same weakness?
• How does your article or case specifically relate to the articles I posted, in regards to theories, models, ideas, or topic (yours and mine)?
In addition to the written review, students must assign the article with a score from 1 (extremely weak) to 10 (extremely strong) (mine). Please include your rating somewhere in your review. Make sure that your article review supports the rating and be prepared to justify your rating in class!
Each article review is due on Sunday, the beginning of the week we are covering that topic. The weekly article reviews constitute 70% of the course grade, so please be thoughtful and thorough in your readings and reviews! You are responsible for 7 reviews, regardless of whether or not you are a discussion leader that class.
Reviews will be graded using the attached rubric.
Weekly Article Review:Grading Rubric
Name:_____________________________________________Grade: ______/7
Week #: _________ Articles: _______________________________________________________
• General overview of the article (2 points)
o A concise overview of the article you selected is provided, including a description of the authors’ primary research question and hypotheses (2)
o An overview is provided but does not clearly discuss the main focus and/or hypotheses of the study (1)
o No overview is provided (0)
• Description of the primary theoretical perspective of the article (1 point)
o Reviewdescribes an accurate theoretical perspective and provides evidence of how this theory is present in the article (1)
o Review describes an accurate theoretical perspective but does not provide adequate evidence of how this theory is present in the article (.5)
o No description (or inaccurate description) of a theoretical perspective is included (0)
• Review of the primary strength(s) of the article (.5 point)
o Reviewdiscussesappropriate strengths of the article with a justification of what specifically makes it a strength (.5)
o Reviewdiscusses a relevant strength, but little justification is provided as to what specifically makes it a strength (.3)
o Review misses significant strengths of the research design (.2)
o No critiqueof the research design isincluded (0)
• Review of the primary weakness (es) of the article (.5 point)
o Review discusses appropriate weaknesses of the article with a justification of what specifically makes it a weakness (.5)
o Review discusses a relevant strength, but little justification is provided as to what specifically makes it a weakness. (.3)
o Review misses significant weaknesses of the research design (.2)
o No critiqueof the research design is included (0)
• Constructive suggestions to improvethe article and/or future studies(1 points)
o Review clearly describes constructive ways that the article and/or future studies could address the primary weaknesses (1)
o Review describes constructive ways that the article and/or future studies could improve, but are linked to the primary weaknesses mentioned in the review
o Suggestions for improvement are unclear, vague, or poorly justified
o No constructive suggestions for improvement are provided
• Rating of the overall quality of the articles (.5 point)
o Rating is provided and is appropriate given the strengths and weaknesses that are discussed (.5)
o Rating is provided but is not clearly aligned with the review (.25)
o No rating is provided (0)
• Connections between the articles (1.5 points)
o Connections are clearly articulated and follow a logical deductive rationale (1.5)
o Connections are made, but are incomplete, or illogical (1)
o No connections are made (0)