critical review Social Psychology Critical Review
OVERVIEW The assessment involves you writing a critical review on this key paper in Social Psychology:
Suizzo, M. A., Robinson, C., & Pahlke, E. (2008). African American Mothers’ Socialization Beliefs and Goals With Young Children: Themes of History, Education, and
Collective Independence. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 287-317
A critical review is made of 2 elements, a summary of the paper and a critical evaluation of the paper.
GENERAL CRITERIA The summary (approximately 500 words) should contain a brief synopsis of the aims, methodologies, and outcomes of the paper. It should be
accurate, concise, and clear. A reader who is unfamiliar with the area should, upon reading the summary, understand the purpose and outcomes of the study, without
recourse to other materials. It should not just be a lengthier regurgitation of the original abstract. There are two assessment criteria within this section,
accounting for 1/3 of the marks:
• Topic & focus
• Method & findings
The critical evaluation (approximately 1000 words) is the student’s own evaluation of the paper. This can include, for example, evaluating the theoretical development
of the study, the methodology or results. There are two criteria within this section, accounting for 2/3’s of the marks:
• Strengths & limitations
• Recommendations
A good critique of the paper should:
(a) Provide some indication that the student has clearly read and understood every section of the paper
(b) Demonstrate evidence of critical reflection and thought: The synopsis should not simply comprise a description of the paper.
(c) Indicate why the paper is strong or weak through reasoned arguments
(d) Comprise recommendations for how the research study (or presentation of the study) might be improved.
(e) Provide detailed justification of named strengths, weaknesses and recommendations with reference to empirical research and examples wherever possible/relevant.
(f) Demonstrate knowledge of related research (by citing additional published papers accurately).
NB. Please note that a good critical review should follow a logical and systematic structure, have appropriate use of paragraphs and punctuation, and should cite
references accurately and according to APA format. The title should be the complete reference of the article you are reviewing in APA format.
ADVICE A good critical review shows evidence of:
• Understanding of the topic, concepts and claims made in the paper
• Critical evaluation (not necessarily negative, but analytical)
• Good structure, organisation and clear written expression of ideas
The following are some points for you to consider whilst reading the paper and writing your review:
1. The details of the paper – Author (s), title, date of publication, type of publication (journal paper, book chapter, report, etc.).
Note this should be the title of your critical review in full APA format
Summary
2. What is the topic and focus of the paper?
• Brief background and rationale (with reference to previous work)
• Aims and hypotheses
3. What is the methodology used?
• Sample (size, demographic)
• Design (longitudinal, cross-sectional, laboratory, questionnaire, observational?)
• Procedure/measures used
4. What were the main findings and conclusions?
• Concise summary of key findings (think about overall ‘take home’ message within the paper)
• Authors conclusion
Critical Evaluation
5. Being critical and evaluating the paper
Critical reading and writing requires being analytical, not taking what is written at face value, and going beyond mere description. When writing critically you can
note your own opinion, but it is crucial that you distinguish facts from opinion. You need to create reasoned arguments backed up with empirical evidence or examples
where possible. Aspects you can consider in a critical analysis are:
• Is the background presented a fair reflection of the literature?
• Is the topic and focus clear?
• Were the methods used appropriate? Pro’s/con’s?
• Was an appropriate sample used?
• Were the findings clear?
• Did they use the appropriate statistical tests?
• Are there any confounding variables they have not considered?
• Were conclusions valid or is there another way to interpret findings?
• Was the study reliable and valid?
• What are the implications? Are they weak/strong?
• How could the study be improved? And why?
• What evidence is there to back up your critique and recommendations?
FEEDBACK You will receive feedback based on the University’s 2Q system. That is, there will be comments about the extent to which you met the criteria for the
essay and what you could do to improve. At the same time, there will be a detailed indication on the Turnitin Grademark rubric about how well you have done in each
part of the essay based on the general criteria below. The rubric is for guidance and feedback; it does NOT indicate accurately what your overall grade will be.
SUPPORT Staff have office hours to provide students with support and clarification of feedback. If you have queries about the assignments please make use of them.
SUBMISSION Submission is in electronic format only. You do NOT need to submit a hard copy. Only the electronic version will be marked.
SUBMISSION DATE Monday 18th August 2014
GENERAL CRITERIA F/F- E D C B A
TOPIC & FOCUS
Indentified the topic and focus of the paper. Summarized the aims and hypotheses.
The topic of the paper was not identified and the focus was vague. The aims and hypotheses were not stated. The topic and focus of the paper was vague and
lacked clarity. There is little or no demonstration of an understanding of the topic. Aims and hypotheses may be missing or lack accuracy. The topic and focus
have been broadly defined. There may be some irrelevant or inaccurate information presented. Aims and hypotheses are identified but lack clarity. The topic,
focus, aims and hypotheses are generally accurately defined but lack clarity and conciseness. Key elements may be missing and some lack of understanding and inaccuracy
may be evident. The topic, focus, aims and hypotheses are accurately defined but there is some lack clarity and conciseness. The topic, focus, aims and
hypotheses of the paper were clearly, accurately and concisely defined. It is clear that the topic has been understood.
METHOD & FINDINGS
Accurately described the methodology and main findings. Key methodological points not identified or well described. Results not clearly or accurately summarized. Very
little evidence of understanding. Mostly made up of material that is not obviously relevant and/or key results and methodological points are missing. There is
little evidence of understanding. Evidence that some aspects of the methodology and results have not been clearly understood or parts are irrelevant and/or
missing.
Summary lacks clarity and conciseness. The methodology described is mostly relevant and accurate. There is evidence that the method and results have largely been
understood. Key results are identified but may lack clarity. There may still be features that are missing or unclear. The method and results have generally been
clearly and accurately described; including most of the relevant points.
All relevant points of the methodology and results have described accurately, clearly and concisely.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS
Identified the main strengths and limitations of the paper. Backed up by reasoned arguments and/or empirical evidence where possible.
No attempt was made to identify the strengths or limitations of the paper. There is no reasoned argument or evidence. Very few strengths or weaknesses
identified. There is little or no development of reasoned argument and/or use of empirical evidence. Few strengths and weaknesses identified. There is little or no
development of reasoned argument and/or use of empirical evidence.
Need to strengthen argument and include or expand on evidence. Some strengths and weaknesses have been identified.
Need to show greater development and clarity in your arguments and expand on the evidence presented. The key strengths & limitations of the paper were identified.
Most of these have been clearly explained with reference to empirical evidence where relevant.
Argument may lack clarity at times. Evidence not always integrated well with critical evaluation. The key strengths & limitations of the paper were identified,
clearly explained and backed up by reasoned arguments and/or empirical evidence from primary sources.
Excellent clarity of argument & expression; illustrated well with examples/evidence.
Excellent integration of a range of evidence with critical evaluation.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Provided reasonable and valid suggestions for improvements to the study, backed up by empirical evidence and examples where relevant. No reasonable suggestions for
improvement were made Very few suggestions were made. Suggestions lack clarity and justification. There is no use of empirical evidence to support ideas. Some
suggestions were made but these lack clarity and justification. There is little or no reference to relevant empirical evidence. Some valid suggestions were
made. Justification lacked clarity and/or there was limited use of empirical evidence to support claims. A range of valid suggestions were made and
predominantly justified. Some relevant empirical evidence was cited to support ideas. A range of valid suggestions were made and justified throughout with reference
to relevant empirical evidence or examples where relevant.
CITATIONS AND REFERENCES.
You should include citations for all information in correct APA format. Each citation should have a corresponding reference in the reference section. The Reference
section should not have references that were not cited in the text.
Very poor referencing or Citations and References have been almost entirely omitted. You have included some citations and referencing. You have included
information with either incorrect or no citations or have not used APA formatting correctly. There are some errors evident within your in-text citations and
reference list. APA format may be incorrect. Your referencing is generally fine but there are some errors. Your referencing is generally good with few errors
although there are some minor ones. Well done.
Correct APA format references both in text and in your reference list
ENGLISH (spelling, grammar, paragraph structure, punctuation).
Your essay should be written in grammatical English allowing a clear flow of argument the reader can readily understand. The English is very hard to follow
making the essay often very difficult to understand. Please seek help from the Professional and Academic Development Team to help improve. Spelling, grammar
and/or paragraphing are poor. Please seek help from the Professional and Academic Development Team to help improve. You need to work on aspects of English
expression. Make sure you check spellings, punctuation, grammar and argument structure (e.g. paragraphing). You could seek help from the Professional and Academic
Development Team to help improve. Your English expression is generally fine but there are some errors or clumsy expressions here and there. Could be improved by
better proof-reading and editing. English expression is generally good with only a few glitches. Your English expression is excellent.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂