The effect of the internet on internal knowledge

Assignment 1

How to read research literature critically without falling asleep.

Purpose

The following Two Part assignment is designed to assist students in learning three things: (1) how to read psychological research with a scientific attitude, (2) how to apply the American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines, 6^th ed. (2009) for writing reports, (3) how to find psychology information contained in electronic databases.

Part 1 (11%)

Due: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 – end of class.

1. Read the enclosed article on “How to read research literature critically without falling asleep” (see below).

2. Write a report based on a psychology research paper.

3. Content and Organizational Guidelines.

Title Page. Follow APA (6th ed.) guidelines.

Title. Your title should be of the following format: A review of <“insert article title”> by <insert authors> (<insert year of publication>). For example: A review of “Mutual dreaming” by P. McNamara, L. Dietrich-Egensteiner, and B. Teed (2017).

Comment on each major section of the research paper in relation to the following guidelines:

Introduction. Discuss the general area of the problem and outline the conceptual hypothesis. Provide the experimental hypotheses (predictions) and outline the dependent variables and independent variables related to each experimental hypothesis.

Method. Describe subject population and discuss how they were assigned to the groups and how many were tested. Briefly outline the apparatus and materials used and the procedure (i.e., what did a subject have to do during the experiment or what happened to a subject during the experiment). State the design and indicate whether within or between subject factors were used.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”,serif;}

Results. Provide the operational definitions of the dependent variables. In other words, explain what data was analyzed. State what statistical analyses were performed to test the hypotheses; both summary statistics (means, standard deviations, frequency distributions, etc.) and inferential statistics (t-tests, analysis of variance, chi-square, etc.).

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

Discussion. Discuss the findings relative to the experimental hypotheses and the conceptual hypothesis. Were the hypotheses confirmed or rejected? Be specific.

Provide a final “Summary” section at the end of the discussion and provide answers to each question in Step 2 of the “How to read research literature critically without falling to sleep” paper. Attempt to answer all questions. However, if you do not know an answer or do not understand the question, state so. It is very valuable to know what you don’t know. These gaps in your understanding can be filled only if you know what they are.

References. Include a reference section containing the article you review.

References

American Psychological Association (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6h ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McNamara, P.,Dietrich-Egensteiner, L. and Teed, B. (2017). Mutual Dreaming. Dreaming, Vol. 27, No. 2, 87–101.

How to read research literature critically without falling asleep.

Step 1: Getting to know you.

1. Note, title, author(s), and date.

Usually the title provides some information covering the main focus of the article. For example, a common title frame is: “the effect of ______ on _______.” As you become familiar with an area, you will learn that certain people are associated with certain problems. Hence, names of the authors can help to establish the nature of the report. Dates help localize the framework people are working in.

2. Read the abstract; look at tables and figures.

This overview should give you a sense of the hypothesis or experimental question under consideration, the nature of the independent and dependent variables, the major findings, and perhaps how they relate to current theoretical positions.

3. Read the entire article quickly.

Try to get the gist of the report – what the general area is about, relevant research, the experimental question, the design and basic procedure, the basic results and their implications.

Step 2: Do you believe it?

Having completed the previous step, you are now able to read the research report carefully and critically. Unless you know where, what, when, and how in general, it is very difficult or even impossible to critically read research. Read each section with the following guidelines in mind.

1. Introduction.

The introduction should specify the general area of the problem and should state the conceptual hypothesis. Theory and research relevant to the conceptual hypothesis should be presented developmentally so that it is clear to the reader how the current experiment fits in. The experimental hypothesis (or question) should be raised and the dependent and independent variables introduced and justified.

As a reader you should ask the following types of questions:

a. Is there a clear relationship between the conceptual hypothesis and background research and theory?

b. Are the experimental hypotheses clearly derived from the conceptual hypothesis?

c. Does the logic of the experiment follow from the experimental hypothesis? That is, does the experiment test the hypothesis? Is the selection and definition of the independent and dependent variables logical and precise?

d. Ask yourself about the meaning of various experimental outcomes. If no information is forth coming from a “failure” it is a poor experiment.

e. Can you think of alternative hypotheses, predictions?

f. Are you familiar with other relevant literature? How does the proposal map into your existing knowledge?

2. Method.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

The method should specify the subject population, how they were assigned to the groups and how many were tested. Apparatus and materials should be clearly specified. The procedure should clearly outline what happened to a subject during the experiment. The design should specify the type of independent variables (and levels) manipulated and whether they are within or between subject factors as well as operationally define the dependent variables.

As a reader, you should note:

a. Were the levels of the independent variable well chosen? Why were they chosen? Are there better alternatives?

b. Was the dependent variable sensitive and well chosen? Are there others?

c. How dependent are the results on the materials used? Why were the present stimuli used? What might happen if other materials were used?

d. Was sufficient control exerted over extraneous variables?

e. Was the design appropriate? Can you think of alternatives?

f. Was there confounding at any levels?

3. Results.

The results should tell you precisely what data were analyzed (e.g., how data were scored and how they were prepared for data analysis). The method of the analysis should be clear. Summary statistics should be presented in Tables or Figures, as appropriate, or in the text. Regardless, the data should come first and the analyses provided as a back up to support the conclusions drawn.

As a reader, you should note:

a. How data were scored and analyzed – were the statistical analyses appropriate? Were there other aspects of the data which should have been looked at?

b. What effects were found – were they strong or marginal? Were they in the predicted direction?

c. Were the summary statistics clearly presented in Tables and Figures? Some people are graph-people while others are table-people. Would it help you to look at the data in a different way?

4. Discussion.

The discussion should summarize the results and then tie-in the issues raised in the introduction. New inferences, extensions and/or modifications should be mentioned.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

As a reader, check to see a. The proper inferences are drawn from the data. Can you think of alternative explanations?

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

b. Can other models or theories accommodate the data?

c. Were generalizations at the appropriate level, or should they be more or less restricted?

d. What extensions and/or modifications can you think of which might add to our knowledge?

In essence: Try to get into the author’s research space and ask the type of questions a researcher must ask when beginning an experiment. If you can succeed at this, you will possibly find reading more interesting and definitely more informative.

Contact us

Unique Essays by Expert Writers

Custom Paper Writing Service