For this option, you need to find five primary research articles, all on a related topic. AT LEAST four must be focused on reporting new research; one can be a review article although these are much harder to summarize and cannot be one of the papers you critically review.
The basic assignment here is to write a 2 page summary (10, 11, or 12 pt, 1.5 line space) of each article and a critical scientific review of two of them. The reviews will be 2 pages each. YOU MUST TURN IN HARD COPIES OF ALL FIVE PAPERS WHEN YOU TURN IN YOUR SUMMARIES AND REVIEWS.
SUMMARIES (50%) should explain what the study was about and why it was done, what hypotheses were tested and the basic approach. What was the experimental design, and what methods were used. Summarize the kind of results and how the data were presented.
Then explain what the authors found, and what the authors thought the results meant.
For papers that are difficult for you, XC (up to 10% total grade) may be earned by attaching a glossary to each (or any) summary, defining terms or methods that you had to look up to understand the paper.
CRITICAL REVIEW (50%) – After summarizing the papers, choose two to critically review. The critical review should be written in an essay format and evaluate the paper as a contrition to the scientific literature. Things to consider are:
Is the title appropriate? Does the paper deliver’ on what you expected from the title?
Is the abstract complete, and are the summary points made in the abstract supported in the paper? Are there import and components of the paper that are left out of the abstract?
Does the paper provide adequate background information to establish a good reason for doing the research?
Are the goals of the research clearly stated?
Is the research appropriate for meeting the goals and testing the hypotheses as stated in the introduction?
Are the results communicated clearly? Are statements in the text about the results supported in graphs and figures?
Examine graphs and data tables, are there trends or results that you notice that are not mentioned in the text? Why not? Should they be? Would they change any of the conclusions or other statements the authors have made?
Does the discussion/conclusion sections follow logically from the results?
Does the discussion/conclusion explain whether the results falsify or support the initial hypotheses, or answer the initial question?
Does the discussion/conclusion aIDress the significance of the research for the bigger questions raised in the introduction?
Are there other implications of the paper you think the authors should have mentioned?