Follow instructions on the attached documents, and use the article provided. Below is the instructions for the journal article, I’m not sure if attached as a document so here it is!
Journal Article Reviews (JARs)
What are Journal Article Reviews?
Journal Article Reviews (JARs) are short summary papers of published scientific journal articles in psychology that Psych 302 students write as a requirement for the course in all sections of Psych 302. During this semester you are asked to read and write reviews on 3 research review articles. The purpose of the JARs is to give you experience in reading, understanding, and summarizing scholarly journal articles as part of your education in psychology. The 3 JARs assignments are worth 100 points (33 points per each JAR) out of a total of 100 points possible for your course grade. Your 15 quiz scores count 300 points (15 quizzes X 20 points per quiz) for your course grade.
Instructions for Writing the Journal Article Reviews
The 3 articles you will read must come from a set of 15 articles contained in a folder on this courses UNM Learn website (see folder: 15 Journal Articles). These 15 research articles come from the journal Psychological Science and cover a broad set of areas in psychology (developmental, clinical, cognitive, social, and neuroscience). Each of your reviews must follow a specific format (described below) and the reviews must be submitted through UNM Learn assignments.
There will be a separate UNM Learn assignment for each of the 3 reviews. Not all of the assignments will be immediately available because we do not want you to do JARs #2 and JARs #3 until you have completed and had graded the previous JARs assignments.
At the present time, you should be able to see the first assignment (Journal Article Review 1). Each Journal Article Review assignment should be available for submission at least 7 days before the assignment is actually due. Please note that after the due date has passed, the UNM Learn assignment tool for that review will be removed. At that point a 2nd UNM Learn assignment tool will appear with the same title plus the word Late (e.g., Journal Article Review 1 Late). Please note that this tool will appear for everyone even if you submitted your review on time. If you did submit your review on time, simply ignore the late assignment tool. If you did not submit it on time, then this is your opportunity to turn in a late review. The late assignment tool will remain available for 4 days. You will be docked 6 points for each day you are late in submitting your review. No papers will be accepted after being 4 days late that is, after the late assignment tool disappears.
The due dates for each of the 3 JARs assignments are shown on the most recent version of your course syllabus posted on UNM Learn. You may submit your reviews before the deadline but not until the assignment tool appears on UNM Learn 7 days before it is due, but once you submit your review through the UNM Learn assignment tool for grading you can NOT retrieve it NOR may you submit a revised JAR.
The first review is the most difficult for all students because you are unsure exactly what you should do and how to do it. You should write your reviews using WORD. WORD can tell you how many words are in the complete document and also how many words are in each section (by highlighting the section and then selecting the word count option in the REVIEW menu). Once you have written your review, have revised it (ALL writing should be revised, usually more than once), and determined that each section has the right number of words, you can then copy and paste your review into the submission text box that will become available when you click on the UNM Learn assignment. Once you copy your review in the submission box, check it over in the web browser to ensure that everything got copied correctly.
Journal Article Review (JAR) Format
Each review is to be a 900 word summary of each journal article you read.
Follow this format carefully (do not omit sections and do not omit answers to questions):
Title (exactly as it appears in the article)
Introduction (300 words ± 20 words)
? What was the general topic of this article?
? What did previous research show?
? What was the goal of this particular study?
? What specific hypotheses were to be tested?
? What was the rationale for the hypothesis?
Methods (150 words ± 20 words)
? What type of research design was used?
? Who were the participants in the study?
? How were the data collected?
Results (150 words ± 20 words)
? What statistical tests were performed?
? What were the outcomes or results of the statistical tests?
Discussion (300 words ± 20 words)
? Were the hypotheses supported or refuted?
? What specific findings were reported?
? What was the general conclusion of the article?
? What were some strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Please separate each of the 4 sections with a blank line.
JARs must be prepared in WORD and a final draft then cut and pasted into Learn.
JARs must be submitted electronically through UNM Learn (see instructions below).
No hardcopy JARs submissions will be accepted for any reason.
Journal Article Review (JAR) Grading Rubric
Each of your journal article reviews is worth 20 points. Points will be assigned based on how accurately and clearly your review answers the questions asked under the 4 sections listed above. Please follow the guidelines for number of words carefully. If the number of words in your review deviates more than plus or minus 20 words from any section the stated number of words you may lose points. The following table shows a rubric that explains in detail how points will be assigned to each section of your review. Please note that late reviews will be docked 6 points per each day it is late. If your paper is late, it will be graded normally and then the 6 points per day will be subtracted from the total points you earned. JARs papers will NOT be accepted after 4 days late.
Grading Rubric (guideline for students rubric will not be returned to you):
9 points: All 5 issues are clearly & thoroughly addressed
7: All 3 issues are clearly & thoroughly addressed (design, participants, data collection)
7: Tests and outcomes are clearly & thoroughly described
10: All 4 issues are
clearly & thoroughly addressed
6: Most questions are clearly answered
with 1 or 2 exceptions
5: Weak treatment
of one of the issues
(e.g., sample is incompletely described)
5: Weak treatment
of one of the 2 issues
6: Most questions are clearly answered,
with one major weakness or
2 minor problems
3: One or more issues completely unaddressed, or most questions incompletely covered
2: Weak treatment of all 3 topics or missing treatment of 1 or 2 issues
2: Weak treatment of both issues or missing treatment of one issue
3: One or more issues completely unaddressed, or most questions incompletely covered
0: Poor or absent coverage
0: Poor or absent coverage
0: Poor or absent coverage
0: Poor or absent coverage
Some Important Dos and Donts in Writing your JARS
1. Read instructions carefully before beginning work on the JARS. Make sure to follow the instructions carefully. Begin work on each JAR at least a week in advance of its due date. Set each completed draft of a JAR aside for at least 24 hours, and then revise it carefully as needed. It WILL need revision!
More than one revision may be necessary. ALL good writers revise what they write.
2. Keep an eye on the word?counts, put blank lines between the sections, include the title of the article, do NOT use quotes from the article, copy and paste your text into the submission box, and check the formatting in the submission box before you submit.
3. You lose a lot of points quickly for lateness. Submit your JAR early enough that you have time to deal with any computer issues that may come up at the last minute.
4. Make sure you answer each of the required questions in the appropriate section of your JAR.
They do NOT have to be answered in order, but they DO have to be in the correct section.
5. Check your spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. Your JAR should appear and sound professional, and your writing should be at university level quality.
Some Tips and Hints
1. Read the article abstract first because it describes the most important points of the article. You will probably want to read the abstract of each of the 15 article to decide on which 3 articles you wish to submit JARs on based on YOUR interest in the topic of the research in the articles.
2. Always keep your audience in mind when you are writing. The audience for a review like this is someone who has not read the article. Your goal is to clearly explain the article to someone who has not read it. That means you should not refer to figures or tables in the article, instead you should explain the information they contain (if it is important). It also means that you have to make sure to get the main ideas across clearly. A good way to test yourself on this is to ask a friend to read your JAR after you complete it. If your friend is able to explain the gist of the article to you after reading your review, you have probably done a good job of summarizing it.
3. The JARs have precise word limits, making the JARs good practice for you in identifying the
main points of an issue or argument. As you read, think about the job that the author intended each sentence to perform. For example one sentence might be there to stimulate the interest of the reader. Another sentence might explain how previous research links a particular theory with the measure that will be used in the study. The 1st can probably be excluded from your JAR. The information in the 2nd will likely be essential to understanding the measure being used in the study and the implications of the results, so you need to include that information in your JAR.
4. One way to identify essential information is to look for elements that carry through multiple sections. For example, the hypotheses will be described in the Introduction. Hypotheses also may (or may not) pop up in the Methods. The tests of the hypotheses will be included in the Results (though they may not be labeled as such, but it is up to you to identify them). Then hypotheses will re?appear in the Discussion when they are discussed in the context of the results. If the Introduction indicates that some theory will be tested, that theory is going to appear again in the Discussion. Look for consistent elements like these that carry through multiple sections.
5. Give yourself plenty of time with these papers. You will probably want to read the article multiple times, possibly over multiple days, and you will also want to review and revise a draft of your JAR at least a day after you write it. You may need to revise it more than once.
6. The sections in the article may not always correspond perfectly with the sections in your JAR. For
example, some authors include the method of their statistical analysis (i.e. the statistical tests they will use) in the Methods section. You have been asked to indicate the statistical tests in the Results section, not the Methods. Make sure you put information in the correct section, no matter where it appears in the article.
7. Authors often give overlapping information across sections because some readers may only be reading one or a few sections, depending on their goal. A scientist who wants to understand the theory behind a study and the implications of the results, but who is not interested in the particular methods or data, will read only the Introduction and Discussion. A reader who already knows the background and just wants to know how the study came out may read only the Discussion. For the sake of these readers authors often include a summary of the methods in the Introduction, a review of the predictions in the Discussion, etc. Your review is a short summary, and you can assume the whole summary will be read. Therefore, while you will want to tie together the sections, you will want to avoid much redundancy in your review whenever possible.
8. You do not need to copy the order in which the authors presented information. Sometimes you will find that it makes more sense to organize a section differently than the authors did. However the authors presumably had a reason for the organization that they used. If their order is the most logical, you can stick with it, but if not, feel free to adjust the order of information you put in each section of your summary.
9. Make sure to read any comments your grader gives you and adjust your approach accordingly in your future JARs. If you do not understand something in your JARs feedback, email and ask me a question about it.
Specific Advice on Writing the Sections of your JARs
The purpose of this section is to introduce the article reader to the research question. This section should tell something like a story that culminates with the hypotheses. A format for this section that seems to work well is to start with a single sentence or two that broadly introduces the topic of the article. Next briefly review the previous literature, and then describe the study goals and the hypotheses. Make sure you have explained the authors rationale for the hypotheses. The precise format for the Introduction will vary for different articles, but generally it will begin with some question of interest that has been addressed by previous research, explain why that previous research does not answer the questions satisfactorily, and then explain how the present study will remedy situation. The Introduction may also include justification for particular measures or methods, comparisons of competing theories, or reasons for being concerned with the research question. The review of previous research will give the background information. The goal is the broad aim of the study (e.g., compare theory A with theory B; demonstrate that C affects D, etc.). The hypotheses are specific predictions about how the data will come out in this particular study. Some articles will have directional hypotheses (X is expected to increase when Y happens) and others will be less specific (X is expected to be related to Y). The rationale for the hypotheses will generally flow directly from the review of the literature. For example if the theory of X says that X should increase when Y happens, and previous research suggests that Z is a good measure of X, then the hypothesis would be that Z will increase when Y happens. The rationale then is that X should theoretically increase with Y and Z is a measure of X, and the goal is to support the theory of X. The Introduction should be written as though the study has not yet been performed, so do not include any findings from the present study in your summary of the Introduction. The only reason you should give details of the methods in your introduction is if they are necessary to understand the hypotheses. Otherwise save them for the Methods.
Do not forget to indicate the research design! A general format that works well for the Methods is to start with the design, then describe the participants, and to finish with describing the procedures and measures. When describing the participants, make sure to include the sample size and relevant information about the population they were drawn from. Other information (such as mean age, selection criteria, or recruiting method) may also be important, but it will not always be necessary to describe in your summary. When deciding whether to summarize certain information about the participants, think about whether it is essential to understand what is going on in the study. If the participants are all psychiatric patients, you should usually say so, but it will usually be much less important to include the name of the facility where they are being treated. It can be assumed that proper protections of human research rights were observed, and you do not need to report that participants gave informed consent, were debriefed, etc. Remember, this is a summary, and you cannot include everything.
The procedures should give the reader a clear picture of what the participants saw, did, or went through during the study. Some details may be reported in the article so that others can reproduce the study, but those details may not be essential to understanding the point of the experimental manipulation. You will want to skim over, or skip, less essential details and focus on the elements of the procedure that are necessary to understand the results. That means you need to describe how the data in the results were collected, such as including information about observer ratings, questionnaires completed, physiological measures, etc.
The type of statistical test, statistics per se, and other information can often be found in graphs and tables. Do not neglect examining those. The things reported at the beginning of a Results section are usually less important than things reported later. For example inter?rater reliabilities, manipulation checks, tests for potential confounding variables, etc. are not essential pieces of information and can generally be minimized or skipped in your summary. When deciding what to report in detail, go back to the hypotheses and report the tests of those hypotheses. Make sure you include the direction of the effect (where relevant). For example it is not enough to say there was a significant difference between groups, but you must also say which group scored higher.
Indicate which statistical test was used to find which result. For example instead of saying correlations and t tests were used. There was a relationship between . . . . say something like The test of the correlation between X and Y was significant and the relationship was positive. To compare the group means on variable Z, t tests were used . . . . When discussing ANOVAs make sure to indicate the dependent variable as well as the independent variables. Be careful, when there is more than one dependent variable, because there will often be a separate ANOVA for each. Be clear that different ANOVAs were conducted on different DVs.
The Discussion section is where the theories referred to in the Introduction come together with the Results to tell us something about the world. This section should begin with a review of how the results relate to the hypotheses. Go through each prediction in the Introduction and say which results bear on it, whether the hypothesis was supported, and what that result tells us about the world. Any findings that you talk about in the discussion should have been reported in the results. This section will generally include some implication of the findings (i.e., what do they mean for our understanding of psychology?). Make sure to include the general conclusion, or the main point. Do not forget to say something about strengths and weaknesses. The authors might have mentioned some, or they might not. You are looking for weaknesses in the study itself. Examples include a poor study method that does not really get directly at the research question (or a particularly good method that answers it better than other studies have), failure to consider possible alternative explanations for the effect that was detected (or methods that differentiate well between competing explanations), failure to consider possible confounding variables (or a good job identifying potential confounds). Poor writing or use of confusing statistical tests are not weaknesses of the study (though use of inappropriate tests for the data would be). Getting results that are consistent with previous research is not a strength.
Journal Article Reviews and Plagiarism
Its important when youre writing your JARs only to submit your own work. That is, you must not plagiarize other current or past students or the article itself. In past semesters some students appear to have misunderstood what constitutes plagiarism. It is critical that you know what plagiarism is and to avoid it at all costs. Copying reviews (in part or all) from your current classmates or from previous students who have taken this course is strictly forbidden. Doing so will result in my reporting such unethical actions to the Dean of Students. Any JAR submission that includes all or part of another students review is plagiarism. Finally, the journal article reviews are to be done individually. You may NOT work on this assignment with others in the class. The purpose of doing JARs is to help you learn about psychological journal articles, and only by doing the work yourself will that occur. In addition, plagiarism is unfair to all the other students who do their own work.
When you summarize a journal article it is inevitable that you will include some of the terms or phrases that the author used in the original article. Plagiarism goes beyond this and includes copying sentences or even paragraphs straight out of the article. A general rule is never to use more than five words in succession from an article that you are reviewing. If you do, it could be viewed as plagiarism. Also, simply reordering the words from someone elses sentence could still constitute plagiarism. To help avoid this for the JARs, you are NOT allowed to quote from the article itself, even if you use quotation marks.
A good strategy for writing your reviews is to read the article with the questions in mind that you need to answer and then take notes in your own words, sketching out the answers to the questions. Then you write your review from your notes rather than the article itself. Then after fully drafting your JAR, you can go back to the article to check the accuracy and completeness of what you wrote.
Plagiarism means taking credit for the expressed work and ideas of another. People usually think of it as putting our name on someone elses paper, or using someones ideas without crediting them. But, it means more than that. Using someones words even in a single sentence in a given context, without giving them credit for having written them, is also plagiarism. Even if you give someone credit for their ideas by citing them, you still have to find your own way of getting those ideas across. You can NOT use the exact words of the original author. The exception is, of course, if you quote the author, BUT you are NOT allowed to use quotes in your JARs. Instead you must put the ideas you want to express into your own words. This is good practice for you and it also allows us to assess your comprehension.
Sometimes there are only so many ways to say something how do you know if you have crossed the line into plagiarism? One rule of thumb is to never use more than 5 words in a row straight from the article. This is a useful guide, but it is NOT sufficient to ensure that you are NOT plagiarizing. It is also unacceptable to simply re?order the authors words or to switch out one or two words with synonyms. You must actually find your own individual way of expressing the idea that does NOT imitate the authors precise way of expressing it.
Below is an example of plagiarism and non-plagiarism using a sentence from one of the articles:
Original Sentence: Images taken during each of the three main tasks (categorization, individuation, visual search) were analyzed separately in three two?tailed paired t tests comparing trials with Black faces and trials with White faces.
An example of plagiarism would be: Images made during each of the three tasks were
analyzed individually using paired, two?tailed t tests comparing trials with black faces versus white faces. Even though there are no instances of five consecutive, identical words, this is still plagiarism.
An acceptable paraphrase would be The effect of race?of?face on the images was looked at separately for each of the three tasks with two?tailed, paired t tests. Better yet, instead of trying to paraphrase single sentences one at a time, work on describing the bigger picture in your own words.
Note: What are the consequences of plagiarism? The first offense is the loss of all the 33 points for that review. On the second offense you lose all 100 points possible for all the JARs and also risk expulsion from the course and my reporting of the transgression to the UNM Dean of Students.