The Maldives National University
Faculty of Arts
Research Skills for Language Studies
Assessment Details
5. Assessment of Learning
Objectives
Assessed Assessment
Task Length Weight Due Date Aided/Unaided
2,4,5
Assignment 1:
Article Critique 15% WEEK 6
Aided
1,2,3,4,6,7
Assignment 2:
Research proposal 20% WEEK 12 Aided
2,3,45,6 Assignment 3: Presentatio n 15% WEEK 11 Unaided
1,2,3,4,5,6,
7 Examination Final Exam 50%
Examination Week.
Unaided
Assessment Task 1: Article Critique
Due Date: 25 March 2021 Directions:
Choose an article and briefly summarize and extensively evaluate the attached LANGUAGE research article.
Critique of a Research Article
The goal of this activity is to give you an opportunity to apply whatever you learn in this course in evaluating a research paper.
Warning!!!!
You might have done some article summaries or even critical evaluation of some resources. However, this activity is unique because you evaluate a research article from a methodology perspective. For this assignment you briefly summarize and extensively evaluate the educational research article. This assignment should be done individually. In the summary section, you should write a brief (up to 500 words) summary of the article in your own words. Don’t use copy and paste try to rephrase. This will be a good practice for your final project’s literature review. In the critique section, you evaluate the article using the following grading criteria. Grading criteria for research critique
In your summary, you should identify main elements of the research including
1. Research problem
2. Research goal
3. Hypothesis
4. Research Questions
5. Research Method (briefly explain)
6. Sample (participants)
7. Variables
8. Tools (instruments, tests, surveys)
9. Main findings (brief summary of the results)
10. Conclusion
The critique part should be 2-3 pages (1500 words) and include to the following sections. Your critique should be longer than your summary and you pay special attention to the design and procedure. Your grade on this assignment is based on your answer the following questions.
There is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions. Some questions are relevant to this article some are not. I listed so many questions simply because I’d like you to learn what to look for in evaluating a research article.
The format of your paper should NOT be like a Q & A list. Instead, you should integrate your answers into an essay format similar to the given examples.
Introduction
Problem
1. Is there a statement of the problem?
2. Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?
3. Is background information on the problem presented?
4. Is the significance of the problem discussed?
5. Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
Hypotheses
1. Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?
2. Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?
3. If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
4. Is each hypothesis testable?
Review of Related Literature
1. Is the review comprehensive?
2. Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?
3. Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?
4. Have the references been critically analysed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted,
i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?
5. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?
6. Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?
Method
Subjects
1. Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?
2. If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?
3. Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?
4. Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?
5. Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?
6. Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?
Instruments
1. Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?
2. Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?
3. Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?
4. Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?
5. Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?
6. Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?
7. If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?
8. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?
9. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?
Design and Procedure
1. Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the study?
2. Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?
3. If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?
4. Are the control procedures described?
5. Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?
Results
1. Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?
2. Was the probability level, a, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated, specified in advance of the data analyses?
3. If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the required assumptions for parametric tests?
4. Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the study?
5. Was every hypothesis tested?
6. Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?
7. Are the results clearly presented?
8. Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?
9. Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?
Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)
1. Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?
2. Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results obtained by other researchers in other studies?
3. Are generalizations consistent with the results?
4. Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?
5. Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?
6. Are recommendations for future action made?
7. Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical significance only,
i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical significance?
8. Are recommendations for future research made?
Make sure that you cover the following questions in your critique even if you have already covered them in your SUMMARY.
1. Is the research important? Why?
2. In your own words what methods and procedures were used? Evaluate the methods and procedures.
3. Evaluate the sampling method and the sample used in this study.
4. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.
5. What type of research is this? Explain.
6. How was the data analysed?
7. What is (are) the major finding(s)? Are these findings important?
8. What are your suggestions to improve this research?
Word limit (where applicable): 1500 Value: