E-mail Instructor

U of A Web Site

Dept. of Psychology

In this short paper you are to critically analyze and interpret the theory, methodology, results, and interpretation of a research article from the field of learning and behaviour.

There are several pedagogical goals motivating this assignment. First, it will expose you to the process of critically reading a scientific journal article. Journal articles are the primary means by which scientists communicate with one another. If you continue on in the sciences you will spend a great deal of time reading journal articles. It sounds cliche, but the sooner you start reading journal articles with an eye towards considering the validity of the authors' conclusions, the easier and more productive you will be in the long run. Incidentally, even if you are not planning on continuing in the sciences, the ability to evaluate a journal article critically is of great use. People tend to be overly trustful of statements made by "authority" figures. While the majority of scientists do not purposefully attempt to "quote dupe" the public, occasionally errors are made in research. More often other people (generally those without a background in science) incorrectly interpret or paraphrase a researcher's work. If you know how to read a scientific paper critically you can go directly to the source and determine for yourself the accuracy of a statement.

The second purpose of this assignment is to give you an opportunity to practice your writing skills. With the growth and development of computer based communication systems more and more employers are expecting a higher level of writing competence in the people they hire.

A third goal is to expose you to original research articles. Several of the articles selected for this assignment are pivotal papers from the field of learning and behaviour. By necessity, textbooks can only summarize research results. No matter how good the text, something is invariably lost in the process.

Articles

Copies of several articles have been placed on reserve at the Cameron Library Reserve Room. Select one of these articles to write your paper on. I recommend that you read through all of the articles before making your final selection.

To get a copy of the papers, go the the reserve desk and ask for items A436, A437, A438, and A439. This will provide you with one copy of each of the papers for your review.

The four articles are:

• Seligman, M.E.P. and Maier, S.F. (1967) Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74: 1-9.
• Skinner, B.F. (1948) 'Superstition' in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38: 168-172.
• Spelt, D.K. (1948) The conditioning of the human fetus in utero. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38: 338-346.
• Watson, J.B. and Rayner, R. (1920) Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3: 1-14.

Using a twelve-point font with one inch margins, your paper should have an upper length of about three pages (and be no less than two; aim for something in the 750-1000 word range). Your paper must be typewritten for it to be accepted.

Evaluation

Your paper will be evaluated for both form and content. About 25% of the grade will be allocated to style, sentence construction, grammar, spelling, etc. The remaining 75% will be devoted to your critique (i.e., depth of analysis, appropriateness, support for your arguments, etc.).

Assessing the Article

Here are a few (but by no means all) of the things to look for when critically evaluating a research article. Is the purpose of the research adequately explained?. Was there a theory that was being tested? Did the author(s) notice some gap in previous knowledge that required experimental validation? Was the research an attempt to replicate an earlier experiment? Do the methods provide you with enough information to duplicate the research if you wanted to? Are there any obvious flaws, such as lack of controls, extraneous variables, placebo effects, chances for distortion in self-report, demand characteristics, or sampling and experimenter bias? Think about what you would change if you could, but also keep in mind the reasons why certain procedures were carried out in the way that they were (e.g., cost, availability of subjects, space and time constraints, etc.). Is there sufficient analysis of the experimental data? How are the results presented? In graphs, statistics, tables? Does the author incorrectly draw inferences about the results? Is there a test or comparison that you think should have been carried out but wasn't? Were the results significant? Was the appropriate statistical analysis conducted? Is the research reliable and valid? What conclusions are discussed? Are the conclusions justified? Can the research be fit into a theoretical context? Does the work advance the field of study? Can more research be derived from it? Remember that critiques need not only focus on the negative; also be aware of those things that are done particularly well by the author(s).

Writing the Paper

Do not summarizethe article in your paper, but do ensure that you identify which article you are critiquing. What else you do with the paper is largely up to you. Keep in mind that a critical review paper doesn't have to be entirely negatively critical. It doesn't have to be negative at all, really. If you are reviewing the perfect article, the most brilliant article that has ever been written, the article that sets the standards for all other articles to follow, then say this. Scientists read articles not only for the information they contain about the results, but also to get ideas about how to conduct research of their own. However, ensure that you fully support whatever positions, claims, accusations, praise, etc. you make.

One grammatical note: "its" is the personal possessive of "it", whereas "it\rquote s" is the contraction of "it is". Do not confuse these two similar words. Also, it is generally considered bad form to use contractions in formal papers.