critiquing research paper – exclusivewritings.com

View one of the webinar videos from the learning activities and answer these questions. This must be in narrative format, not in numerical list format.

  1. Title of the research presentation.
  2. What was the research problem? Is the research problem clear and easy to understand?
  3. What was the research question? Is the research question clear and easy to understand?
  4. Did the researcher present any hypotheses? If so, what were they? If not, is that OK?
  5. Was the relationship between the identified problem and previous research clear?
  6. Did the presenter give an overview of his/her literature review? Was it relevant and were current articles used?
  7. Were any gaps in the research identified? If so, what were they?
  8. What was the study design of the research? Was it appropriate?
  9. What was the sampling method used?
  10. What was the sampling size? Was it adequate?
  11. Were the independent and dependent variables defined? What were they?
  12. What was the data collection method used? Was it appropriate for this study?
  13. Overall, did the presentation provide the viewer with a clear understanding of the research and the findings? Please explain.

This paper should be 3-4 pages, not including title page. You do not need to include references or citations in this paper.

Competencies:
1. Select quantitative and qualitative data collection methods appropriate for a given public health context.
3. Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy, or practice.

Learning Objective:
1. Evaluate a research presentation.

Core Professional Attributes:
1. ATSU: Critical Thinking

Rubric

M6 Critiquing Research Paper Rubric

M6 Critiquing Research Paper Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of the research webinar viewed

1.0 pts

A

Student accurately identified the webinar

0.0 pts

F

Student did not accurately identify the webinar

1.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch problem

6.0 to >5.39 pts

A

Student provides a clear and thorough identification of analysis of the research problem presented; if no research problem is presented, this is clearly noted.

5.39 to >4.79 pts

B

Student provides identification and analysis of the research problem presented; this could be more clear; if no research problem is presented, this is briefly noted.

4.79 to >4.19 pts

C

Student provides identification and a cursory analysis of the research problem presented; more clarity and depth needs to be conveyed to the reader; if no research problem is presented, this is briefly, but perhaps unclearly, noted.

4.19 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to provide identification and analysis of the research problem presented, or the research problem presented is incorrectly identified and/or analyzed.

6.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch question

6.0 to >5.39 pts

A

Student provides a clear and thorough identification of analysis of the research question presented; if no research question is presented, this is clearly noted.

5.39 to >4.79 pts

B

Student provides identification and analysis of the research question presented; this could be more clear; if no research question is presented, this is briefly noted.

4.79 to >4.19 pts

C

Student provides identification and a cursory analysis of the research question presented; more clarity and depth needs to be conveyed to the reader; if no research question is presented, this is briefly, but perhaps unclearly, noted.

4.19 to >0 pts

F

Student provides identification and a cursory analysis of the research question presented; more clarity and depth needs to be conveyed to the reader; if no research question is presented, this is briefly, but perhaps unclearly, noted.

6.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHypotheses

8.0 to >7.19 pts

A

Student correctly notes whether or not hypotheses were presented; student clearly identifies the hypotheses and/or if no hypotheses were presented, student clearly and concisely defends his/her position on whether or not this is acceptable.

7.19 to >6.39 pts

B

Student correctly notes whether or not hypotheses were presented; student identifies the hypotheses; if no hypotheses were presented, student takes a position on whether or not this is acceptable, but his/her position is not well supported

6.39 to >5.59 pts

C

Student correctly notes whether or not hypotheses were presented; student provides a cursory identification of the hypotheses, and/or if no hypotheses were presented, student provides only superficial support for his/her position on whether or not this is acceptable

5.59 to >0 pts

F

Student incorrectly notes whether or not hypotheses were presented; and/or does not correctly identify the hypotheses; and/or does not provide support for his/her position on missing hypotheses

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClarity of relationship between problem and previous research

8.0 to >7.19 pts

A

Student provides a thorough discussion of the clarity between the identified problem and previous research

7.19 to >6.39 pts

B

Student provides a discussion of the clarity between the identified problems and previous research; this discussion could be more complete

6.39 to >5.59 pts

C

Student provides a cursory discussion of the clarity between the identified problems and previous research

5.59 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to provide a discussion of the clarity between the identified problems and previous research; or the discussion provided is incomplete or inaccurate

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLiterature review

5.0 to >4.49 pts

A

Student provides a thorough discussion of the literature review, including its inclusion in the presentation and an analysis of its relevancy and currency

4.49 to >3.99 pts

B

Student provides a discussion of the literature review, including its inclusion in the presentation and an analysis of its relevancy and currency; this discussion could be more clear or complete

3.99 to >3.49 pts

C

Student provides a cursory discussion of the literature review, including its inclusion in the presentation and an analysis of its relevancy and currency; This discussion does not demonstrate critical thinking

3.49 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to provide a discussion of the literature review and its relevancy and currency; or the discussion provided is inaccurate

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of gaps in the research

8.0 to >7.19 pts

A

Student clearly and accurately identifies any and all gaps in the research

7.19 to >6.39 pts

B

Student identifies most gaps in the research

6.39 to >5.59 pts

C

Student identifies some gaps in the research

5.59 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to correctly identify gaps in the research

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudy design

8.0 to >7.19 pts

A

Student clearly and accurately identifies the study design and discusses its appropriateness for the research

7.19 to >6.39 pts

B

Student identifies the study design and discusses its appropriateness for the research; this discussion could be more clear or complete

6.39 to >5.59 pts

C

Student identifies the study design and provides a cursory discussion of its appropriateness for the research

5.59 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to correctly identify the study design or discuss its appropriateness for the research

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSampling method

8.0 to >7.19 pts

A

Student clearly and accurately identifies the sampling method used

7.19 to >6.39 pts

B

Student identifies the sampling method used

6.39 to >5.59 pts

C

Student identifies the sampling method used

5.59 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to correctly identify the sampling method used

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSampling size

8.0 to >7.19 pts

A

Student clearly and accurately identifies the sampling size and discusses its adequacy for the research

7.19 to >6.39 pts

B

Student identifies the sampling size and discusses its adequacy for the research; this discussion could be more clear or complete

6.39 to >5.59 pts

C

Student identifies the sampling size and provides a cursory discussion of its adequacy for the research

5.59 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to correctly identify the sampling size or discuss its adequacy for the research

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification and definition of independent and dependent variables

5.0 to >4.49 pts

A

Student clearly and concisely identifies the study variables and notes any that were not defined in the presentation

4.49 to >3.99 pts

B

Student identifies the study variables and notes any that were not defined in the presentation; this identification may be somewhat unclear or wordy

3.99 to >3.49 pts

C

Student identifies most of the study variables and notes any that were not defined in the presentation; student may have omitted 1-2 variables

3.49 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to correctly identify the study variables presented

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData collection method

5.0 to >4.49 pts

A

Student clearly and completely discusses the data collection method and its appropriateness

4.49 to >3.99 pts

B

Student discusses the data collection method and its appropriateness; this discussion could be more clear or complete

3.99 to >3.49 pts

C

Student provides a cursory discussion of the data collection method and its appropriateness; this discussion is unclear and incomplete

3.49 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to discuss or provides an inaccurate discussion of the data collection method and its appropriateness

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation of research and findings

10.0 to >8.99 pts

A

Student provides and clear and complete analysis of the presentation

8.99 to >7.99 pts

B

Student provides an analysis of the presentation; this could be more clear or complete

7.99 to >6.99 pts

C

Student provides a cursory analysis of the presentation; this analysis lacks critical thinking

6.99 to >0 pts

F

Student fails to provide an analysis of the presentation

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting style

14.0 to >12.58 pts

A

Excellent mechanical, grammatical, and style form; writing style is at an appropriate scholarly level

12.58 to >11.18 pts

B

Good mechanical, grammatical, and style form, with only minimal, minor errors; writing style at an adequate scholarly level

11.18 to >9.78 pts

C

Acceptable mechanical, grammatical, and style form, with a few repeated errors; writing style could be improved with a few minor tweaks to achieve an adequate scholarly level

9.78 to >0 pts

F

Poor mechanical, grammatical, and style form; writing style is not at an adequate scholarly level

14.0 pts

Total Points: 100.0

Next

ORDER NOW