Summary Of Peer Review Of Alana Mays

2b) The authors provided the reader a lot of information on the topic. Each topic was very well explored. A lot of different information on different but similar studies. The authors seemed very knowledgeable on the topic. This article lacked a few things. A clear research question and a hypothesis. The paragraphs were not clear and consist, I felt that I had to dig to get certain information. The paper was very wordy, which made me have a hard time understanding the substance.

The essay fulfills the assignment. Content is developed and ideas are clear. The essay, however, demonstrates a less than thorough understanding of the concepts and facts and contains minor flaws. There is some room for improvement.

I like and agree with you on the way as you presented your analysis, I agree that Elizabeth Svoboda makes use of real-life examples from start to ending not only to support her article, but to captivate the audience and make it more real and credible to the readers, and in the meantime, to support the what, why and how. I noticed the uses of Facts vs Opinion included this in your summary. You definitely established your agreements with the author with a solid basis.

The critique was clear and easy to understand. I felt like I was in the actual research myself as I read the critique. An advantage to doing the critique on Woodgate et al., (2016) study was that it was well written and clear in regard to the items being analyzed. Qualitative research is a difficult task, especially for those inexperienced. In evaluating a critique one of the main considerations is to evaluate if the one doing the critique supported their conclusions and findings (Polit & Beck, 2017). I feel Milburn (2017) did an excellent job and I enjoyed reading her complete and easy to follow

By spending more time to research, I would be able to counter the Opposition’s arguments effectively. By elaborating on each argument, I would be able to further support my points with evidence. By using the ARE method to justify, the outlook for my part of the debate would look and sound more professional. Overall, there were several minor mistakes that could be easily fixed when reviewing the debate in my mind.

OFFER YOUR OPINION OF THE ARTICLE (YOU MAY INCLUDE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS, USEFULNESS OF THE CONCLUSIONS, HOW THE RESULTS COULD BE APPLIED, AREAS FOR FUTHER RESEARCH

When comparing this article to a good literature review, it successfully provides an adequate overview of previous research done and uses it to enhance the project at hand. When evaluating the quality and relevance of this article, Martins and Jensen do an admirable job communicating the purpose of research to the reader and organizing its literature review. The data from other studies is in chronological order and are structured from broader studies to more specific ones which is seen when the sources are cited. An analysis was provided after presenting the findings from previous studies and the authors were able to communicate how those studies influenced their own research. As a whole, the literature review was well organized by key ideas and topics that logically lead to the research Martins and Jensen were

Cognition: This argument is definitely justificatory and you adhere to the genre. You address your audience well, and the comparison and contrast you provide is very effective. However, I am still not entirely sure what your proposition is. It feels as though each paragraph is a small argument that can stand on its own, but the common thread linking them all is just the structure. It isn’t until the conclusion that I can get an idea of what your point is. I think a clear introductory paragraph would really help to avoid confusion. Score: 3

OVERVIEW: For Part I of this two-part assignment you identified and summarized elements of a published scholarly article selected from the classroom Resources Folder. For Part 2, which is due by the end of Week 6, you will analyze, connect, and reflect on aspects of your selected article. Note that the words “succinct” and “thorough” repeat regularly in the instructions below. They will serve as reminders that this is a formal assignment and sentence

Systematically carrying out a literature review involves step by step processes (Machi and McEvoy, 2009) of how the selection and appraisal of important articles was done. This should be transparent, reproducible and rigorous. Literature reviews are important in research because it is progressive to build a new research concept on existing body of knowledge.

1. I had a confusing time summing up the main ideas which translates to people reading my summary and understanding what the article was about. I did a good job concluding the solution of what Mrs.Coontz was saying. Yes, I understand that some of the things I was talking about were confusing due that I was assuming to much. I should not assume the reader knows what the article was about.

A good literature review is considered to prepare the ground for new research (Beck and Pilot, 2012), discuss previous work if necessary in order to explore the depth of the articles (Smith, 1997) and justify the need for news research to take place (Munhall, 2006). This allow the reader to be aware of what already exist about

I enjoyed reading your review and got a lot out of it. When you said, “Another purpose of literature review is to determine how an issue can be resolved and managed based on research evidence” (Boswell & Cannon, 2011). I have had this happen to me when reviewing literature. I was thinking the literature would show one thing and it wound up showing another. For example when I was reviewing the evidence-based practice of relieving pain for dying patients. I found it was not uncommon or considered doing assisted suicide if you were to medicate a patient on the wishes of the family as to what they thought the patient was feeling when the patient themselves could not express for themselves pain and a lethal dose is given. As stated “he literature

The sources cited were mostly primary sources of other studies similar to the researchers study. Conversely, although the research article had excellent references, none of the research of the reference cited was compared or contrast with the study the researcher conducted. I feel that the researcher should have compared and contrasted the previous studies in the references to that of his own. The researcher simple just summarized the references that was cited in the article and explained the relevance to the current study. Nonetheless, I believe the review is well organized because each paragraph is discussed in order and all the information is in one place rather than all over in different paragraphs. I believe the researcher did not summarize the literature because they go on to discuss their own study. Lastly, I think the implication discussed forms an empirical rationale for the hypotheses.

The prim and proper women and the strong and strapping men are no match for Shakespeare’s haze of character’s muddled together in Antony and Cleopatra. As always Shakespeare delivers a luminary cast of individuals that deviate from the socially accepted gender roles. As the audience works its way through the fierce genesis to the catastrophic resolution, it is made more than apparent that lines are being crossed all over society’s conformist board of gender specific expectations.