Andrea Zellner

A. Theoretical Perspective (about 3 pages)

1. Critique the author’s conceptual framework (8/8). – Your overall summary of the critique is buried deep near the end of the section near the end of a paragraph (“Given the wide range of theories and research in which the authors ground their study, the authors have developed a strong argument for this specific study and outline the logical progression from widely accepted research on print-based reading, to reading in response to hypertextual environments, to the demands of Internet texts.”). In terms of academic writing, this would be a stronger statement, easier to read, and a better piece of writing if this came very early in the section, followed by your points to back up that statement (topic sentence/ argument first, followed by support for that statement). You do this in other places, but I’ll mention once here, as something to work on in future academic writing.
2. Comment on the need for this study and its importance. (8/8) – It would be nice if your phrase “the second question” had a referent (you gave the first question).
3. How effectively does the author tie the study to relevant theory and prior research? (7/8) – In mentioning that they could cite some specific research (i.e., ReadingNext), please cite it yourself! I couldn’t even look it up w/o work to see if it was relevant or not.
4. Evaluate the clarity and appropriateness of the research questions or hypotheses. (7/8) – I wanted to know a little bit more about why the second question didn’t follow. You’re close, but not quite there.

B. Research Design and Analysis (about 4 pages)

1. Critique the appropriateness and adequacy of the study’s design in relation to the research questions or hypotheses (6/8) – I’m looking for a couple of words I didn’t see… “Descriptive”, and something about the types of questions (perhaps “exploratory”) and fit with the type of design (qualitative descriptive).
2. Critique the adequacy of the study’s sampling methods (e.g., choice of participants) and their implications for generalizability (7/8) – Purposeful… yes!  Critical case … meh… not really (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Samples/purposivesampling.htm). Pretty good try and obviously you read some additional stuff. You missed some low hanging fruit here though, like describing some characteristics of the sample they did have (GRE scores), college students, male/female.
3. Critique the adequacy of the study’s procedures and materials (e.g., interventions, interview protocols, data collection procedures). (6/8) – Less of a critique here than a summary. For example, are these the right tasks to get at the different purposes? Were those the right purposes to be studying?
4. Critique the appropriateness and quality (e.g., reliability, validity) of the measures used. (8/8) – Nice!  But how do you know that 91% is good?
5. Critique the adequacy of the study’s data analyses. For example: Have important statistical assumptions been met? Are the analyses appropriate for the study’s design? Are the analyses appropriate for the data collected? (7/8) – I think there could be something to say about the logical-ness of breaking down strategies by purpose in a contingency table given the small number of participants, and having some confidence as to what that means or what conclusions someone could draw from that.

C. Interpretation and Implications of Results (about 3 pages)

1. Critique the author’s discussion of the methodological and/or conceptual limitations of the results (8/8) –
2. How consistent and comprehensive are the author’s conclusions with the reported results? (7/8) – See response to B5
3. How well did the author relate the results to the study’s theoretical base? (8/8) –
4. In your view, what is the significance of the study, and what are its primary implications for theory, future research, and practice? (8/8) –