Courses:

Critical response papers are intended to simulate the peer-review process. You will write the type of paper scientists write when deciding whether some new research merits publication. The first paragraph or two should summarize the question the authors wanted to answer and how the authors addressed the question (e.g., the experimental design). The remainder of the paper (2 pages max) should be devoted to your analysis of the research.

You can consider any of the following:

1. Whether you feel the question was appropriately posed or whether there was a better way to frame the question.
2. The respects in which experimental design is or is not a convincing test of the research question.
3. The respects in which the authors' interpretation of the results is or is not justified.
4. Additional studies you might suggest or ways you might expand upon the research.

This project has five parts:

1. A 2 page "proposal for the proposal" that explains the topic you'd like to study, and raises some questions you might address.
2. A 4-5 page literature review of your topic ending with the specific question you'd like to address and an explanation of its connection to the literature. The format should be APA style and comparable to the literature reviews (the Introductory section) of the articles you will read in class.
3. A 2-3 page description of your proposed experiment. The experiment should specify the population to be tested, the materials and procedure you will use, and the conditions you hope to test (similar to the Experiment section of a research article but omitting details you don't have – number of participants tested, precise ages, or materials etc.).
4. A 2-3 page discussion section. This section should discuss the conclusions you would draw if your hypothesized results were confirmed. It should also discuss alternative results and conclusions you might draw from those. Finally, it should anticipate possible objections to your approach and suggest areas for further study.
5. A reference section (APA style).

The research proposal should not exceed 10 pages (Times, 12 pt font, double-spaced, and normal margins).

This rubric is only a guideline but it is intended to help provide some ideas of what is expected in your writing assignments. If you are not fluent in English and would like me to take that into account, please let me know with a note on the top of your papers indicating your primary language and the number of years that you have spoken English. If your rough draft and preliminary proposal suggest that your grasp of the content significantly exceeds the clarity of your writing, I will work with you to find additional writing support.

Content

1. The writer presents an original thesis or perspective.
2. Analyses are supported with accurate information.
3. The response is complete and compelling.
4. Controversial claims are acknowledged as such and thoughtfully discussed.

Clarity

1. The paper is tightly structured and the writing is fluid and persuasive.
2. Specific theses and conclusions are clearly stated.
3. The writer avoids jargon, using specialized vocabulary accurately and only when necessary for clarity.

Content

1. The writer contributes some new ideas and presents a clear synthesis of existing ideas in the literature.
2. Summaries or analyses are supported with accurate information.
3. The response is complete; no important information is omitted.
4. Some claims may be overstated or some controversies overlooked.

Clarity

1. The information is well organized, the sentences are grammatical, and the writing makes sense.
2. The main ideas stand out.
3. The writer may use terms that are either too general or unnecessarily technical but demonstrates a clear understanding of the concepts.

Content

1. The writer summarizes ideas in the literature.
2. Supporting information is provided. There may be some factual errors.
3. The response is adequate although important details may have been overlooked.
4. The writer tends to oversimplify.

Clarity

1. The writing is intelligible but the argument may be poorly organized.
2. The main ideas can be inferred.
3. The writing fails to demonstrate a clear understanding of at least some key concepts.

Content

1. The writer summarizes ideas in the literature.
2. The writer either fails to provide supporting information or fails to distinguish relevant and irrelevant information. There may be factual errors.
3. Important information is omitted.
4. The content is misleading.

Clarity

1. The paper is hard to read.
2. The main ideas are obscure.
3. The writing fails to demonstrate a clear understanding of many key concepts.