Do you think the Introduction provides a clear and critical literature review that covers relevant research, which leads logically to the hypotheses being proposed? Justify your answer with two key points. The introduction does not provide a clear and critical literature review, as it is not clearly written nor easily understood. Therefore, it does not lead logically to the hypotheses.
The introduction does not adhere to the PAP guidelines outlined in Burton, it is challenging to follow logically what they are trying to say. The researchers, Norman and Mall, have included an excessive amount of references. Whilst extensive, they do not appear current, and therefore perhaps not all are required. They use extended quotes, which makes it confusing for the reader to follow takes away from what is actually being said.
Have authors stated their hypotheses clearly? Read Burton (2010) page 90-91 ND make one specific suggestion for improving this part of the article. The authors have not stated their hypotheses clearly, as it is not written in a logical format and therefore not easy to follow. The hypothesis is not written in past tense as Burton reports it should be. Also, the measures that are stated in the introductory paragraph, are not in their correct position, as in accordance with the to PAP guidelines. One specific suggestion for improving this article would be to follow the PAP guidelines and change the hypotheses so that it is concise and easy to read. This WOUld include the hypotheses: Being amended so they are written in ‘past tense’.
Being specific as Burton states, “exactly what you thought the study would discover’. (2010, pop). Having clear, quantifiable measures so that the reader can see how it was tested. Being included in the final section or paragraph of the introduction.
Does the procedure provide enough information for the study to be replicated by someone who reads the work? If not, what additions do you suggest? Do you think any unnecessary information is included in the Method section? Briefly justify your answer. Norman and Mall procedure did not provide enough detailed information in the methodology for it to be replicated.
A suggestion would be to provide more detail about the participants involved in the study, an example of this would be “how were they put into groups” as Burton suggests (2010, p. 93). The procedure should also read like a recipe, that is “step by step” as Burton reports. No information was provided around what materials were needed for the study, this made it difficult to replicate the study. Burton explains that materials and equipment needed in the study need to be described. There was a great deal of unnecessary information, which made it difficult to follow.
Norman and Mall could have been more concise rather than overloading the reader with information such as the descriptions of the different types of behaviors; these descriptions could have been referred to in the appendix. The questions did not need to be part of the method section. Again, as I understand this could have been place at the end as additional information, such as an appendix as stated by Burton (2010, P 106).
Read Burton (2010) page 93-104 and identify whether the authors followed PAP deadlines for report writing in respect of the Results section? Do you think this section conveys the findings clearly? Justify your answer. If not, make two “specific” suggestions to improve this part of the article. Norman and Mall did not adhered to the PAP guidelines for report writing in respect to the results section. They have failed to follow the PAP guidelines in regards to how it was presented. The results section could have been more concise by placing the tables in the appendix rather than in the middle of the results and discussion section. Norman and Mall could have also ensured that the tables where resented correctly. Burton (2010, p 100) states a “set format is required” and this has not been followed.
The results and discussion sections also need to be clearly identified, this has not been successfully done by Norman and Mall. Once identified, the results section can then concentrate on how the information was analyses. By summarizing and describing the statistical date as Burton (201 0, p 93) reports the result section should do. The discussion section should analyses the information in more detail. Burton (201 0, p 105) reports that the discussion would restate aims and discuss the results regardless of whether or not they support the hypotheses; Norman and Mall adhered this to. The results and discussion sections should also have been written in the past tense, as stated in the PAP guidelines.
