Curriculum Critique






Choose a reading and/or writing curriculum (e.g., Horizons)
Obtain two research articles examining the chosen curriculum
o It is best if the articles are peer reviewed
o A good resource to find research articles on curricula is:
http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/CReportsCS.aspx?rep=supp
Two weeks prior to your presentation submit a list of references (i.e., 2 references) using APA format
Fully critique both articles using the Article Critique Checklist (see below).
Prepare a presentation based on your article critiques. Specifically:
o Prepare a presentation that includes the following components:
 Brief description of the curriculum chosen (1.5 minutes)
 Summarize the first study and then present highlights of your critique (6 minutes)
 Note: Include your complete analysis/critique of the article in your presentation
(i.e., according to the Article Critique Checklist); however, you will only have
time to highlight main points/interesting points during the presentation
 Summarize the second study and then present highlights of your critique (6 minutes)
 Note: Include your complete analysis/critique of the article in your presentation
(i.e., according to the Article Critique Checklist); however, you will only have
time to highlight main points/interesting points during the presentation
 Integrate results of the two studies in light of your critiques, and make a practical
suggestion (i.e., is implementation of the curriculum suggested?) (1.5 minutes)
o Prepare a visual display to accompany your presentation (e.g., PowerPoint ®)
On the last day of class you will give your presentation (15 minutes). Submit the entire visual
presentation containing your complete article critiques (although no additional written project is
required) and make copies to distribute in class as well (note: if photocopying will be a problem, e-mail
me your presentation at least two days in advance, and I will be able to make the copies and bring them
to class).
Note: Although you will do complete critiques of each article, you will need to be brief in your
explanations. Bullet points, phrases versus complete sentences, and shortened explanations will be
acceptable/expected.
Article Critique Checklist:
Hypotheses/Questions
1. Were relationships within research questions and/or hypotheses clearly stated?
2. Were research questions/hypotheses consistent with/logical based on the literature review?
3. Were variables within the research questions/hypotheses defined in measurable terms (at least within the article)?
Sample Selection
4. Was the population defined?
5. What sampling procedure was used? Does this introduce any limitation into the study in terms of generalizability
of results?
6. What was the sample size? Is this size desirable?
7. Are demographic characteristics of the sample included?
8.
Instruments
9. Are the instruments chosen suited to the nature of the study given the construct/variables that the researcher(s)
would like to study?
10. Does the author discuss training the examiners on correct instrument administration and scoring procedures?
11. Is there evidence of score reliability reported? Are score reliabilities adequate?
12. Is evidence of validity reported for instruments used? Discuss the amount of validity evidence gathered as well as
the values reported.
Design and Procedures
13.
14.
15.
16.
Identify the study design (e.g., descriptive, correlational, causal comparative, experimental, single-subject)
Are procedures described in sufficient detail to allow for replication?
For correlational research: Were the variables carefully selected with a “shotgun approach” avoided?
For causal-comparative research:
a. Why was a causal-comparative design chosen? That is, was it that random assignment to groups could not
be done or should not be done, but the author is trying to determine possible causation?
b. Are there critical extraneous variables to consider?
c. If “yes” for part (b), was a control procedures employed to equate the groups on the extraneous variables
(i.e., matching, comparing homogeneous groups, controlling for a variable in the statistical analysis)?
17. For experimental research:
a. Identify the variable(s) that is being manipulated in this study (i.e., the variable that the researcher has
control over – the treatment).
b. Which experimental design was chosen. Explain your answer.
c. Based on the experimental design chosen as well as the specific characteristics of this study, consider
which potential threats to internal AND external validity exist. Explain your response.
18. For Single-Subject Research:
a. Identify the general and more specific design (e.g., ABA withdrawal design specifically using an ABAB
format, multiple baseline design across three behaviors, or alternating treatment design with two
treatments).
b. Discuss threats to internal and external validity associated with this study.
19. Results Section (Note: For Single-Subject Research, do NOT answer 18b or c)
a. Descriptive statistics: Which descriptive statistics are included in this article? Consider participant scores
on the various instruments administered. Were any descriptive statistics left out that should have been
included?
b. Inferential statistics: Which test(s) of inferential statistics were conducted? Did this choice make sense
(consider parametric versus nonparametric and the hypothesis of the study).
c. Inferential statistics: Did you agree with the alpha (or p) level chosen? Is there evidence that it was chosen
a priori (i.e., in advance of the study)?
d. In terms of the results, consider practical versus statistical significance.
e. For single-subject research only: Classify the analysis as visual versus inferential statistics and describe
what the researchers did.
Curriculum Critique Rubric
Presentation
IRA 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
5 Points
2.5 Point
0 Points
Your presentation is accompanied by a visual presentation
and includes the following four components: (1) description
of curriculum (2) summary and select critique from Article
1 (3) summary and select critique from Article 2 (4)
integration of results in light of critiques and practical
suggestion
In addition to a
visual
presentation, at
least
components
(2) and (3) are
included
None of the four outlined
components are included
in the presentation
2 Points
1 Point
0 Points
At least one of
the specified
questions was
addressed
thoughtfully
and accurately
None of the specified
questions were addressed
thoughtfully and
accurately
At least two of
the specified
questions was
addressed
thoughtfully
and accurately
None of the specified
questions were addressed
thoughtfully and
accurately
At least two of
the specified
questions was
addressed
thoughtfully
and accurately
None of the specified
questions were addressed
thoughtfully and
accurately
Article Critique 1
Hypotheses/Questions
IRA 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
Sample Selection
IRA 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
Instruments
IRA 3.1
The following questions are addressed thoughtfully and
accurately:
Were relationships within research questions and/or
hypotheses clearly stated?
Were research questions/hypotheses consistent with/logical
based on the literature review?
Were variables within the research questions/hypotheses
defined in measurable terms (at least within the article)?
The following questions are addressed thoughtfully and
accurately:
Was the population defined?
What sampling procedure was used? Does this introduce
any limitation into the study in terms of generalizability of
results?
What was the sample size? Is this size desirable?
Are demographic characteristics of the sample included?
The following questions are addressed thoughtfully and
accurately:
Are the instruments chosen suited to the nature of the study
given the construct/variables that the researcher(s) would
like to study?
Does the author discuss training the examiners on correct
instrument administration and scoring procedures?
Is there evidence of score reliability reported? Are score
reliabilities adequate?
Is evidence of validity reported for instruments used?
Discuss the amount of validity evidence gathered as well as
the values reported.
Design and Procedures
IRA 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
Results
IRA 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
The following questions are addressed thoughtfully and
accurately:
Identify the study design (e.g., descriptive, correlational,
causal comparative, experimental, single-subject)
Are procedures described in sufficient detail to allow for
replication?
For correlational research: Were the variables carefully
selected with a “shotgun approach” avoided?
For causal-comparative research:
Why was a causal-comparative design chosen?
That is, was it that random assignment to groups
could not be done or should not be done, but the
author is trying to determine possible causation?
Are there critical extraneous variables to consider?
If “yes” for part (b), was a control procedures
employed to equate the groups on the extraneous
variables (i.e., matching, comparing homogeneous
groups, controlling for a variable in the statistical
analysis)?
For experimental research:
Identify the variable(s) that is being manipulated in
this study (i.e., the variable that the researcher has
control over – the treatment).
Which experimental design was chosen. Explain
your answer.
Based on the experimental design chosen as well as
the specific characteristics of this study, consider
which potential threats to internal AND external
validity exist. Explain your response.
For Single-Subject Research:
Identify the general and more specific design (e.g.,
ABA withdrawal design specifically using an
ABAB format, multiple baseline design across
three behaviors, or alternating treatment design
with two treatments).
Discuss threats to internal and external validity
associated with this study.
The following questions are addressed thoughtfully and
accurately :
Descriptive statistics: Which descriptive statistics are
included in this article? Consider participant scores on the
various instruments administered. Were any descriptive
statistics left out that should have been included?
Inferential statistics: Which test(s) of inferential statistics
were conducted? Did this choice make sense (consider
parametric versus nonparametric and the hypothesis of the
study). (Do not answer for Single-Subject research)
Inferential statistics: Did you agree with the alpha (or p)
At least two of
the applicable
questions was
addressed
thoughtfully
and accurately
None of the applicable
questions were addressed
thoughtfully and
accurately
At least two of
the applicable
questions was
addressed
thoughtfully
and accurately
None of the applicable
questions were addressed
thoughtfully and
accurately
level chosen? Is there evidence that it was chosen a priori
(i.e., in advance of the study)? (Do not answer for SingleSubject research)
In terms of the results, consider practical versus statistical
significance.
For single-subject research only: Classify the analysis as
visual versus inferential statistics and describe what the
researchers did.