Article Critique Format

Respond to each item below with a yes/no answer accompanied by a brief explanation for your
response (e.g. List the Problem Statement). Please submit these in typed, single space format.

When reading your article, first, strive to follow these guidelines (AEE, Journal Advisory
Committee, 2009, http://jee.lakeheadu.ca/index.php/jee/reviewer):
First, the topic should be relevant to experiential education in the broadest sense;
Second, the topic should be timely;
Third, the author should utilize a theoretical framework throughout the manuscript and relate the
findings back to the literature, particularly in the discussion/implications section;
Fourth, and most important, the manuscript should make a significant contribution to the
knowledge and/or development of theory, new information, substantiation, or contradiction of
previous findings, reorganization of information to present new insights, application of new or
improved research techniques and/or practice, new directions in experiential education or
operational policy, among others.:

What type of research most accurately describes this study?

State the primary data collection (qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods).
Is this study exploratory, survey, comparative, relational, or causal?

II. The Problem - State the research question(s) or problem statement

Was the problem clearly defined? What is it?
Were null hypotheses, research questions, or objectives formulated?
Was the problem logically deduced from some theory?
What is (are) the independent (treatment) (x) variable(s)?
What is (are) the dependent (response) (y) variable(s)?

The Design
Was an appropriate research design used to answer the problem?
Was the population studied clearly identified?
Were the sampling methods clearly identified?
Was a control or comparison group chosen in the same manner and from the same population as
the sample?
Were the treatments randomly assigned to the groups?
Was the alpha level (reliability) specified a priori?
How was face and content validity determined?

The Procedure
Were the treatments and data collecting methods described so that you could replicate the study?
Were the size and characteristics of the sample adequately described?
Were the treatments administered so that extraneous sources of error were either held constant
for all treatments and control groups or randomized among subjects within all groups?

The Analysis (only refer to these 3 items. I do not expect you to evaluate the statistics).
Was the criterion of evaluation (dependent variable (y)) appropriate to the study?
Was any evidence of the reliability of the instrument given?
Was any evidence of the validity of the instrument given?

The Interpretation
Were the conclusions consistent with the obtained results?
Were the generalizations confined to the population from which the sample was drawn?

General
Was this a significant study? Why (your opinion)? – See the above comments by AEE.