ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINES In preparing this work, you will also need to respond to each of the following: Citation-Each review must include the citation for the article (or chapter) that you are discussing. Be sure to give the complete citation, especially if you are using something from an edited compilation. If you are unsure of what constitutes an appropriate (and complete) citation, consult a manual of style. Manuals of style prepared by Turabian or the American Psychological Association are both excellent sources, and are readily available in the library and the bookstore. Summary Tell the reader exactly what the article is about. What was the reason for the article? If a research work, how did the author go about conducting the study? Who were the subjects? What kinds of analysis wee conducted? What were the author’s findings and conclusions? Professional Critique-From the perspective of a professional in the field of health science, how do you respond to the article? For example, is it clearly written? Would its intended audience understand the content (remember that the average consumer may NOT be the intended reader)? How might the work have been improved? Did the author support his conclusions with appropriate evidence? Were any biases apparent in the author’s work and/or conclusions? Do not hedge when preparing your professional critique. Take a stand. Personal Response-Even if you select an article that, from your professional point of view is horrible, it may generate a favorable personal response. Alternatively, you may have similar personal and professional responses to a written work. Tell me about those personal responses. Only in this section may you introduce any subjectivity. Was the article interesting to you? Do you think it covered an important topic? How might it have been improved to make for better reading? better research? Did the author tackle a major problem in an appropriate manner? Questions as these are all fair game for your personal response. 3Qs-Create three questions that you can ask someone to establish his grasp of the content. Do not provide answers to these questions. All reviews must be written in professional prose. That means you cannot use contractions, nor can you use the ‘first person’ in your writing. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation must be consistent with professional standards. Lastly, remember that only professional sources are eligible for use as an article review. Publications such as ‘Sports Illustrated,’ ‘Seventeen,’ ‘Newsweek,’ ‘Life’ or any other popular magazine (that you can buy at the super market) are NOT acceptable. Newspapers and the INTERNET are also inappropriate sources for this assignment. Please note: Students who submit reviews based on unacceptable sources (e.g., NET, newspaper, or magazines) will (1) receive an automatic zero for the assignment and (2) NOT have any opportunity to resubmit the assignment. Students whose reviews do not include all necessary content areas will be graded proportional to the presence/quality of mandatory areas that are covered in their review. Finally, submit only the article review. INSTRUCTIONS: Article Review: Each class member is responsible for reading and reviewing at least one article from a scholarly journal. This article must pertain to a particular health behavior that you would like to change or a health behavior that you have tried to change in the past. It can be a negative or unfavorable health behavior. Your topic should be about your individual health behavior (one). Articles that you review must include a health behavior theory in the methodology section or in a section of the article that you reviewed. Your goal is to explain theoretically the health behavior that you are challenged with and using credible sources (peer reviewed articles) explain how you have changed or can plan to change your health behavior. Appropriate chapters from a scholarly book may also be reviewed. Internet sources, which produce information other than web-available journals, are NOT acceptable for this assignment. Consult the class handout (LIBRARY SESSION) regarding article reviews for detailed information on acceptable sources and content of the review. Article review topics will be those covered in the corresponding individual blog presentation. Your reviews will be 3 pages in length, and due on Blackboard on the date indicated. All reviews must be carefully written, adhere to a professional writing style, and typed (double-spaced) in 10 or 12 pitch font, with 1-1.5" margins. Twenty points will be subtracted from your earned (article review) grade for each day -- including weekends -- that you are late in submitting an article review. Any review that includes more than 3 lines of direct quotation (of ANY length -- i.e., whether 3 separate quotes or one long one) will receive a 10-point deduction from its earned grade. If they so desire, students may submit one draft article review, for an ungraded assessment prior to the assignment's due date. Extensions for any article review will be issued no later than one week before the assignment's due date. Students who request extensions after the stipulated date will receive extensions only if they meet University terms for granting of Incompletes (e.g., can document illness or other personal business that caused failure to complete the assignment). The instructor reserves the right to require students to supply a copy of the article/chapter used for purposes of the article review before a final grade is assigned. Article reviews based upon unacceptable sources (e.g., newspaper, popular magazine) will earn, at most, 10 points. HLTH 103: ARTICLE REVIEW RUBRIC C level D level Wide variety of sentence structures; excellent word usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation (5.75pts) Thorough and accurate adherence to guidelines; responds to all guidelines; includes all mandatory elements (5.75pts) Content well developed, effectively supported, appropriate for task; effective thinking clearly and creatively expressed (5.75pts) A level Good sentence variety; adequate use of wording, grammar, and punctuation (5.pts) Majority of work displays accurate adherence to guidelines; responds to most guidelines; includes majority of mandatory elements (5pts) Majority of content appropriate, supported by adequate text; thinking often clearly and creatively expressed; most of content meets requirements; respectable presentation of ideas (5pts) Inconsistent sentence variety; often inadequate in wording, grammar, and punctuation (4.375pts) Some evidence of adherence to guidelines; some presence of mandatory elements (4.375pts) Writing lacks sentence variety; significant deficiencies in wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation (3.75pts) Insufficient adherence to guidelines; omits numerous mandatory elements; fails to respond to critical guidelines for content (3.75pts) Poorly developed, with absent or vague supporting details; weak presentation of ideas and/or unclear wording; reflects lack of understanding of topic and audience (3.75pts) Professional Critique Stances well developed, effectively supported and appropriate to article; effective thinking clearly expressed (5.75pts) Stances reasonably developed, most effectively supported and appropriate to article; majority of review includes effective thinking clearly expressed (5pts) Stances weakly developed, most ineffectively supported and inappropriate to article; majority of review includes in effective thinking expressed with unclear logic (3.75pts) Personal Response Response well developed, effectively supported and appropriate to article; effective thinking clearly expressed (5.75pts) Response adequately developed; most of review adequately supported and appropriate to article; effective thinking clearly expressed in most of review (5pts) 3 Questions Thorough and accurate evidence of source to support queries; citations complete, correct and correctly placed in text (5.75pts) Good evidence of source used to support queries; majority of citations complete, correct and correctly placed in text (5pts) Many stances weakly developed, many ineffectively supported and inappropriate to article; much of review includes ineffective thinking expressed with unclear logic (4.375pts) Much of response inadequately developed; much of review inadequately supported and inappropriate to article; ineffective thinking expressed in much of review (4.375pts) Weak evidence of source used to support queries; numerous citations incomplete, incorrect and incorrectly placed in text (4.375pts) Organization Clearly organized around a central theme; each section is clear and relates to others (5.75pts) Thorough and accurate review of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and citations (5.75pts) Writing demonstrates some grasp of organization, with discernible themes and supporting details (4.375pts) Some evidence of proof reading; minor errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citations (4.375pts) Writing is rambling and unfocused with main topics and supporting details presented in disorganized, unrelated way (3.75pts) Proofreading Writing demonstrates respectable grasp of organization; majority of text is clear and relates to other portions appropriately (5pts) Majority of paper displays evidence of appropriate proof-reading; few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citations (5pts) Writing Adherence to guidelines Summary B level Appropriate content with some supporting text; generally meets requirements; adequate presentation of ideas (4.375pts) Response inadequately developed; most of review inadequately supported and inappropriate to article; ineffective thinking expressed in majority of review (3.75pts) No evidence of source consulted to support queries; if evidence offered, poorly cited in terms of completeness, accuracy and placement in text (3.75pts) Lacks evidence of any proofreading; unacceptable errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and citations (3.75pts) Comments:
Purchase answer to see full attachment