Reference no: EM133385916

Introduction

1. Briefly introduce the problem area (with brief background)
2. Briefly introduce the study (properly cited)
3. Briefly summarize the purpose of the study
4. State your thesis/finding regarding the relevance and credibility of the study as a scholarly source of information.

Intro Section

1. What background did the authors provide and did they substantiate it by referring to the literature?
2. Do the authors make a convincing argument that the subject matter is relevant and important?
3. What were some gaps in knowledge the authors mentioned? Did they clearly establish their rationale for conducting this study?
4. IF the authors stated a hypothesis (one or more), what was it?
5. Did the authors clearly communicate the goals/aims/purpose of the study?

Methods Section

1. Who were the participants (summarize with a little detail)? Did the authors provide a clear picture of their participants' demographics and other details?
2. How were the participants recruited?
3. What was the research protocol? (briefly)
4. What were the main variables being measured? Do they make sense given the purpose of the study?
5. What instruments and/or methods were used to collect the data? 

Discussion and Conclusion Sections

1. Did the authors relate their results back to their hypothesis? If so, was their hypothesis confirmed?
2. IF the hypothesis was confirmed, did that seem like a correct interpretation of the results? Was it backed up by referring to other literature?
3. IF the hypothesis was rejected, did that seem like a correct interpretation of the results? Were any alternate explanations given by the authors?
4. Did the authors address any unexpected factors or loose ends?
5. Were the authors transparent in discussing limitations of their study?
6. Did the authors make any recommendations for future research directions in this area?

Conclusion

1. Re-state your thesis/finding regarding the relevance and credibility of the study as a scholarly source of information.
2. Was the paper well written? Were the important concepts clearly communicated?
3. Was the research interesting and relevant within the greater field of Kinesiology, and if so, how?
4. Were you left with the feeling that this was important research? Did it uncover new information? (according to the authors)
5. What new research questions or directions does this study pave the way for (if any)?