Critical analysis
Critical analysis
Word limit: 1000
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Critical analysis
Just from $13/Page
In this assignment, you will conduct a critical analysis of a social psychology intervention designed to improve academic achievement of school or university students. You will choose one article published in an academic journal that describes an empirical study testing the effectiveness of an intervention in an educational context. There are many such interventions described in the literature, and you may find an appropriate one through your own literature search. There is a special issue of theJournal of Educational Psychology (2016, vol. 108, no. 3) that features six such studies, and any of these would be suitable for this assignment. However, you may choose another study from your own literature search if you wish.
Based on a careful read of the intervention study, provide a critical analysis of the intervention, using the following sections to guide your analysis.
Provide a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Use the following sections to structure your analysis.
Section 1: Overview of the study
Introduce the intervention in a paragraph that briefly outlines the nature of the intervention and the problem or issue it addresses.
Section 2: Outline the problem
Include a brief summary of the problem or issue addressed by the intervention.
- What specific problem of academic achievement is being addressed?
- Who is the intervention targeted at?
- Who are the intended recipients of the intervention?
Critical analysis – Is the problem clearly defined, specific, and concrete? Is it clear what outcomes are being targeted?
Section 3: Proposed solution
- What precipitating (triggers of the problem) and/or perpetuating factors (sustaining the problem) are addressed by the intervention?
- What theory and research is the intervention based on?
- Does the intervention draw on existing interventions that address the same or similar factors?
- What was the intervention hypothesis?
- How confident are you that the proposed solution will make a difference? How confident are you that the right factors are being targeted?
Critical analysis – has the intervention identified relevant factors that contribute to the problem? Are these factors justified by the use of theory or past research? Is the intervention based on a specific theory relevant to understanding the problem?
Section 4: Outline of intervention
Describe the nature of the intervention used in the study.
- What was the theoretical basis of the intervention? Explain the reasoning behind the intervention and why it was expected to work.
- What activities did participants in the intervention complete, or what messages were they exposed to and how?
- What was the mode of delivery for the intervention (oneline, video, in-class activity, etc.)?
- Was the intervention carried out as planned, or were there significant problems with its implementation?
- Has the intervention been used in previous studies? What have these shown about the effectiveness of the intervention?
Critical analysis – were the activities in the intervention clearly mapped onto theoretical or explanatory factors? Did the design of the intervention follow logically from the identification of factors that contribute to the problem? Were there problems with implementation that place limits on what could be concluded?
Section 5: Results
Describe the results of the study.
- Was the intervention effective?
- What outcome variables did the authors use to measure the effectiveness of the intervention?
- Did the authors measure any mediating explanatory factors or theoretical variables? That is, did the authors measure any theoretical variables that were proposed to contribute to the problem, and which the intervention aimed to change?
Critical analysis – did the authors measure the outcome variable adequately? Were they able to draw firm conclusions about the intervention’s effectiveness? Were they able to draw conclusions as to why the intervention was or was not effective?
Section 6: Strengths and weaknesses
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of this intervention?
- What practical implications did this study have for addressing the problem it targeted?
- What, if any, theoretical implications did the study have for understanding the nature of the problem being addressed?
Section 7: Assessment of the intervention
- Summarise your critical analysis of the intervention.
- Overall, how successful has the intervention been?
- How could the intervention be improved?
Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide:
- Overview of the intervention—one paragraph.
- Outline the problem.
- Proposed solution.
- Outline of intervention.
- Results.
- Strengths and weaknesses
- Writing style, structure, format, presentation.
| Assignment 1 marking guide | |||||
| Criteria | No Pass | Pass 50–59% |
Credit 60–69% |
Distinction 70–79% |
High Distinction 80–100% |
| Overview of the intervention—one paragraph (5%) |
Criterion not met. | Brief or vague description, with some mention of the issue to be addressed but little consideration of the nature of intervention or other elements. | Adequate description, with minor errors, that mentions the nature of the chosen intervention and issue to be addressed but not comprehensively, or is missing some elements. | Clearly describes the intervention under consideration, with minor errors in identification of nature, issue to be addressed, authors, when intervention was developed, and whether it is ongoing or one-off. | Clearly and comprehensively identifies the intervention under consideration, including nature, issue to be addressed, authors, when it was developed, and whether it is ongoing or one-off. Chosen intervention is based on social psychology principles, addressing a concrete and specific problem. |
| Outline the problem (5%) |
Criterion not met. | Summarises the issue or problem but not clearly identified as related to social psychology. Stakeholders and needs assessment are absent or significantly lacking in detail. | Adequate description of the problem or issue but lacks connection to the chosen intervention. Stakeholders and needs assessment are lacking sufficient detail to justify intervention or consider possible controversy. | Outlines problem or issue but may need more detail to clearly link this to the chosen intervention or extent of problem. Stakeholders and/or needs assessment are present but further detail is required on at least one aspect of these. | Clearly outlines the problem or issue to be addressed and the relevant stakeholders (i.e. recipients and those with a vested interest). A thorough needs analysis outlining the need for the intervention, prevalence of the problem, other available interventions and the barriers, limitations, or gaps in these, the author(s) justification of the intervention, and the overall justification of the need for the intervention. |
| Proposed solution (20%) | Criterion not met. | Triggers and precipitating factors are present but more detail is required in how these are linked to the issue and/or intervention. Theory and research summarised without critical analysis of application to the issue or intervention. | Describes some triggers and precipitating factors but doesn’t link these to the issue or intervention. Underlying theory and background research is discussed, but little consideration of appropriateness of targeted factors. | Clearly describes the triggers and precipitating factors but may need further detail on how these are linked to the issue or chosen intervention. Clearly summarises theory and research but may require further detail on targeted factors. | Clearly and comprehensively describes the triggers and precipitating factors of the issue to be addressed through the intervention, including consideration of the relevant theory on which it’s based. Outlines any pre-existing interventions on which it is based and the expectations of the current intervention. Clear consideration of the potential effectiveness of the intervention and that appropriate factors are targeted. |
| Outline of intervention (30%) | Criterion not met. | Basic but incomplete description of intervention activities and method. No real understanding of mapping of activities to underlying concepts. Basic critical evaluation or appreciation of limitations. | Description of the activities and implementation adequate but may be unclear or lack detail in parts. Limited understanding of mapping of activities to explanatory concepts. Limited critical analysis of the design in terms of mapping or relevance to underlying explanatory framework. No or very limited discussion of limitations. | Clearly describes the activities in the intervention and how it was administered. Shows some understanding of mapping activities to explanatory concepts and provides some critical evaluation of design in terms of underlying explanatory framework. May miss some obvious limitations. | Clearly describes the activities in the intervention and how it was administered. Shows a clear understanding of mapping activities to explanatory concepts and critically evaluates the design of the intervention with regards to the underlying explanatory framework. Where appropriate, identifies problems with the intervention and how they impact conclusions. |
| Results (20%) | Criterion not met. | Basic description of the results with some inaccuracies. Little understanding of the outcome variable(s) and their relation to the problem. No consideration of implications for the explanatory model. Limited critical evaluation of conclusions. | Somewhat unclear description of the results. May show some misunderstanding of outcome variable(s) or their relation to the problem. Little consideration of the degree to which the study sheds light on the explanatory factors. Some critical analysis of conclusions but limited in some ways. | Accurate description of the results. Shows some understanding of the outcome variable(s) and how they relate to the problem being addressed. Shows some understanding of the implications of the results, but less appreciation of evaluating the underlying explanatory factors. Some critical analysis of the conclusions drawn and limitations of what can be inferred. | Clearly and accurately describes the results of the intervention. Shows an understanding of the outcome variable(s) and their relationship to the problem being addressed. Shows an understanding of the implications of the results both for the intervention itself and the underlying explanatory model. Critically evaluates the conclusions drawn and points out relevant limitations to what can be inferred from the findings. |
| Strengths and weaknesses (10%) | Criterion not met. | Superficial identification of strengths and weaknesses. Implications of the study for the intervention itself and for the underlying explanatory model are lacking. | Adequate identification of strengths and weaknesses, but may be somewhat superficial. Provides some evaluation of implications of the study for the intervention itself but not for the underlying explanatory model. | Clear identification of strengths and weaknesses. Provides a good evaluation of implications of the study for the intervention itself, perhaps less so for the underlying explanatory model. | Clear and sophisticated identification of strengths and weaknesses. Provides a well-rounded evaluation of implications of the study for the intervention itself and for the underlying explanatory model. |
| Writing style, structure, format, presentation
(10%)
|
Criterion not met. | The message of the writer is conveyed using informal writing style, with many errors in expression, spelling, or grammar, but overall meaning is still relatively clear. May be too long or too short. | Message is clear despite several grammatical, spelling or presentation inconsistencies. Word count falls slightly outside of the -/+ 10% limit. Overall, the organisation and structure are adequate. | The document is typed, double-spaced, has indented paragraphs, with minor errors. Writing style is generally clear, concise and unambiguous. Word count falls within the -/+ 10% limit. Overall, the organisation and structure is good. | Message is clear and concise, following APA format, with little to no grammatical or spelling errors. The presentation of the report adheres to all specifications throughout. Overall the organisation and structure are excellent. Includes title page and cover sheet or declaration. |
Calculator
Our features
We've got everything to become your favourite writing service
Money back guarantee
Your money is safe. Even if we fail to satisfy your expectations, you can always request a refund and get your money back.
Confidentiality
We don’t share your private information with anyone. What happens on our website stays on our website.
Our service is legit
We provide you with a sample paper on the topic you need, and this kind of academic assistance is perfectly legitimate.
Get a plagiarism-free paper
We check every paper with our plagiarism-detection software, so you get a unique paper written for your particular purposes.
We can help with urgent tasks
Need a paper tomorrow? We can write it even while you’re sleeping. Place an order now and get your paper in 8 hours.
Pay a fair price
Our prices depend on urgency. If you want a cheap essay, place your order in advance. Our prices start from $11 per page.