Help me study for my Psychology class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.
The paper exist, I need just editing. 3 scholarly, empirical articles that will inform you about the topic and help you to develop a tentative answer to your question–what will ultimately become your hypothesis. For each article you’ll be summarizing the main ideas of the study. change the articles to an empirical article first of all. and then please follow the instructions. I have provided a sample to understand how should it turn out. I want my paper to be exactly like the sample. I will provided the professor’s feedback on my last paper and what needs to be fixed.
Instructions ( part 2 ) :
This second part of your project proposal is building on, and adding to, the first part. In the first part, you introduced your research question and some relevant empirical research. In the second part, you’ll be thinking more critically about the evidence and how it relates to your question, and ultimately developing a new hypothesis that can be tested (in Part 3).
Here are some sample papers from previous students:
Part 2 will be added to your original Part 1. Specifically, after your article reviews, you’ll be adding the following sections:
- Here you’ll be discussing some of the potential weaknesses of the studies. You should make reference to specific validities (internal, external, construct, and statistical), and should address at least two validities for each article. What might be some of the weaknesses in terms of how the studies were conducted? Be as specific as possible.
- Additionally, you should be considering how these weaknesses may have affected the findings in the study. If there was a problem with external validity, for instance, would this render the findings invalid, or just mean that we might be limited in terms of how we apply them? Again, try to be as specific as possible.
- Lastly, considering what you just said, what steps might be taken to correct for these weaknesses? If you were to replicate this study, is there any way that you could improve its validity?
- For this section, you can build on any critiques that the authors might have raised about their own studies, though you should still discuss them in the manner outlined above. (And make sure you understand their critique, if you’re going to use it.)
- In this section, you’ll be considering how/whether each of the findings from the studies you’ve reviewed fit together, and how they relate to your research question.
- Keeping your original research question in mind, what information does each study contribute? Does it answer your research question outright, or provide more of a step in the direction of an answer?
- Considering that each of the studies had its own goals and questions, are there any areas in which the findings of the different articles reinforce each other? Do you find any contradictions among the findings? Make sure to explain why you see these findings as being similar/different. Especially for any differences, discuss how you understand these comparisons–for instance, do you think one of the studies presents a stronger form of evidence than another?
- Finally, you’ll be proposing a new, as-yet-untested hypothesis. Considering the question that you started with and the evidence that you’ve found, what is a potential answer to your research question? You should clearly state your hypothesis, explaining as necessary, and provide a clear argument for it–what evidence led you to this conclusion?
- Keep in mind this should be a new idea, and one which you don’t actually know whether it’s true or not. If there’s already a clearly and consistently demonstrated answer in the literature, you may need to consider ways to expand your hypothesis–take a look at for some ideas how to do this.
- ( I have already done this, but it’s incomplete I need you to add to it and answer each question and each part completely. )
Finally, there’s an opportunity to improve your score on Part 1 in this submission. To be eligible for this, make sure to:
- Return your graded original submission (unless it was submitted digitally–in that case, I already have it)
- Bold or highlight any changes on your new submission–I’ll only be re-scoring sections that are bolded
- for the first part that needs editing, I have already done it, however I need someone to change the article to empirical articles and make sure to read the professor’s feedback and change it.