Pay it forward #2 (due by March 31)

Brief Interventions (HBHE 663 Winter 2017)

 Pay It Forward

On two occasions during the semester, you will be asked to identify one of the required readings, and an alternative reading that you have found online that addresses the same teaching point but does it better. The format for each recommendation is as follows: 3-4 pages double spaced, 12 point font, 1-inch margins.  Of course cite both the paper from our syllabus that you found sub-optimal as well as the paper that you think is better.   

Key information:

Pay it Forward contributions will count for 20% of your overall semester grade (10% each one).

This second PIF is due on March 31^st.  Late submissions will result in a lower grade.  Papers should be submitted to me electronically through the course email address.

 You can use the following sections to organize your paper.  Using these exact headings will help you organize your thoughts and will help me to find what I need to give you the points you deserve:

Part 1 (10 points):

Briefly describe the paper from our syllabus – the type of paper it was, relevant facts about the sample, design, measures, outcomes, and conclusions.

Part 2 (10 points):

Briefly describe what you found non-optimal about this paper.  If you found it hard to understand, please give specific examples from the paper as to why.  Other things that you may not have liked could be: that the sample was small, that it wasn’t representative (say what you mean by that), that the measures missed something that you think is important, that the length of follow-up was too short, that the conclusions went too far (or not far enough).

Part 3 (30 points):

Briefly describe the new paper you found.  Mention how/where you found it, key features (e.g., design, measures, etc.)

 Part 4 (40 points):

Contrast the new paper with the old one.  Basically, here is where you will state your case why you think this new paper is better than the older one and why.  Of course some of the reasons are that the paper addresses some of the limitations in the old paper described in Part 2, above (bigger sample, more relevant sample, easier to read).  The fact that the paper is easier to understand is always a “reasonable reason.”  Just be clear about what aspects of the old paper were confusing and why the new one is better.

The remaining 10 points will be based on my overall evaluation of the paper’s relevance, clarity, organization, writing, etc.