1. What is the author's purpose?

The introduction explains the reasons behind the research and summarizes the interests of existing literary phenomena. If one or more theories are relevant to the research, the introduction needs to give predictions made by different theories. Like scientists in other fields, psychologists do not necessarily agree with the internal mechanism and theoretical explanation of existing behaviors. The author may give a specific theory that he/she thinks can provide an effective explanation for the behavior. Although the author may give more than one theory in the introduction, he/she will prove later that these theories cannot predict and explain the existing results equally. Try to find out which of these theories the author believes and which one he will reject next.

2. What are the hypotheses to be tested in the experiment?

This answer should be obvious, just introduce it.

3. What would I do if I wanted to design an experiment to test this hypothesis?

This is a key issue for the introduction. Be sure to try to answer the question before you continue reading. Many experiments are carried out under the background of systematic research on behavior to test and support a specific theoretical framework put forward by the author. If the author is good at rhetoric, once you have read the method section, you are likely to agree with the method used by the author in the article. Smart authors will sow the seeds of answers in the introduction, which makes it difficult for you to design methods independently and makes this exercise more difficult. Write down the main idea of your method.

Square method

Compare your answer to question 3 with the method used by the author. If you hadn't peeked, the two might be different. Answer question 4(a-c).

Article 4 (a). Is my method better than the author's?

No matter which method is better, you are still the author. This forced comparison can make you think critically about the method part, rather than passively accept it.

Article 4 (b). Does the author's method really test the hypothesis?

Hypothesis sometimes hangs up first and disappears between introduction and method. Always check whether the method used is sufficient and relevant to the hypothesis.

Article 4 (c). What are independent variables, dependent variables and control variables?

This is an obvious question that can be answered quickly. Listing variables can help you avoid reading the method section passively. After analyzing the differences between your method and the author's method, answer the next question.

5. What is my prediction of the experimental results by using the objects, instruments or materials and procedures described by the author?

You must answer this question independently before seeing the result. Reviewing assumptions, independent variables and dependent variables will help you answer. You will find it impossible to predict a result. It doesn't matter, because the author may have made more than one prediction at first. He/she may have done some preliminary research to narrow down the possible scope of the results; Or when the results come out, he/she may have been shocked by the results and have to rethink the introduction. Draw a sketch to show the most likely result of your prediction.

result

Compare your prediction with the result. If they are the same, please answer question 7(a-c). If not, answer question 6.

6. Is the author's result unexpected?

After thinking about it, you will come to one of the following two conclusions: either your prediction is wrong or the author's result is not credible. Perhaps the method used by the author is improper, which can not fully test the hypothesis or introduce uncontrollable variables; Maybe if you repeat the experiment, you may not get these results again. You can even do the experiment yourself to see if you can copy its report results.

Article 7 (a). How can I explain these results?

Article 7 (b). What application and significance can I get from my interpretation of the results?

Try to answer this question and question 7(a) before reading the discussion section.

Article 7 (c). Can I give another explanation for these results?

Even if the data is consistent with the forecast, there may be more than one reason for this result. You will often come across papers containing multiple experiments, and the author of this paper did extra experiments after the first experiment to rule out alternative explanations. You may want to try to design a new experiment to test another hypothesis.

Under discussion

The discussion part includes the author's explanation of the data in the form of conclusions. A good discussion brings perfection to readers-it answers the questions thrown in the introduction one by one. In addition, the author extends his/her conclusion by putting forward insightful application and significance to the experimental results.

As a critical reader, you have constructed your own interpretation of the results. Comparing the advantages of your explanation with the author's, which one do you prefer? Answering questions 8(a) and 8(b) will help you critically evaluate your and the author's interpretation of the results. Answering questions 8(c) and 8(d) will help you think critically about the possible future direction.

Article 8 (a). Whose explanation can better explain the data?

Because the author is allowed to have more room for discussion than other parts of the paper, you may find that the conclusions made by the author are not based on data. In other cases, the author's conclusions are mostly appropriate, and then these conclusions are beyond the scope of data support. The latter often happens when researchers are not aware of the limitations of dependent variables.

Article 8 (b). Who is more convincing in discussing the application and significance of the results?

This question is subordinate to question 8(a). However, by thinking about this issue, we can fully understand the research and gain valuable insights. The responsibility of researchers is not only to carry out strictly controlled experiments, but also to think about the theory and basis behind the research. The author's wisdom in the application and significance of mining results provides a good indication for the comprehensiveness of this study.

Article 8 (c). What questions have not been answered?

No study can answer all the questions. You may have left some general questions about this paper, or you may be troubled by some special data points ignored by the author.

Article 8 (d). What additional research can I do?

You may think there are some alternative explanations for the results, or you may want to answer the questions you left in 8(c). So you go back to question 3: "What would I do if I wanted to design an experiment to test this hypothesis?" The road to research is endless.