Author: Bernard

The purpose of this assignment is to provide an opportunity to read and think critically about the ideas of early personality theorists and how their theoretical frameworks relate to those of an alternate cultural framework (i.e., Eastern/Buddhist). This assignment provides students the opportunity to hone their writing skills and demonstrate proficiency in APA formatting and style.
In general, the structure of an article review is quite flexible and will vary according to the type of article, (e.g., scientific experiment, book review, editorial, or theoretical article, etc). The assigned article is conceptual (idea based), and not a scientific study. Therefore, you won’t find the typical introduction, method, results, and discussion sections found in an empirical study.
READ CAREFULLY **Your task is to describe the author’s thesis, explain important concepts in a concise manner, and summarize the author’s most important conclusions along the way. This will be the summary, after which, you’ll add your critical analysis. Although a critique is personal, your statements should echo a reasonable amount of objectivity. In other words, where you delve into statements of opinion, it will help your case if you can also present a logical basis for your statements.
For this assignment, I have chosen a reasonably short, (although not simplistic) article titled “Conceptions of the self in Western and Eastern psychology” by, Yozan Dirk Mosig, published in Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
Here’s the citation.
Mosig, Y. D. (2006). Conceptions of the self in Western and Eastern psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1–2), 39–50.
Although the syllabus states 1.5 pg minimum for writing assignments, because of the depth of content in this article, your paper may certainly exceed 1.5 pages if necessary.
Because we are familiar with the Western view (Freud, etc.), there is no need to spend time presenting Mosig’s summary of the Western view. Please focus on the Eastern view.

The papers should have a clear focus and logical progression. A complete or a polished version of the paper is not expected in drafts 1 and 2. It is understood that there may be flaws in organizational pattern, inadequate development of points or support for an argument, a lack of coherence, sentence-level problems with grammar, word choice, transitions, etc.
Draft 1 (5 points): It is understood that this will be a very rough draft. You must have some paragraphs and attempts at in-text citations. You can put in placeholders and list points for some sections.
This should be minimum of 3 pages in length and include:
● Introduce the topic: identify the topic, and then limit and narrow it to the issue/aspect that you are examining.
● Importance of the topic: for scholars, educators, parents, policymakers, etc or why this is an important issue to examine
● Research question(s) that you seek to answer in the paper.
● A thesis or focus statement(s) that expresses the main point you are trying to make (will still be a working thesis)
● Background information: in some instances, you may want to define/explain key terms or usages; trace the historical nature of your topic; describe different types/kinds of something; supply data, statistics, facts, and figures, and so on (may not be complete, but there should be some background)
● Some of the major points in at least a sketchy manner: more details, examples, or specifics may be added in subsequent drafts.
● A reference list with a minimum of 4 references correctly formatted.
Points will be given for fulfilling all requirements including timely submission and completion of the peer review.

You will need to do the reading assignments in order to do the Reaction Papers assignments (RPs). Whenever an RP is assigned, the assignment is to write a two-page paper (it can’t be only barely two pages, but it can be more than two pages) that covers at least one of the readings assigned for that week. The paper should do the following:

1) Summarize the main point of the reading (what it is about) in 1-2 paragraphs and then summarize a specific part of it in 1-2 paragraphs. The summary should paraphrase. No quotations are allowed. I will deduct points if you quote and you will get a 0 if you plagiarize.

2) After the summary, in 2-4 paragraphs, you should critically reflect on the part of the reading you focused on. Relate that specific part of the reading to:

1. a) its possible implications for understanding some aspect of human nature (e.g., how memory works) or an important social issue (e.g., anti-science sentiment in the US);

or,

1. b) something you have read elsewhere, personally experienced, witnessed, thought about, or read about (cite the source if it is something you read) at some time in your life;

or,

1. c) your critique the reading, if you can provide a strong argument for why readers should be skeptical about the evidence, main argument, or theory presented. This goes beyond the type of critical reflect described above. It is basically saying that the reading is wrong in some way. It is a risky path to take because it can be a spectacular failure if you don’t have some expertise in the subject matter, but it can be good practice for those who plan to go to graduate school.

3) Cite the reading, both in text and in a full reference citation at the end of the paper (reference citation does not have to be on a separate page). Use proper APA style to do your in-text and reference citations; since you probably took PSYC 2010 before the 7^th Edition APA Manual came out, I will accept either 6^th edition or 7^th edition APA style. Be sure that it is clear at all times which statements in your paper are paraphrased ideas from the reading, which statements come from other sources (if applicable), and which statements are your own views. I have made a TurnItIn Check folder available to help you catch word overlaps, but that only catches places where you did not paraphrase well enough to make the wording your own. It does not catch the kind of plagiarism where someone fails to cite the sources of their ideas. Only your own careful proofreading can prevent that type of plagiarism. You should definitely take the time to do that, because you can be sure that I will be watching for that type of plagiarism too.

I will add some more clarification to the above guidelines here. First, you should do justice to both the summary part of the paper and the critical reflection part. That means that roughly half of your paper should summarize the reading and roughly half of it should be the critical reflection part. Second, in focusing on a specific part of the reading in your summary, do not just list random details. The part you focus on should be a key part of the reading. Third, make sure your critical reflection is clearly relevant to the part of the reading you focused on in your summary. Don’t just ramble.