– The purpose of this assignment is for you to (1) observe how experts pull together various pieces of evidence to justify a series of claims and (2) analyze the relevance of each piece of evidence to the claim that is being made.
– How do experts (that is, the authors of an empirical article) use previous evidence to substantiate their claims? In other words, how do we use past research to inform future research?
– Read Perryman et al. (2013) in its entirety. Then narrow your attention on the introduction.
The introduction will be the focus of this assignment.
2) Nineteen prior sources have been cited in the introduction; that is, the authors are making
a statement and then citing the work of someone else (e.g., Smith, 2008) in support of that
statement. These prior sources will be the focus of this assignment.
– For each source, you need to do the following:
1) Read the abstract/article (depending on what I have given you) associated with that source. *Note: The Happe & Frith article file online contains two articles. You are only responsible for the first article in that file, by Happe & Frith.
2) Reflect on the relevance of each piece of evidence to the Perryman et al. (2013) article. Why did Perryman et al. (2013) cite this work – why is it helpful or relevant for them? What is the common thread or connection? You may want to consider how the cited article and the Perryman et al. (2013) article are similar or different in various PICO elements, remembering that the Perryman et al. (2013) article uses:
• Population: Toddlers with ASD
• Indicator: Parental follow-in talk
• Comparison: No parental follow-in talk
• Outcome: Follow-up receptive language
– Include BOTH ANALYSIS and Reflection
Your analysis should summarize what you noted in Question #2 above: how
were these cited articles relevant to the work of Perryman et al. (2013)? Highlight specific examples from all nineteen sources and discuss the range of evidence that was reviewed.
• Your reflection should comment on the educational experience of completing this process: Were you surprised by anything? What did you learn about the process, and how will it help you in finding evidence to answer your own questions in the future?
Articles are attached
