Peer Review for Kaitlin Jones

This peer review evaluates the research proposal 'Gender Differences and Category Set in Free Recall' by Kaitlin Jones. The review discusses the hypotheses, methodology, and formatting of the proposal, highlighting its strengths and limitations.

Running head: PEER REVIEW 1
PEER REVIEW FOR KAITLIN JONES
Student’s Name:
Institution’s Name:
Course title:
Date of Submission:

PEER REVIEW 2
Peer Review for Kaitlin Jones
In this concerned peer review paper a particular research proposal will be reviewed and
then evaluated. In this connection the research proposal chosen is “Gender Differences and
Category Set in Free Recall” by Kaitlin Jones.
In the aforesaid research proposal the author has proposed two specific hypotheses. The
first hypothesis is that, participants who are exposed to a related category set will actually take
less time in anagram solution than those participants who are exposed to unrelated category set
(Jones, n.d.). The second hypothesis is that, those female participants who are exposed to a
related category set will actually take less time in anagram solution than male participants and
particularly than those male participants who are exposed to a related category set.
It should be interesting to observe that the author has made the ground for reaching the
hypotheses in the very introductory part of the research proposal in which she has already
discussed about the role of gender in memory recall in a thorough manner. It should be noted that
in the introductory section the author has already mentioned the importance of the variable of
cognitive style in the context of influencing the problem solving process in an explicit manner.
Prior to reaching the hypotheses the author has also considered and discussed about the gender
factor in relation with problem solving. Moreover, hinting on the hypothesis that would be
proposed the author, in the introductory section of the proposal, has stated that “Dealing with
problem solving in life is often where male and female differences become very apparent”
(Jones, n.d.). Besides, the author has also introduced the readers to lateralization hypothesis to
make the ground for her own hypotheses that have been proposed later on.
The author has taken much care while composing the methodology section in specific so
that the readers can understand how the research question has been addressed and how the

PEER REVIEW 3
hypotheses have been proved right. The author has proposed that in terms of methodology the
proposed statistical analysis will be a mixed ANOVA. Moreover, the author has also discussed
about the participant sample collection methodology along with the type of approach that would
be taken and adopted in terms of conducting the research in the long run. The author has chosen
the survey method along with the observational method to conduct the research study (McLeod,
2015). The implementation of the mixed methodology would provide more scopes to the author
to explore, evaluate, and assess the research outcomes at the end of the research study in the
analysis and findings section (CIRT, n.d.). The author has proposed to have a total of thirty
people as participants (Jones, n.d.). The participant sample will constitute of 15 females and 15
males in specific and everyone will be above 18 years of age (Jones, n.d.). The samples will be
obtained from family, friends, and students and every participant will be exposed to a list of
related and unrelated words to experimentally measure the time taken by the participants for
verbal recall. For measuring the time that would be taken for verbal recall the author will apply a
2x2 mixed factorial design and she will be using a table of six organized lists of anagrams
adapted especially from Safren (1962). The table will contain a total of 36 anagrams that would
be arranged in six lists of six anagrams each (Jones, n.d.). The author has also proposed that she
will obtain from the organized lists six unrelated words and she will be making one particular list
of unrelated words by using word that would be taken from each list in a particular given row
(Jones, n.d.). Moreover, the author has proposed that as a part of the methodology for research
she would choose the related list and the unrelated list for writing each anagram on a single note
card that would be unsolved (Jones, n.d.).
Now, talking about the application of the APA style of formatting it should be said that the
author has suffered from some shortfalls. Under the “materials and measure” section the author

PEER REVIEW 4
has forgot to put the in-text citation properly. Moreover, the page numbering has been wrongly
indented. The page number should be very right corner of the top on every page, but this has not
been mentioned in the proposal. Under the references section also in case of some references the
space gap has not been properly maintained. Moreover, in the very first line of the introduction,
in case of the in-text citation the space gap has not been maintained.
The article is an informative one but it has suffered from lack of cohesiveness. It has been
observed that the proposal is composed of sections that have not been strongly linked with each
other. The primary limitation of the research proposal is the ambiguity that has been depicted in
the process of supporting the hypotheses. The author has mentioned the design method and
structure but its implementation should have been more clearly conveyed for better
understanding of the readers. The strength of the study is its research methodology but at the
same time the research methodology section has also acted as limitation for the research proposal
as the method application has not been fully explained.

PEER REVIEW 5
References
CIRT (n.d.). Overview of Mixed Methods. Retrieved April 13, 2019, from
https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/mixed_methods/
overview
Jones, K. (n.d.). Gender Differences and Category Set in Free Recall, 1-7.
McLeod, S. (2015). Observational Methods. Simply Psychology. Retrieved April 13, 2019, from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/observation.html