Guidelines for writing an article summary
Please note this was taken from another professor. The examples are from his course. You are still expected to achieve the same level of excellence!
Guidelines (fromAcademic Writing, 2nd edition) /
- Find an article dealing with the nurse-patient relationship.
- Photocopy your article so that you can mark it up as necessary.
- Read the article carefully. Identify the author's main purpose in writing the article. Figure out the structure of the article. What are the main sections?
- Re-read the article, this time underlining the main points of the article and key words that expresses these main ideas.
- Write a short summary of the author's primary purpose in writing the article.
- Write short summaries of each of the author's main ideas.
- Revise your summary so that it reads smoothly from section to section
- Document your summary in APA style. See below.
- Format and submit your essay as directed in the syllabus along with the photocopy of the article.
Citing a source in your writing / You'll notice that when writers insert borrowed information into their own writing, they offer signals that they are borrowing. The typical way of signaling borrowed information is to use the author's name in your own writing and to state what the author is trying to do. Here are a couple of examples:
- Smith (1999) suggests that the number of ways a nurse can show compassion to a patient are limited only by the nurse's imagination.(Note that APA style requires you to provide the author's last name and the date of the publication in parentheses immediately after the author's name.)
- After interviewing more than 2500 active-duty military nurses, Jones (2001) argues that "the greatest survival rates among war-time casualties involve patients who feel that their nurses care for them on a personal level" (27).(Note here that direct quotations require a page number in parentheses. Also note where the period comes at the end of the sentence.)
Documentating journal articles / Davidhizar, R. (March 1998). Improving your bedside manner.The Journal of Practical Nursing, 48(1), 10-14.
Due / See SchoolWires!
Sample Summary / In the sample essay below I've attempted to illustrate what the essay might look like and I've described what I've done in each section of the essay. To make my essay take up less space, I have single spaced my article, but you should double space as directed in the syllabus. Don't forget to include a cover page and a photocopy of the article you summarized. I've also not developed my summary as long as I might; I just wanted to give you an idea of what you might do. I have the original article if you wish to examine it. Should you do so, you will find that I have said exactly the same thing the author says, in my own words, following exactly the same order of ideas that original author did. Your summary should follow the same format.
Identify author's purpose. Mention author's name. Put quotation marks around exact wording the author uses. / In an article entitledImproving your bedside manner, Davidhizar observes that the manner in which healthcare providers demonstrate care and concern for their patients significantly influences how patients and their significant others cooperate with and comply with treatment plans, arouses patients' hopefulness and optimism about their recovery, and reduces the likelihood that patients will feel compelled to take legal action against their health care providers. The majority of Davidhizer's article consists of suggestions for how healthcare providers can improve their "bedside manner."
Summarize each of the author's supporting points. Repeat author's name as reminder that this is a summary. / Davidhizer begins by noting the importance of making a favorable first impression which "may make the difference between a patient and significant others being cooperative or not with efforts to provide effective care" (10)(...I would go on to summarize how the author says to make a good first impression, noting his major points in my own words, quoting not to fill space, but only if the way he says something is particularly significant.)
Other directions Davidhizer offers include actively communicating interest and concern, using words and actions to communicate empathy and respect, practicing attending skills, communicating availability, following up on requests, avoiding defensiveness, maintaining a professional manner, answering questions honestly, maintaining a positive attitude, and practicing intentional encouragement.(...I provide his list, but I'd go on to discuss the points in a bit more detail. Since the author seems to stress maintaining a professional manner, I'd probably develop at least this thought more completely. Again, I'm using my own words.)
Summarize author's summary / Davidhizer concludes that "positive bedside manners are essential when caring for patients" (14) and he offers several reasons why this is so.(...I finish up with a short summary of Davidhizer's summary, in my own words offering a short version of what he says.).
Provide reference to article using APA guidelines for a journal article / Reference
Davidhizar, R. (March 1998). Improving your bedside manner.The Journal of Practical Nursing, 48(1), 10-14.
Writing Center / Don't forget that it's always a good idea to get someone to have a look at your summary to make any suggestions they may have for revision. You can make an appointment with a tutor by could stop by School Counselors Office and make an appointment.
Fall2004Example1.Summary written by a Psych 209 student for the article
DeBono, K.G., Leavitt, A., & Backus, J. (2003).Product packaging and product evaluation: An individual difference approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 513-521.
Past research suggests that packaging and appearance of products can have a direct influence on how people evaluate the quality and performance of that product.This represents what is known as an image variable, which is the image a consumer feels they would have by owning a specific product. Individuals can be broken down into two groups, high self-monitors and low self-monitors, with the first group judging the quality of products based on their appearance, and the later judging the quality of products based on their actual performance.DeBono, Leavitt, and Backus (2003) developed two hypotheses, that high self-monitors will bemoreinclined to choose products with more attractive packaging, and that low self-monitors will be more inclined to choose products with higher quality and performance.
In the first study, 64UnionCollegestudents were classified as low self-monitors or high self-monitors by their scores on the Self-Monitoring Inventory.All participants were asked to sample four types of chocolate, coffee, and bottled water which were placed next to the packaging from which it supposedly came.The participants were unaware that all four samples of each item were identical, differing only in the level of attractiveness of the packaging.They were then asked to complete a questionnaire and decide which of the four samples of each item they preferred.If they chose the one with the most attractive packaging they received a score of 4; they scored a 3 for the second more attractive, and so on.High self-monitors had higher total scores for each product, suggesting that they chose the sample corresponding to the most attractive packaging with more frequency than low self-monitors.
In the second study, 200 male and female undergraduates were again classified as low self-monitors or high self-monitors by their scores on the Self-Monitoring Inventory.Participants were then given a bottle of cologne or perfume in either an attractive or unattractive bottle which contained either a pleasant-smelling scent or a less than pleasant-smelling scent and asked to spray a little bit and smell the scent.Participant then completed an evaluative questionnaire about their opinions of the cologne or perfume.The results showed that high self-monitors preferred the cologne or perfume that came from the attractive bottle regardless of scent.Low self-monitors preferred the cologne or perfume with the pleasant-smelling scent regardless of the bottle.
The results of both studies support the experimenters’ hypothesis that high self-monitors evaluate products based on the attractiveness of packaging more often than low self-monitors. The second study also lends support to the second hypothesis that low self-monitors favor products with better quality and performance.This suggests that high and low self-monitors form different strategies for evaluating products based on what is important to them.
GRADER'S FINAL COMMENT:
15/15
Your paper is very well written and easy to understand-it is clear you do very well with scientific writing.Discussion could us a little explanation to tie it all together. The final paragraph could elaborate.Mention “image variables” again or discuss the “social image versus “consistency” functions of attitudes.
all2004Example2.Summary written by a Psych 209 student for the article
DeBono, K.G., Leavitt, A., & Backus, J. (2003).Product packaging and product evaluation: An individual difference approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 513-521.
A coffee commercial shows a couple duped into believing the coffee they drink is higher quality than it really is based on their elegant surroundings.This idea – as researched in past studies – suggests that a person may indeed believe a product to be of high quality based on its outward packaging and appearance.It was further suggested that some individuals might be more susceptible to this type of rationale (pretty packaging = good product) and that these individuals might be identified using a certain test scale.The scale identifies two personalitytypes: high self-monitors, who have the tendency to be more concerned about the appearance they present to those around them, and low self-monitors who tend to be most concerned that their outward appearance matches their personality, not what others might expect or want to see.The researchers hypothesized that high self-monitoring participants would rate a product more favorably if its presentation were more attractive than another with a less appealing presentation.
Sixty-four students participated in the first study, 25 of whom scored as low self-monitors and 39 who scored as high self-monitors.They sampled four different brands each of bottled water, chocolate and coffee.Unknown to the participants, all samples of each category were identical; only their containers varied, each more attractive than the next.After trying out all the samples, the subjects were required to fill out a survey, ending with a question to rank their overall product preference.The participants classified as high self-monitors tended more often than low self-monitors to rate products more positively when the product had a more attractive presentation.
The second study expanded on this by varying the quality of the samples as well as the packaging.Two hundred male and female undergraduate students participated; 93 were classified as low self-monitors and 107 as high self-monitors.Subjects were told that the women would test and evaluate a perfume and the men, cologne.Afterwards, the participants filled out a survey.The low self-monitors tended to evaluate the scent based on its actual scent and not on its outward appearance whereas the high self-monitors were more inclined to take the attractiveness of the bottles into consideration when evaluating the scent.Thus they were more apt to rate an unpleasant scent as higher quality based on its attractive presentation and a pleasant scent as lower quality based on its less attractive presentation.
The original hypothesis – that a high self-monitor would rate a product more favorably based on its packaging – was supported by these two studies.These findings may suggest a pattern in the way a person selects a product: a high self-monitor may indeed judge a book by its cover, a habit that may stem from his/her general desire to get along with others.On the other hand, a low self-monitor may be more interested in performance than appearance, a finding that supports the possibility that low self-monitors rely on their own opinions rather than being influenced by whether others concur or not.
GRADER'S FINAL COMMENT:
15/15
Great job!
Some parts of this could be clarified, but overall, nice work.
Fall 2004Example 3.Summary written by a Psych 209 student for the article
DeBono, K.G., Leavitt, A., & Backus, J. (2003). Product packaging and product evaluation: An individual difference approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 513-521.
Many studies have suggested that people are affected by a product’s packaging.Even though the way the product is displayed is somewhat independent of the product itself, the appearance of the packaging remains a primary factor in the judgment of product quality.Researchers have found that the level of self-monitoring a person undergoes could predict the extent to which the packaging affects their evaluation of the product. High self-monitors are individuals who are attentive to what image they are displaying in public, and whose attitudes and beliefs evolve around each social situation.On the other hand, low self-monitors are those whose attitudes and beliefs are consistent no matter what situation they find themselves in.A set of studies by Debono, Leavitt, and Backus (2003) set out to find the difference between the evaluation of products by high self-monitoring individuals and those by low self-monitoring individuals.The researchers hypothesized that the evaluations of products by high self-monitoring individuals would be affected more by product packaging than the evaluation of low self-monitoring individuals.In the first study the researcher gave 64 college students a test to determine their placement in either a high self-monitoring or low self-monitoring group. Each person of the two groups was given a questionnaire that asked him or her to compare four brands of coffee, chocolate, and water that were placed in a random order beside the packaging that was supposed for that product.What the participants didn’t know was that all four brands of each product were exactly the same; the only difference was the attractiveness of the packaging.The high self-monitoring group rated the products that came in the more attractive packaging higher than those that did not, even though the groups of products themselves did not differ.In the second study researcher predicted that the evaluations by high self-monitors would depend more on packaging than the evaluations by the low self-monitors, which would depend more on the actual quality and functionality of the product.In this study the researcher gave 200 male and female undergraduate students the self-monitoring test, placed them into either the high or low self-monitoring group depending on their score, and asked them to rate a set of different perfumes. The perfumes the students evaluated had been pre-tested and had been identified as having either an attractive bottle or a less attractive bottle and being either pleasant smelling or less pleasant smelling.The data indicated that a high self-monitor was likely to judge a scent as more pleasant when it came in an attractive container than when it did not.Low self-monitors showed a tendency to judge the scent based on its pleasantness more so than on the appearance of the packaging.The data supported the researcher’s hypotheses and were not contradicted by previous research.It also suggested that because high self-monitors try to form opinions that are more socially acceptable, the method they used to evaluate products was the one that tended to generate more socially acceptable judgments.On the other hand, because low self-monitors tend to base their opinions on their own internal beliefs, they were less susceptible to making judgments based on the values of society.
GRADER'S FINAL COMMENT:
15/15
This is very well written – good scientific writing.
Fall2004Example4.Summary written by a Psych 209 student for the article
DeBono, K.G., Leavitt, A., & Backus, J. (2003). Product packaging and product evaluation: An individual difference approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 513-521.
Past research suggests that certain superficial aspects of a product affect some consumers’ perceptions of its quality.High self-monitoring consumers, who change the their own images to adapt to social situations, tend to judge products based on image projection.Low self-monitoring consumers, whose attitudes and images remain constant, tend to judge products based on their tastes and perceived product quality.DeBono, Leavitt, and Backus (2003) hypothesized that the superficial aspect of product packaging would lead high self-monitors to favor products packaged attractively and that product packaging would have no effect on the preferences of low self-monitors.In a second study with product quality varied, the researchers predicted that high self-monitors would base their ratings on product packaging, and low self-monitors would base their ratings on product quality.