Brigid, J. S., Schewartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271-311.

Directions:Your paper should be no more than 10 double-spaced pages.
I.  Describe the study.  In one page or less, describe the following aspects of the study. Using your own words, interpret and summarize what is presented in the paper and, if necessary, translate it into terms that are accessible to the non-specialist.
1. Identify the research question.
2. Summarize the theoretical framework guiding the study.
3. Describe and characterize the research methodologies (both design and data analysis) employed.
4. Identify the authors’ conclusions.
II.  Critically Evaluate the study.  Evaluate and critique the design and implementation of the study. Consider at least the following issues and discuss ways they are addressed appropriately or, if they are not, identify and discuss any gaps and concerns.  Feel free to address issues not specifically listed here.
5. Have the research questions been adequately addressed?
6. Do the authors provide adequate justification for their choice of design, selection of sites and/or participants, and data collection and analysis techniques? 
7. How do the design, site and participant selection, data collection and analysis methods, conclusions, and interpretations relate to the research questions and theoretical framework?  Are each of these aspects of the research appropriate? Are they well-implemented? What questions remain unanswered for you concerning their design and analysis?
8. Is evidence appropriate to the research methodology provided of the reliability and validity of the measures and conclusions? Explain.
9. Are there other possible interpretations of the results?
10. Discuss any ethical issues raised by this work.
11. Reflect on the completeness and importance of this paper.
a. What open questions remain?
b. Are there any alternative methodologies or methodological issues that you see as missing?
c. Do the authors identify weaknesses in their own work?
d. What other issues/concerns/questions do you have with this work?
e. What is the importance of this work?