Talking Circle

Talking circle 1 Scholar article critique – Mediterranean diet

Scholarly article critique talking circle.

This activity will help students to develop their confidence in discussing research and critiquing research methodology.

Instructions:

This assignment is done with your research proposal team.

Read the assigned article, Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of CaseControl Studies.

Post 1 Individual learning, preparation, and reflection

This is an individual activity in which you answer ALL of the questions below to prepare you for your talking circle.

Read the Critique/Review of Research Article pdf for guidance on how to structure your critique then focus on the following questions:

Answer the above questions and the following additional questions:

• Answer the above questions
• Identify the study design.
• What is the research question of this study?
• Why was this study design selected? Was it effective ? Did it answer the research question? What did the researchers do well and what could they have improved?
• What did you learn from this activity?

Post 2 Collective reflection and insights – Talking circle activity in class

You will meet with your team and hold a talking circle in which you discuss your answers in post 1 before answering the questions below for post 2 together.

This second post documents your group discussion and your individual and group takeaways or aha moments that will contribute to the foundation of knowledge and skills that you are building in this course. Please answer the following questions based on your team discussion of the following questions:

Now that you have answered questions about the article, meet with your team to hold a talking circle where you discuss the following questions.

1. Give a brief synopsis about the article you covered.
2. What are the strengths of this article and what did you learn about research records from its methodology?
3. What are some weaknesses of this article and what does your group recommend to improve this article?
4. a) What are some individual takeaways from this activity? b) What are some group takeaways from this activity?
5. How did you benefit from doing this exercise as a talking circle in class?
6. Do you have any suggestions for the next talking circle activity?

Student value of this activity: It is crucial that every student has an opportunity to speak. This helps you to develop the skill of evaluating research verbally in a safe space. Critical thinking in a group setting is a key skill for success in every workplace. It may be uncomfortable to talk for you but I urge you to push through this discomfort during this activity.

Post 3. Engagement and Comparative Evaluation

You will now engage with your classmates by commenting on ONE persons post 1 and 2 what insights have you gained from your classmate and how does it compare to your own experience with this exercise? What have you gained overall from your team and your classmates as a result of this exercise?

Notes for Students:

• Post 1 is your individual critique of your chosen article.
• Post 2 is your team discussion and talking circle summary.
• Post 3 is your engagement with peers.
• All posts should be well-written, clear, and professional.

References

Zalaquett, N., Lidoriki, I., Lampou, M., Saab, J., Hadkhale, K., Christophi, C., & Kales, S. N. (2025). Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of CaseControl Studies. Nutrients, 17(2), 287.

Scholar article critique Talking circle 1 rubric (Total: 25 Points) Mediterranean diet

Criteria

Excellent (5 pts)

Good (4 pts)

Satisfactory (3 pts)

Needs Improvement (12 pts)

Points Earned

1. Completeness and Clarity of Responses to All Guiding Questions

Fully addresses all provided and assigned questions with clear, detailed, and well-supported answers.

Addresses most questions; responses are mostly clear and supported.

Addresses some questions with minimal explanation or support.

Incomplete or unclear responses; missing several questions.

2. Identification of Study Design

Correctly identifies the study design and explains it accurately.

Correctly identifies study design with minor inaccuracies in explanation.

Identifies study design with vague or limited explanation.

Incorrect or missing study design identification.

3. Articulation of the Research Question

Clearly and correctly states the research question as presented in the article.

Generally correct research question, though minor wording issues.

Research question stated with limited clarity or partial accuracy.

Missing or significantly incorrect research question.

4. Evaluation of Study Design and Effectiveness

Provides a thoughtful evaluation of why the design was chosen, how well it worked, what the researchers did well, and suggestions for improvement.

Gives a good explanation with minor detail gaps or weaker evaluation.

Brief or surface-level evaluation; lacks depth.

Minimal or unclear evaluation; major parts of the question are not addressed.

5. Reflection on Learning

(Post 2 &3)

Offers a meaningful reflection on what was learned from the article and the critique process, with thoughtful insights.

Reflection is relevant and shows some insight.

Reflection is vague or superficial. Post 3 is missing part 1 or 2.

Minimal or unrelated reflection.