You have a good topic and good research studies reviewed in this draft. The dialog needs a bit of polishing, but otherwise is very professional and well done. The biggest improvement to the paper can be in providing more depth or breadth in your critique discussion research. The way you have it organized, compare and contrast and critique as separate sections, is fine but you could make the compare/contrast section stronger by integrating all of the studies into more of a cohesive single discussion. Your serial approach in this draft examines each study mostly in isolation from the others (at least in that section). Also, reword the subheadings for these sections. For the latter section, I recommend "Critique of Research" instead of "limitation." This would allow for a broader critique. Plus the term "limitations" has a slightly different denotation in research.

The abstract should be more summary of the main content in the paper, focusing on the main critique points and conclusions. Also, indicate directly that the paper is a review of research on the topic. Include the subheading "Introduction" immediately after the abstract so that you demarcate the beginning of the paper.

The introduction needs a bit more depth too. Indicate the purpose is to review the research and also provide a more concise definition of what your topic is.

Format: The paper needs format some improvement. The APA referencing format looks fairly good, although there are some minor mistakes on some of the in-text citations and on the reference list. For example, eliminate the all-caps titles in the reference list, and make sure that the first mention of a study in a paragraph has the publication year included with the citation.

You should have seen the announcement about WSKW Peavy Papers that I recently posted. If you can get these changed implemented in your paper, this will be a good one to present for that. I remember you volunteering last fall to go to the conference, and I'm holding you to that. It will be a great opportunity.