PROJECT 2: CRITIQUE
Here are some of the things you must know, read carefully, understand, and do, in order to write a good article critique: |
Think critically: To read critically is to make judgements about how a text is argued. This is a highly reflective skill requiring you to "stand back" and gain some distance from the text you are reading. THE KEY IS THIS: * first, read looking only for primarily for information (author, content, etc.) * then, do read looking for ways of thinking about the subject matter Avoid approaching a text by ONLY asking "What information can I get out of it?" Don't forget to ask "How does this text work? How is it argued? How is the evidence (the facts, examples, etc.) used and interpreted? How does the text reach its conclusions?
|
The author: 1. What are the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Is the book or article written on a topic in the author's area of expertise? You can use the various Who's Who publications for the U.S. and other countries and for specific subjects and the biographical information located in the publication itself to help determine the author's affiliation and credentials. 2. Have you seen the author's name cited in other sources or bibliographies? Respected authors are cited frequently by other scholars. For this reason, always note those names that appear in many different sources. 3. Is the author associated with a reputable institution or organization? What are the basic values or goals of the organization or institution? |
| Date of publication and publisher: 1. When was the source published? 2. Is the source current or out-of-date for your topic? Topic areas of continuing and rapid development, such as the sciences, demand more current information. On the other hand, topics in the humanities often require material that was written many years ago. At the other extreme, some news sources on the Web now note the hour and minute that articles are posted on their site. 3. Note the publisher. If the source is published by a university press, it is likely to be scholarly. Although the fact that the publisher is reputable does not necessarily guarantee quality, it does show that the publisher may have high regard for the source being published. |
Content: (this is where you need to start thinking!)
1. Does the work update other sources, substantiate other materials you have read, or add new information? Does it extensively or marginally cover your topic? You should explore enough sources to obtain a variety of viewpoints. 2. Is the material primary or secondary in nature? Primary sources are the raw material of the research process. Secondary sources are based on primary sources. For example, if you were researching Konrad Adenauer's role in rebuilding West Germany after World War II, Adenauer's own writings would be one of many primary sources available on this topic. Others might include relevant government documents and contemporary German newspaper articles. Scholars use this primary material to help generate historical interpretations--a secondary source. Books, encyclopedia articles, and scholarly journal articles about Adenauer's role are considered secondary sources. In the sciences, journal articles and conference proceedings written by experimenters reporting the results of their research are primary documents. Look at and verify both primary and secondary sources when you have the opportunity. 3. Audience and style: What type of audience is the author addressing? Is the publication aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Is this source too elementary, too technical, too advanced, or just right for you to understand? 4. Is the publication organized logically? Are the main points clearly presented? Do you find the text easy to read, or is it stilted or choppy? Is the author's argument repetitive?
|
Content: (continuation) 5. Reasoning: Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? It is not always easy to separate fact from opinion. Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts. Skilled writers can make you think their interpretations are facts. What concepts are defined and used? Does the text appeal to a theory or theories? Is any specific methodology laid out? If there is an appeal to a particular concept, theory, or method, how is that concept, theory, or method then used to organize and interpret the data? You might also examine how the text is organized: how has the author analyzed (broken down) the material? Be aware that different disciplines (i.e. history, sociology, philosophy, biology) will have different ways of arguing. Does the information appear to be valid and well-researched, or is it questionable and unsupported by evidence? Assumptions should be reasonable. Note errors or omissions. Are the ideas and arguments advanced more or less in line with other works you have read on the same topic? The more radically an author departs from the views of others in the same field, the more carefully and critically you should scrutinize his or her ideas. Is the author's point of view objective and impartial? Is the language free of emotion-arousing words and bias? |
| What you will write about: A summary of the article (main ideas and point of view of the author) in order to define the subject of your critique.
Counter arguments to your own arguments (for example something your teacher could say against your own arguments) and a response to them.
|
What counts: 1. Addresses the assignment (summarizing the article, choosing and defending criteria, matching with the article with good evidence, showing good knowledge and broad understanding of the topic, thinking of adequate counter arguments (from other related articles or your own), thoroughly responding to them, providing convincing and interesting arguments and recommendations, doing some good critical thinking! In short, I want to be CONVINCED by your arguments and I want to see that you know what you're talking about!) (45 pts) 2. Logical organization (intro (attention catcher, summary of article, explanation of what you will discuss in the body of the paper); logically organized body; strong conclusion, smooth sequence of ideas, good title, sufficient and appropriate use of quotes, paraphrasing, and summarizing throughout the text, reference list (APA style) at the end) (25 pts) 3. Evidence of planning, progression, and working from earlier drafts (with classmates and teacher); all material used, at least 3 previous drafts in addition to the final one (one read by your classmates, one read by your teacher, and your second draft), TWO PREVIOUS REVIEWS (prevention article and cigarette article) AND SELF-EVALUATION included in a folder. (10 pts) 4. Appropriate tone, genre, style, vocabulary for audience (academic language) (went to the lab: +5 point!) (10 pts) 5. Appropriate length (650-750 words) (5 pts) 6. Grammar, mechanics, transitions, spelling, format, adequate and accurate (APA style) citations throughout the text and in the reference list (5 pts) |
Self-evaluation: On a separate page, typed, and in few paragraphs, explain how you feel about this project and what you wrote. Explain what you think you did well and what your difficulties were in working on this project. Also explain what you might have done differently if you had had more time. Try to honestly evaluate the quality of your work, your efforts, the amount of work you put in the project, your strengths and your weaknesses. Also tell me what you have learned from working on this project. This page was written with the help of:
http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/critrdg.html
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/writecenter/web/critique.html
http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill26.htm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |