USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
reflection_paper_instructions_0 rubric_12
Critical review
see attached files
PAGE
1
Assignment: Critical Review/Reflection Papers
The book the critical review is done on is:
Michelle Miller, Branding Miss G___ (Toronto: Sumach Press, 2008).
Remember – a review is not primarily a summary. Rather, it analyses, comments on
and evaluates the book. Very important: it should also situate the book in the larger context of your learning. Your review should show that you can recognize arguments and engage in critical thinking. Keep these questions in mind as you read, make notes and then write the Critical Review/Reflection paper:
1. What is the specific topic of the book? What overall purpose does it seem to have? For what readership is it written? (Be sure to look in the preface, acknowledgments, reference list and index for clues about where and how the piece was originally published, and about the author’s background and position.)
2. Does the author state a specific thesis? Does she or he have an “axe to grind”? What are the author’s theoretical assumptions? Are these discussed explicitly?
3. What kinds of material does the book present (e.g. primary documents or secondary material, personal observations, literary analysis, quantitative data, biographical or historical accounts, etc.)?
4. How is this material used to demonstrate and argue the thesis?
5. Are there alternative ways of arguing from the same material? Does the author show awareness of them? In what respects does the author agree or disagree with these approaches?
6. What theoretical issues and topics for further discussion does the book raise?
7. What are your own reactions and informed opinions regarding the work?
8.
What exactly does the book contribute to the overall topic of our course, Women in Protest?
As you write your Critical Reviews/Reflections, remind yourself that the assignment is primarily to discuss the book’s treatment of the topic, not the topic itself. Your key sentences should begin, “This book shows . . .”, “The author argues . . .” rather than “This happened . . .”
Notes to the writer:
1. Please try to answer all of the 8 questions listed above.
2. The ONLY source that should be used is the book.
3. Cite everything properly. If for example there are two authors of this book, don’t just use one of the authors to cite the reference.
4. Don’t be vague, try to example all of the points you are ting to get across. Use further support with ideas from the book.
5. Use the book a lot when it comes to sourcing. Don’t just use it once or twice, use it many times.
6. I have attached the rubric also, so please take a look at that.
SEQ
C
H
A
PTER \h \r 153-410: Women in Protest
Critical Review/Reflection Grading Rubric
R.
B
ondy,
F
all 2011
|
Grade |
Sources |
Argument |
Analysis |
Clarity |
Format |
| A |
Book has been thoroughly and carefully considered considerable integration of ideas from class discussion of book several pertinent questions from the assignment sheet are engaged |
an original and provocative thesis is clearly stated at the beginning of the paper the thesis provides the backbone for critical discussion and analysis and reaches a satisfying conclusion based on what was proposed at the beginning of the paper |
based on excellent critical analysis and an original thesis, the critique is meaningful and multi-layered supporting ideas are artfully woven throughout the analysis, thoughtfully supporting the argument analysis extends the key ideas of the book and sets them in the broader context of the course/WS program |
the paper is easy to read; analysis flows expertly language is sophisticated without employing jargon terms of analysis are well-defined transitions between ideas are smooth and clear |
MLA or Chicago style 12pt, double-spaced, TimesNewRoman or equivalent; 2.5cm margins; page numbers; cover page citations are well documented throughout the paper length is appropriate |
| B |
Book has been adequately considered some integration of ideas from class discussion a reasonable number of questions from the assignment sheet are engaged |
an interesting but predictable thesis is clearly stated a the beginning of the paper the thesis is unclear, or tends toward description rather than argument, leading to a weak conclusion |
the critique is good but there are some significant weaknesses or lapses more supporting details are required to support the argument analysis demonstrates a good attempt to set key ideas from the book into the broader context of the course/WS program the critique is interesting but potentially unrealistic given the source material |
the paper is well written but suffers from some significant grammatical inconsistencies or spelling errors language is clear but lacks scholarly depth there are lapses in definitions of terms transitions between ideas are weak |
the paper follows the technical requirements with a few minor exceptions citations are solid but not thorough, with a few noticeable omissions within reasonable expectations for length |
| C |
Book has received some consideration minimal consideration of recommended questions from assignment sheet little integration of ideas from class discussion |
the thesis is fundamentally descriptive or dependent on a value judgement (good/bad; right/wrong) the argument fails to reach a satisfying conclusion with the paper simply petering out |
analysis is uninteresting or uninspired, tending toward summary or description ideas inadequately explored little attempt to set key ideas from the book into the broader context of the course/WS program |
there are significant problems with grammar and spelling language is unclear and/or shallow terms are not well defined and analysis leaps erratically from point to point |
there are some significant problems with the technical requirements of the paper that affect its impact citations are weak and/or bibliography is incomplete paper is significantly longer or shorter than suggested |
|
D |
Book is inadequately probed little to no consideration of questions from assignment sheet little to no use of ideas from class discussion |
there is no easily identifiable thesis there is no conclusion because no argument was established early on |
there is little critique of the source materials what should be analysis is little more than description minimal attempt to set key ideas from the book into the broader context of the course/WS program |
major problems with spelling and grammar which sometimes impede the readers’ understanding language is murky, confused, and difficult to follow key terms are ill-defined |
there are major problems with the technical requirements of the paper that seriously affect its impact there are next to no citations and/or no bibliography paper is entirely unreasonable in length (longer or shorter) |
| F |
no evidence that book has received serious consideration no integration of class discussion material |
there is no thesis the conclusion is deeply flawed or non-existent |
critique/analysis is nearly non-existent, weak, minimal and unsupported |
use of language is not at the university level numerous grammatical and spelling errors the paper is difficult to follow and lacks any sense of flow |
the paper does not follow a scholarly format in either technical or citation format |
