Book Review

Criteria

Unacceptable Excellent

total

Part A –

· Briefly summarized all important points

· Gave opinion of summarized points

· Supported opinion with reasons

· Had focussed discussion on most significant part

· Gave position on author’s perspective and discussed reasons for thoughts

0-13 14-20 21-25

/25

Part B –

· Discusses required information

· Demonstrates critical thinking in discussion of points

0-17 18-26 27-30

/30

Purpose and Audience

What is the purpose of the book? Is the purpose stated or implied?

Who is the article’s intended audience? Why did they target that audience?

Why do the factors of purpose and audience affect tone and content?

Authority

Does the author have adequate qualifications/expertise? How do qualifications indicate that they are authorities in this field? (look them up)

Is the work cited in other writings? Criticised? Lauded?

Accuracy & Reliability

Does the article offer trustworthy information? Is a bibliography or reference list available so information can be verified?

Check if data, statistics, and facts are documented (and timely)

Objectivity

Is the information biased or objective? How? Is that appropriate?

Are the article’s opinions supported by research? fact? Why? Is that appropriate?

Examine the evidence presented. Is it adequate or credible? Why or why not?

Currency

Is the information current? Should it be? How has theory changed from older books/theories? Are the current research findings/theories evident? Should they be?

Coverage

Does the article adequately cover its topic?

Are important aspects of the topic omitted? Are omissions acknowledged?

Does the article significantly contribute to the field/discipline? How?

Part C –

· Identified most interesting aspect of book. Explains why

· Discussed content significance in overall business setting

· Had examples of concepts use in personal work setting

· Gave personal recommendation with reasons for opinion

· Demonstrates critical thinking in all/ some/few/no areas

0-20 21-30 31-35

/35

Part D - Professionalism

· Grammar

· Formatting: use of headings and appropriate content

· Clarity, Effectiveness, Internal Consistency

· References - correct and properly utilized

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

/10

Written Communication Assessment 10%

1-2

Did not meet expectations

3-4

Met expectations

5

Exceeded expectations

Writing Conventions

(grammar, word use, punctuation, mechanics)

Frequent

grammatical errors

and misspellings

inhibit readability Informal language, abbreviations and slang are used

Few grammatical errors

(3 or fewer per page)

Correct verb tense used

Paragraphs flow from

one to another Active

voice pervasive

Free of grammatical errors

and misspellings Effective verb tense used; Uses phrases and

construction that delight as

well as inform the reader

Primarily active voice

Overall Effectiveness appearance/format

Not formatted to Specifications, Lacking professional appearance

Formatting is generally

correct, acceptable

professional appearance.

Assigned format followed

explicitly: Exceptional

professional appearance

Critical Thinking and Written Analyses Rubric 90%

Criteria

1-5

Did Not Meet Expectations

6-8

Met Expectations

9-10

Exceeded Expectations

Clarity

Writing is not clear. It is

difficult to understand points

being made. The writing lacks

transitions, and few examples and/or illustrations are provided to support explanation or

recommendations.

Writing is generally well organized and understood. Transitions are used to facilitate clarity. Some examples and/illustrations are used to support explanation or recommendations.

Writing is succinct, precise,

effectively organized no ambiguity. Transitions, explanation and elaboration are extensive to elucidate points. Detailed illustrations and/or examples are used to support explanation & recommendations

Relevance

Critical issues/questions are

omitted or ignored in the writing.

Most of the critical issues/questions are addressed in the writing.

All critical issues/questions

are addressed completely in writing

Depth of

Discussion

/20

Ignores bias; Omits arguments

Misrepresents issues; Excludes data; Includes but does not detect inconsistency of

information; Ideas contain

unnecessary gaps, repetition or extraneous details overlooks differences

Detects bias; Recognizes arguments; Categorizes content; Paraphrases data;

Sufficient detail to support conclusions and/or recommendations

Analysis includes insightful

questions; Refutes bias; Discusses

issues thoroughly; Critiques content; Values information Examines inconsistencies;

Offers extensive detail to support conclusions and recommendations; Suggests solutions/ implementation

Breadth of Discussion

/20

Omits arguments or

perspectives; Misses major

content areas/concepts;

Presents few options

Covers the breadth of the topic without being superfluous

Considers multiple

perspectives; Thoroughly delves into the issues/questions;

Thoroughly discusses relevant facts

Integration

Elements of Reasoning

/20

Fails to draw conclusions or

conclusions rely on author’s

authority rather than strength of presentation; Draws faulty conclusions; Shows intellectual dishonesty

Formulates clear conclusions with adequate support

Assimilates and critically

reviews information, uses

reasonable judgment, and

provides balanced, well

justified conclusions

Internally Consistent

There is little integration across the sections of the paper. Several inconsistencies or contradictions exist. Few of the issues, recommendations and explanations make sense; not well integrated.

Sections of the paper are generally well linked/connected. Only minor contradictions exist. Most of the issues, recommendations and explanations make sense and are well integrated.

All sections of the paper are

linked. There are no

contradictions in the

writing. All issues,

recommendations and

explanations make sense

and are well integrated