Constructing

  

Directions:  Make sure you incorporate differentiated instruction techniques , MS standards, etc. and the instructional approaches that vary as it is relates to individuals and diverse students. Reflective Journal format make sure information has scholarly meaning and citations.

EXAMPLE

Journal Article Critique-Required Format

Article:   Darling-Hammond, L. (May/June 2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher

                 education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 186-213.

(Double space after this section)

Summary: Single-space the summary section of your article.

Give a brief, but concise summary (overview) of the content of the article that you have selected to critique. In the summary section, do not give any direct quotes from the article. Do not write

more than one paragraph for this section of your critique.

(Double space after you have typed the summary section)

 Analysis: Double-space the analysis section of your article critique.

This is the most important section of the critique. This section must include information relative to numbers 1-3 shown below. You may include other information, as you deem appropriate. This section must be a minimum of two (double-spaced) pages, but no more than three pages. Use the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.).

1. Recaptures the specifics of the article, has substance, is written in natural language.

2. Knowledge or information gained from your experiences (working in business/industry, teaching), or from information you have learned from other classes/professors or colleagues.

3. A pro or con summary or conclusion statement concerning your overall position about the article you are reviewing. Remember, you must have a rationale for your beliefs or views about the article that you are reviewing.

 

Reference(s): Type all supplemental references, if you use other articles for your critique on a separate page. All References, including supplemental articles must not be dated back past three years. You must cite all references used in the appropriate section of your critique. Plagiarism is a serious offense. See section 6.22 and 8.05 of the APA Manual.

4.  

Rubric

Writing Rubric

   

Writing    Rubric

 

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeAppropriate Details

   

20.0 pts

Outstanding

Judicious choice of details     maximizes interest and understanding

15.0 pts

Very Good

All relevant details presented,     but details not critical to understanding omitted

10.0 pts

Good

Enough critical details     presented for understanding, unnecessary details generally omitted

5.0 pts

Satisfactory

Most important details included     but may include too much or too little detail for easy understanding

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

Some critical details missing,     unnecessary details may be present

20.0 pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeStatement of Context, Relevance in Subject Area

   

12.0 pts

Outstanding

Place of study in field clearly     described, illuminating links to other studies or topics made

9.0 pts

Very Good

Place of study in field clearly     described, some reference to relationship to other studies or topics

6.0 pts

Good

General reference of study in     field described

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

Attempt made to place in     context, possibly not quite appropriately

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

No attempt made to describe     context of study

12.0 pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeWriter's Evaluation of the Study

   

10.0 pts

Outstanding

Clearly articulated,     well-supported statements of value and/or shortcomings of study

7.0 pts

Very Good

Evaluation includes positive     value of study as well as clearly supported explanation of shortcomings

4.0 pts

Good

Good attempt at evaluation with     some support of conclusions; possibly more negative than positive comments

2.0 pts

Satisfactory

Some attempt at evaluation,     comments valid but not necessarily well supported

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

No attempt to evaluate study or     evaluative statements unsupported or inappropriate

10.0 pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeOverall Organization

   

14.0 pts

Outstanding

Overall purpose, methods,     results, and conclusions of study clearly stated; seemingly effortless and     seamless logic flow

11.0 pts

Very Good

Overall purpose, methods,     results, and conclusions of study clearly stated; logical flow always easy     to follow

8.0 pts

Good

Purpose, methods, results and     conclusions clearly stated; most of presentation flows logically

4.0 pts

Satisfactory

Purpose, methods, results, and     conclusions stated; possibly some awkwardness in logical flow

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

Major sections missing or lack     of logical flow

14.0 pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeClarity of Explanations

   

18.0 pts

Outstanding

Sophisticated use of language     maximizes interest, enjoyment and comprehension; explanations very clear,     factually correct

14.0 pts

Very Good

All explanations are clear and     easy to understand, factually correct

10.0 pts

Good

Most explanations clear and easy     to understand, mostly factually correct

6.0 pts

Satisfactory

Overall meeting is     understandable; possibly some areas of slight confusion or minor factual     errors

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

Serious difficulty explaining     ideas, major factual errors; lack of comprehensibility

18.0 pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeUse of Terminology

   

10.0 pts

Outstanding

Correct use of all terminology,     attention to nuances of meaning, judicious use of clearly defined jargon

7.0 pts

Very Good

All technical terms used     correctly and defined clearly, including terms with different common     meanings; overuse of jargon avoided

4.0 pts

Good

Few errors in use of     terminology; definitions provided for technical terms, overuse of jargon     avoided

2.0 pts

Satisfactory

Most terms used correctly,     possibly some incorrect usage or use of unnecessary or undefined jargon

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

Jargon terms used incorrectly,     without definition; attempting to sound "scientific" without     understanding meaning of terms

10.0 pts

 

This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeWriting Style

   

16.0 pts

Outstanding

Sophisticated, elegant style,     complex yet lucid sentence structure, flawless grammar

12.0 pts

Very Good

Error-free, easy to read writing     style, well practiced and polished use of language

8.0 pts

Good

Good basic writing style, easy     to read, few errors, almost entirely in author's won words, little     paraphrasing or unnecessary quotation

4.0 pts

Satisfactory

Mostly basic, correct writing     style, relatively few errors and little awkwardness, minimal use of     unnecessary quotation or paraphrasing

0.0 pts

Unacceptable

Serious errors and awkwardness,     excessive use of quotation in place of author's own words, excessive     paraphrasing

16.0 pts

 

Total Points: 100.0