Critiquing (0 points)
Overview
Constructive criticism
helps the person whose work is being critiqued, and the person who is providing
the feedback. The person being critiqued gains a fresh perspective and valuable
concrete feedback that can be used to improve their work, whereas the reviewer
learns how to improve their own writing by seeing what works (and doesn't
work) in the writing and oral presentations of others. Your critique should
be constructive, which means being gentle but honest. Your critique
will not be helpful if you ignore problems where they exist, but you must
also be open-minded and avoid having the reader
become so defensive that the review is considered unfair, and then ignored.
Procedure
Throughout the term, you will review the work of fellow students and provide constructive criticism. For this assignment, you should read the following tips on how to provide constructive criticism, then review these tips periodically throughout the term. Although this assignment is worth 0 points, your class participation grade will be partly based on the quality of the critiques you provide to your fellow students.Your critiques should consider the format, presentation, and substance of the materials you review. For each assignment, address all the following general questions, plus any questions that are specific to the assignment:
- Is the writing clear, concise, and unambiguous?
- Does the writing use proper grammar, syntax, and a style that is consistent and appropriate?
- Is the writing understandable to the non-specialist and does it avoid unnecessary jargon?
- Is the assignment complete (i.e., does it contain all of the required elements)?
- How can improvements be made? In addition to highlighting problems, a good critique describes how improvements can be made. This is one of your main responsibilities as a reviewer.
Critique scores
95-100% = The critique provided meaningful feedback on each of the assignment’s required elements. The critique was critical where appropriate, but criticisms were presented in a constructive fashion. The critique identified both strengths and weaknesses. I learned a lot from this critique (100% = A+; 95% = A).90-94% = The critique was a good faith effort to provide meaningful feedback on each of the assignment’s required elements, but some were critiqued in a cursory fashion. The critique was critical where appropriate, but criticisms were presented in a constructive fashion. The critique identified both strengths and weaknesses. I learned a lot from this critique (95% = A; 90% = A-).
80-89% = The critique was a good faith effort to provide meaningful feedback on each of the assignment’s required elements, but was superficial in one or a few areas. The critique may not have been sufficiently critical, or feedback may not have been presented in a constructive fashion. The critique may not have identified both strengths and weaknesses. I learned a moderate amount from this critique (89% = B+; 85% = B; 80% = B-).
70-79% = Overall, the critique was superficial. One or two of the points were helpful, but overall, the critique did not seem to be prepared with much thought or careful consideration. I learned a few things from this critique (79% = C+; 75% = C; 70% = C-).
60-69% = The critique was unacceptable and of little value. I learned little or nothing from this critique (69% = D+; 65% = D; 60% = D-). <60% = I received no critique (equivalent to a grade of F).