You are on page 1of 4

Xie Wenhan

U1330111H
In the research paper Using Facebook as an Informal Learning Environment
published on 15 December 2011 by the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
Jeff Cain and Anne Policastri are in favor of exploringe the possibility of using to use
Facebook as a platform forto acquainting students with both ongoing business affairs
relevant to the course syllabus and influential views of prominent figures within the
students field of study, due to the perceive limitations with current pedagogy that is
largely confined to the classroom. . [provide a brief summary of what was introduced in
the paper here before giving your opinion in the next sentence, ie, summarise the original
argument first] WhileDespite the authors adheradherencee to the norms of academic
writing, their unsubstantiated claims and confusing organization substantially weaken
their argumentation.

The authors argumentation in the introduction suffers due to unsubstantiated
claims. For instance, they state that many course schedules do not accommodate
[instructional strategies]discussing [related] topics prevalent in the media (para 1).
The authors support their claim by referencing Philips and Clawson (1998), who concurs
that relevant examples are an important aid to student learning. In spite of this, it only
offers partially support for their argument as Cain and Policastri have neglected to
substantiate their prior claim that most courses fail to incorporate everyday topics in the
syllabi (para 1). Thus, the validity of their argument for the use of social media to
supplement lessons with relevant current affairs is called into question.

Moreover, the authors arguments are further weakened by evidence that only
partially validates their claims. For example, the authors language implies with a fair
amount of certainty that social media has garnered substantial interest among
educators. However, they only cite evidence that desirable traits of social media were
attractive to college instructors (para 2). In doing so, they draw a weak correlation
between highlighting the attractiveness of social media and garnering interest amidst the
teaching community. Hence, the ambiguous word choice leaves readers are questioning
the credibility of the authors claims as only partial support is provided.

Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Cambria)
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font color: Auto, Not
Strikethrough
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Xie Wenhan
U1330111H
Furthermore, the organization within paragraphs makes it difficult for readers to
follow the authors train of thought. For instance, readers are not primed to look out for
the first point in the first seven lines of the first paragraph, yet are subsequently
introduced to [a] second challenge in the eighth line. Consequently, the indirect manner
of organization hampers their articulation of arguments in a lucid manner, reducing the
coherence within the paragraph and causing difficulty for readers to follow the authors
train of thought.

In spite of these shortfalls, The the authors good understanding of their audience is
evident from their use of the expected academic style in writing is commendable. Effort
has been made to cite recently published journals and established institutions in an
attempt to strengthen their credibility regularly convincing readers of the relevancy of
most topics and claims being discussed [what are these?]. , while, formal academic
language is used consistently throughout the introduction. In addition,, with hedges such
as may (para 1 and 2) and can (para 1, 2 and 4) expressing the tentativeness of most
of their claims. Thus, the authors successfully introduce their research to the discourse
community by using appropriate the expected language and style.

In spite of their apt choice of language and style, the argumentation in the
introduction suffers the authors ma unsubstantiated claims. For instance, they assert in
paragraph one that many course schedules do not accommodate [instructional
strategies]discussing [related] topics prevalent in the media. However, tby Philips and
Clawson (1998) nclu relevant examples aid student learning. Consequently, by neglecting
to substantiate their prior claim, that most courses fail to incorporate everyday topics
(Cain & Policastri, 2011) in the syllabi, the validity of their argument for the use of social
media to supplement lessons with relevant current affairs called into question.

Moreover, the authors argumentation further weakened by evidence that only
offers partial validation of their claims in paragraph two. For example, the authors
language impli with a fair amount of certainty that social media has garnered substantial
interest among educators. However, they only cite evidence that desirable traits of social
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Comment [C XWH1]: Do I need to cite Cain &
Policastri 2011? Or is this fine for APA?
Formatted: Not Highlight
Xie Wenhan
U1330111H
media were attractive to college instructors (Cain & Fox, 2009). he ambiguous word
choice leaves readers
Finally, the it difficult for readers to follow the authors train of thought. For
instance, no signal words prime readers to look out for the first point in the first seven
lines of the first paragraph, yet they subsequently introduced to [a] second challenge
(Cain & Policastri, 2011) in the eighth line. [isnt this part of the 2 constraints of time and
space?] This failure to articulate the arguments in a lucid and explicit manner causes
difficulty for readers to follow the authors train of thought and reduces the coherence
within the paragraph.

In conclusion, the proposed use of social media as a supplementary pedagogical
tool seems potentially useful for educators to engage students and provide a holistic
learning environment. With the appropriate language and style, the authors manage to
convey their purpose. Nevertheless, however, the arguments appear less convincing due
to the lack of substantiation and weak coherence, that diminishes the overall perspicuity
of the introduction.




517 nett07 words(not including in-text citations)

- need to cut!!







References

Cain, J., & Policastri, A. (2011). Using Facebook as an informal learning environment.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(10), 1-8.

Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.1", First line: 0"
Xie Wenhan
U1330111H
Cain, J., & Fox, B. I. (2009). Web 2.0 and pharmacy education. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 73(7), Article 120.

Phillips, R. A., & Clawson, J. G. (1998). Current events periodicals and business ethics.
Teaching Business Ethics, 2(2), 165-174.




3e comments:

Verb tenses: yes, use present tense when you critique

APA in-text citation format options:
Use para # if you have been taught to do so. Not all
teachers/courses require this.
Cite Cain & Policastri (2011) in-text, if you have been taught
that it is a requirement. Again, not all teachers/courses require
this.

Your critique should assess the argument first, ie, what claims does C
& P make, and do they back these claims up with reasonable
evidence? Bring your para 3, 4 up first, then deal with rhetoric ( para
5) and language (para 2) before concluding with a brief summary of
your position (done, para 6) Since you have a word constraint you
can confine yourself to dealing with only argumentation and rhetorical
structure, and not cover language, since this seems to be less
problematic.