History of Modern

Educational Systems

MANUAL
CRITICAL READING, ANALYTICAL WRITING
AND (PEER)-FEEDBACK

TEACHING TEAM

Prof. dr. Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde

Wei (Hugo) Li

This manual is inspired by David Labaree’s “Academic Writing for

Clarity and Grace”. See: https//www.stanford.edu/~dlabaree/
GUIDELINES FOR CRITICAL READING,
ANALYTICAL WRITING AND PEER-FEEDBACK
Introduction
The course History of Modern Educational Systems requires advanced reading and writing skills. More
specifically, you need to read a lot to get prepared for class and to work on your assignment. For
instance, it is important that you learn how to go beyond a superficial reading of the texts, in order to
fully grasp the meaning of the argument and to ‘apply’ these insights from the literature. For your
assignment, for instance, you will need to combine insights from the historical scholarship with the
results of your small-scale empirical study, to draft a well-structured, coherent and argumentative
paper. To help you develop your critical reading and analytical writing skills, we have compiled this
manual with practical guidelines and suggestions for further reading. Also included are guidelines for
(peer-)feedback, as feedback is essential to academic writing: researchers in all academic disciplines rely
on feedback of peers to improve their papers before proceeding to publication. Therefore, this manual
includes important points of attention to help you in formulating constructive feedback on the
assignment of peers.

Inevitably, the guidelines included in this manual are inexhaustive. Therefore, we have also added
some interesting references to support you further in academic reading and writing.
We hope this manual is useful!

2
Critical reading
As a critical reader of academic (and even non-academic) texts, it is useful to keep in mind a set of
questions that may serve as a framework that guide you as you read:

- The question of analysis: What is the main argument/point of the author? What is his/her angle?

- The question of validity: On what (empirical) data is the article, book, proposal, … based? On what
sort of – in our case – historical source materials/literatures are the author’s claims based?

- The question of value: What is the author’s contribution to the scholarship? What do we know
now (after reading this paper) that we did not know before?

- The question of significance: Why is this work worth reading? What makes it important and
relevant?

Analytical Writing

The above framework for critical reading ties in with analytical writing: if you, as a critical reader, ask
yourself the above questions, then this implies that you will, as an analytical writer, aim to guide other
critical readers toward the desired answers on those questions, in your paper.

- Pick a relevant, important topic, and clearly define it. Make sure that your analysis meets the ‘so
what?’-test. Readers (i.e. the teaching team!) will ask themselves the question: why is this
important? Why should I read this? Hence, select a topic that you care about for the assignment!

- Keep a clear focus! Before you start writing your papers, make sure that you already have in your
mind the ‘point’ you want to make. This will make it easier to work toward that point when you
start writing and will avoid that you digress. So, do not lose track of what you want to say. Surely,
there are other important points, angles, perspectives, … that are interesting, but you do not
necessarily need to cover everything there is to know about this topic. Therefore (cf. previous
point) it is important to clearly define and delimit your topic. The broader the topic, the more
you need to cover, and the harder it will be to maintain a clear focus.

- Aim for clarity. Do not make assumptions about what the reader might already know. All
academic texts (such as a research paper) are written for ‘advanced readers’, but that does not
excuse you from having to explain what you mean. Do not make unsubstantiated claims and

3
 avoid elliptical references to concepts, sources or even ‘personal experiences’, certainly if they
are not relevant. When referring to other scholars, always explain who said what and why this
point is important for your analysis. Try to write a text from the perspective of the critical reader;
and assume that this reader has not participated in this course, and, as a result, is not familiar
with the scholarship that you consulted for your assignment.

- A good academic text is an analytical text. A good academic paper supersedes the level of
description: it is more than a mere list of facts, events, references, quotations and concepts. It is
also more than a description of your empirical source materials, and certainly more than a
summary of everything that you have been reading. It is also more than an expression of your
personal opinions, values or experiences. A good paper is a coherent, clear and logical analysis
of the issues raised within your chosen topic. This means that your paper should aim to analyze
what it describes. It is useful to include concrete examples (either from your empirical research,
or from the literature) to illustrate your argument, or to support your claims. The text should
follow a logical order, and arguments should not appear dispersed over the text, but should be
structured into coherent paragraphs that follow a logical order.
- Make connections, pursue analytical depth and provide insight. Good research papers go beyond
superficial points, comparisons or simplistic assertions. In your research paper, you need to
demonstrate a deeper level of understanding by making interesting connections between the
issues you discuss.
- Support your claims with evidence. In your research paper, you need to do more than ‘stating’
your (hyper-personal) opinion. While most historians of education would recognize that there is
a level of ‘subjectivity’ (or personal preference) in their interpretation of historical source
materials, this is always an ‘informed interpretation’, as the interpretation is and should always
be supported by empirical evidence and argumentation. Hence, it is pivotal that you provide this
evidence to the (critical) reader, so that he/she can answer the validity question (cf. section
critical reading). Evidence may come from either the historical scholarship, or from the analysis
of historical source materials. When you use academic scholarship as ‘evidence’ of your
argument, make sure to always properly refer. Also, make sure that the validity of this scholarship
is sound: blogs posts do not necessarily share the same validity as academic papers that rest on
proper scientific methods and research. When using historical sources as evidence, keep in mind
that you need to critically approach these historical sources materials and do not copy its self-
discourse uncritically. The arguments you find in historical textbooks, for instance, are witnesses
of particular historically and culturally-situated ideas; but should never be taken for granted as
‘established truths’. Evidence can also come from personal experience, but keep in mind that
anecdotes, while interesting, do not necessarily ‘prove’ something. Supplementing your claims
with evidence is really important, as it enables you to flesh out an argumentation, and

4
 demonstrate to the reader that this is not just you making a claim, but that this claim is supported
by others within the field.

- Do not overuse quotations. Supporting your claims with evidence means that you rely on insights
from the scholarship or the evidence your found in historical sources. Including relevant
quotations can be a very good way to do that. Yet, do not overuse quotations, as they tend to
‘overload’ the text, which might hinder its readability. Long quotations (of more than two or
three sentences) should be used sparingly, unless they are primary data from your source
materials and are relevant to the analysis. In generally, a paper improves if it is written primarily
in the words of its author, or when it is paraphrasing ideas from the academic scholarship in such
a way that they serve your own analysis.

- Demonstrating insight into the course is not the same as agreeing with all of the presentations.
The assignment aims to ‘test’ your knowledge of the topics discussed, and your understanding
of the course. Hence, demonstrate that you do! Keep in mind that this does not necessarily mean
that you literally have to copy parts of my introductory lectures, nor does it imply that you have
to agree with me. Quite on the contrary, adopting a critical position toward the approaches we
discussed and the texts included in the reader can also demonstrate that you have considered
the course materials thoughtfully, to such a degree that you are able to formulate a critical
stance.

- Demonstrate that you understand the past in its full complexity. This implies that you need to
acknowledge and take into consideration multiple viewpoints. Reality, and hence also past
educational realities, are complex things. Hence, proposing simple solutions to complex issues,
generally is unconvincing. You should therefore not oversimplify the past, nor consider texts,
research approaches, … from a “black-and-white” perspective. In your paper, you should
demonstrate that you have thoughtfully considered the author’s argument, even if you don’t
agree with it. You can make a strong argument if you show that you have considered alternate
views.

- Challenge your own assumptions. In your paper, you do not only need to demonstrate what you
have learned (about the history of education, and about the approaches and methods to study
the past), but also show that you have learned something by doing this assignment. There should
be evidence that you are open to changing your mind (which you do not necessarily have to do),
and are willing to critically reflect on your own assumptions. “Changing your mind” is not a
weakness; it demonstrates intellectual growth and often enriches the argument of a paper.

- Cite your sources correctly. Correct referencing is central in any piece of academic writing. It
means that you always need to identify for the reader where certain claims, ideas, concepts,

5
 facts, … come from. For instance, never state that various studies have investigated something
(e.g. the history of teacher training), without including the most relevant references in that
respect. For your assignments, you use APA for secondary literatures (i.e. academic articles,
books, …); and sometimes footnotes for some historical sources materials. For in-text-citations,
like APA, use, for instance (Van Ruyskensvelde, 2020). For exact quotes, you also NEED TO include
a page number (e.g. Van Ruyskensvelde, 2020, 234). Make sure to provide the full reference in
the bibliography at the end of your research paper. Using APA-references for unpublished
historical sources is less ideal. For instance, when you decide to do a research paper on the visual
history of girls’ education in early 20th century Tanzania, and you use digitized sources from an
online source repository, you need to refer to that collection in a footnote. You include the name
of the institution, the collection and source number, as well as the url (for instance).

- The quality of the writing is just as important as the quality of the analysis. Pay attention to your
writing style. Most students are not English natives (nor is the teaching team!), but the quality of
the English language is important. There are enough online translation applications (such as:
DeepL) that can help you with that. Having other students read your assignment can also help,
not only to weed out typos and errors, but also to improve the general quality of the paper. A
confusing argument usually signals confusion in a person’s thinking. It can be helpful to let your
draft paper ‘rest’ for a couple of days. This means that, after you have finished a first version of
a paper, or a section of that paper, you put it aside, and look at it again with fresh eyes.
Considering the intensity of the teaching in the first block, we strongly advise you to not wait
until the very last minute to start working on your assignment. Writing is a process; and it is often
a slow one. There is no single, general rule for good writing that applies to everyone or all papers.
Hence, try to find what works for you: make a mind-map first with a schematic representation of
your argument before starting to write, write separate paragraphs and then rework them into a
coherent text, … these are all possible ways to write efficiently and productively.

6
(Peer-)feedback
Feedback is essential to academic writing. Researchers that write professionally will never use their first
draft as their final statement on a subject. In the world of academic publishing, the practice of giving and
receiving feedback is very common, usually in the form of peer review. Peer review is an integral part of
the scientific process that entails the subjection of an author’s scientific work to the scrutiny of fellow
researchers in their field. The reviewers provide feedback on a research paper, article, presentation,
etc., usually within the context of the publication process in scientific journals. More specifically, the
reviewers focus on the relevance of the research questions, the suitability of the research methods that
were used, the accuracy of the results and conclusions, as well as stylistic aspects such as structure and
syntax. Peer review encourages authors to meet the high standards which are held in the scientific
community and helps to avoid the publication of deficient or even fraudulent work.
Peer reviewing holds benefits for both parties. The researcher whose work is being reviewed has the
opportunity to incorporate the feedback in their work as to improve its quality. Aside from holding a
certain amount of prestige in the academic world, the position of referee (reviewer) also allows for the
further development of critical reading skills and the widening of the reviewer’s knowledge about the
field and topic, in general.
For students, the advantages of peer feedback are manifold. Through developing your critical reading
skills, you will not only be able to provide relevant feedback to others, but also to yourself. Reading
someone else’s paper will enable you to question your own work. When responding to the feedback you
receive, you will learn how to clarify your own ideas, which is helpful to writers at all skill levels and in all
stages of the writing process. It might be really helpful in the process of writing your master’s thesis, in
particular. During this exercise, you will be able to learn from each other and form clearer goals for your
own work.

In the light of the above, it is important for researchers to learn how to communicate criticism in a clear,
nuanced and respectful way. In order to provide helpful, substantive feedback for your peers, it is
advisable to approach the work as an interested reader rather than as a skeptical judge. In other words,
the goal is to help your fellow students in bringing their ideas to maturity, not to tear them down. Good
feedback always entails making suggestions, which means that if you identify a problem in the text you
are reviewing, you must also think about how it can be improved. Naturally, good feedback also means
paying attention to the positive aspects of the text. Just as feedback can offer an understanding of what
needs to improve, it can also provide insight into what should not change.
To prepare for the scheduled peer-feedback session (November 9, 2022; cf. study guide), we want you
to formulate a short answer to the following questions in a report. You discuss the report in person
during the session, but it is helpful to write down your ideas on paper too.

7
 - What is the central argument made by the author? Can you rephrase it in your own words?
- What do you find convincing? Indicate at least one argument, topic or sentence/paragraph that
makes sense to you and think about why.
- Which parts of the paper were unclear? Indicate at least one argument, topic or
sentence/paragraph that you think is confusing or unclear, and discuss why.
- Is the structure of the paper the most logical one? Would you change the structure of the paper,
and if so, how?
- Where in the paper should the author elaborate more and where does he/she get lost in details?
Give at least one example of each situation (if applicable).

For the feedback session, it is helpful to write a short report on the paper you read. It does not have to
be long (e.g. 1-2 pages is enough), and you can write in the format most suitable. Your “referee report”
(as it is called in the world of academic publishing) can be inspired by the above questions. If you have
specific comments about particular passages (e.g. specific spelling mistakes, or comments about one
sentence or concept used), you may also indicate your comments or questions in the original document,
for instance by using the track changes function in Word. During the peer-feedback session, it is
important that you focus on the general report so that you can explain your general impressions of the
paper. In other words, there is no need to focus on specific mistakes; the student who you reviewed can
look at your detailed feedback in the Word-file at home.

Some extra tips …

- Assume good intent: Peer feedback might feel uncomfortable for both the giver and the receiver
of the feedback. The reviewer must keep in mind that the recipient is interested and wants to
know how to improve his/her paper. As long as the feedback is formulated constructively and
with good intentions, there is no need to be afraid of hurting another person’s feelings. The
recipient, from his/her side, must remember that criticism of their work is not the same as
criticism of them as a person. If necessary, however, clearly indicate when a comment is
unacceptable.
- Be confident: It might feel like the paper you are reviewing is written better than yours or that
you don’t know enough about the subject. However, do not underestimate the power of an
outside view! If you don’t feel confident as a researcher, feel confident as a layman. Indeed, it is
very important that the papers are written clearly for advanced, yet non-expert readers (cf.
section on analytical writing).
- Be prepared: When doing peer feedback, it is important that everyone in the group has put in
the same amount of effort and is well prepared. It is only fair to return the favor after receiving
substantive suggestions. Moreover, time is limited, so knowing what you want to say is beneficial.
- Get to the point: Be clear and concise in your feedback. There is no point in breaking down the
smallest point of criticism. It is far more helpful to start with general points of feedback, so that
you have time left to discuss those issues that the recipient is most interested in.
8
 - Give suggestions: Without offering solutions to the problems you have identified, your feedback
is nothing more than criticism. Although it may be difficult, an attempt to formulate an
alternative or suggestion for improvement is essential for your feedback to remain constructive.

Want to know more?

Becker, Howard S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: how to start and finish your thesis, book, or article
(2nd edition). Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Finn, Stephen J. (2012). The philosophy skills book: exercises in critical reading, writing and thinking.
London. Continuum.