Academic writing

Critical review
01 DEFINITION
Hoang Thu Phuong

02 STEPS TO WRITE
Bui Ngoc Mai
TABLE OF CONTENTS
03 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
Nguyen Khanh Ly

Language features: vocabulary

04 and grammar
Nguyen Phuong Thao 77 & Quach
Phuong Ly
05 Quiz
Quach Phuong Ly
01 Definition & structure
1.1
Definition & purpose

(Presented by: Hoang Thu Phuong)

 Presenter: Hoang Thu phuong

1.1. Definition and purpose

➤ A critical review (a critique, critical commentary, critical analysis) is a writing task
that asks to summarise and evaluate a text (a book, a report, or an article). You are
asked to make judgments about the text using various criteria.

➤To be critical of a text means analysing and assessing the work in terms of what
the author was trying to achieve, the approach they took, how they conducted the
research, and whether the outcomes were valid and acceptable.

➤ A critical review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an item’s ideas and
content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that assess the item’s
value.

(New South Wales University, Sydney, AU)

 1.2. Structure
✔ Introduction
- Length: one paragraph (journal article review) and two or three paragraphs (longer boo
review).
- Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s), the title, and briefly
explain the topic of the text.
- Present the aim of the text and summarise the main finding or key argument.
- Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can
be a positive or negative evaluation or, a mixed response.

Presenter: Hoang Thu phuong (New South Wales University, Sydney, AU)
 1.2. Structure
✔ Critique
➢ Discuss and evaluate the strengths, weakness and notable features of
the text based on specific criteria.
➢ Include other sources to support evaluation.
- Sequence:
+ Most important to least important conclusions
+ Negative & positive points: What is greater is put after the other.
+ Include recommendations for how the text can be improved in terms of
ideas, research approach; theories or frameworks used.

Presenter: Hoang Thu phuong (New South Wales University, Sydney, AU)
 1.2. Structure
✔ Conclusion & references
➢ One short paragraph for conclusion:
➢ Restate overall opinion of the text.
➢ Briefly present recommendations.
➢ Include further qualification or explanation of judgement if
necessary.
➢ Include a list of references at the end of the review.

Presenter: Hoang Thu phuong (New South Wales University, Sydney, AU)
2. Steps to write,
Criteria
Presenter: Bùi Ngọc Mai
 Steps to write a critical review
Step 1: Read through the entire article and get a general idea of
the research aims, methods and results

Some general questions about the research article:

● Is it clearly laid out?

● Are the results clearly presented?
● What are the main aims and findings?
● What methodology has been used?

University of Southampton
Presenter: Bùi Ngọc Mai
 Steps to write a critical review
Step 2: Work through each section in detail, stick to the criteria,
and make brief notes.

How far does each section match up to what it should do?

Are there particular strengths and limitations in each section? Why?

Explain your thinking.

University of Southampton
Presenter: Bùi Ngọc Mai
 1.2. Structure
✔ Summary
- Length: about a third of the critical review
- Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of
examples.
- Briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text and
describe how the text is organised.

Presenter: Hoang Thu phuong (New South Wales University, Sydney, AU)
 Steps to write a critical review
Step 3: Plan and write your draft

➢ A brief introduction: providing the subject of the research and the author, and outlining
the structure you will be using.

➢ The simplest way to structure a critical review:

- Write a paragraph or two about each section of the study in turn.
- Within your discussion of each section, you should first sum up the main points such
as the key findings, or methodology used, to show your understanding.After this, you
could present the strengths and weaknesses, as you see them, of the section, with an
explanation of your thinking, and evidence.

➢ It is useful to plan out each section of your review as a short list, or bullet points, so
that you can see that you have included everything.

University of Southampton
Presenter: Bùi Ngọc Mai
 Steps to write a critical review
Step 4: Final draft

➢ Point out the strengths of the study to show you are aware of their
importance, as in:
‘These results are consistent with the aims of the research…’
‘The findings are clearly presented using diagrams and a graph…’
‘The discussion consistently relates the key findings to research
discussed earlier…’
➢ Identify weaknesses, you should use a caution, objective style:
‘ This sample seems fairly small in view of…’
‘It might have been helpful to provide more details of…’

University of Southampton
Presenter: Bùi Ngọc Mai
 Some general
criteria for
evaluating texts
PRESENTER: NGUYEN KHANH LY
 Some general criteria for evaluating texts
Criteria Possible focus questions

● What is the author's aim?

Significance and ● To what extent has this aim been achieved?
contribution to the field ● What does this text add to the body of
knowledge?
● This could be in terms of theory, data and/or
practical application?
● What relationship does it bear to other works in
the field?
● What is missing/not stated? Is this a problem?

Source: New South Wales University, Sydney, AU

Presenter: Nguyễn Khánh Ly

 Some general criteria for evaluating texts
Criteria Possible focus questions

Methodology or ● What approach was used for the research? For

approach (this usually example, quantitative or qualitative,
applies to more formal, analysis/review of theory or current practice,
research-based texts) comparative, case study,
● personal reflection, etc..

● How objective/biased is the approach?

● Are the results valid and reliable?

● What analytical framework is used to discuss

the results?

Source: New South Wales University, Sydney, AU

Presenter: Nguyễn Khánh Ly

 Some general criteria for evaluating texts
Criteria Possible focus questions

Argument and use of ● Is there a clear problem, statement or

evidence hypothesis?
● What claims are made?
● Is the argument consistent?
● What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?
● How valid and reliable is the evidence?
● How effective is the evidence in supporting the
● argument?
● What conclusions are drawn?
● Are these conclusions justified?

Source: New South Wales University, Sydney, AU

Presenter: Nguyễn Khánh Ly
 Some general criteria for evaluating texts

Criteria Possible focus questions

Writing style and text ● Does the writing style suit the intended
structure audience? For example, expert/non-expert,
academic/non-academic, etc.

● What is the organising principle of the text?

Could it be better organised?

Source: New South Wales University, Sydney, AU

Presenter: Nguyễn Khánh Ly
3. Language Features
Vocabulary and
GraMMAr
 3.1. Language focus
3.1.1. Reporting verbs and phrases
- Tell the reader what the author thinks or does in their text.
- Positive attitude
+ acknowledges, affirms, proves, agrees, identifies, etc
- Neutral attitude
+ accepts, claims, confirms, expresses, reports, etc
- Negative attitude
+ accuses, apologises, asserts, comments, confuses, etc
E.g. The author begins his article stating that graduate students experience anxiety
and stress that may be connected to high attrition rates.

(University of New South Wales, 2015)

Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277

 3.1. Language focus
3.1.2. Evaluative language
- Adjectives are often used to summarize the author’s views.
+ Very positive: innovative, impressive, elegant, remarkable, etc
+ Positive: useful, careful, important, interesting, etc
+ Neutral, uncertain or ambiguous: small, simple, traditional, preliminary,
modest, ambitious, etc
+ Negative: unusual, limited, unsatisfactory, etc
+ Very negative: flawed
+ Contrasting pairs of adjectives (Evaluate in both sides)
Traditional but significant
Ambitious but flawed

(University of New South Wales, 2015)

Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277

 3.1. Language focus
3.1.3. Modality
- Express degrees of certainty and probability (from high to low)
- Present ideas as opinions rather than facts.
E.g. The word ‘theory’ has an honorific status. … The same could probably
be said for ‘practice’.
The approach of an online orientation program could be useful for students
as …

(University of New South Wales, 2015)

Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277

 3.1. Language focus
3.1.4. Conceding (Concessive clauses)

- Describe a circumstance that is in contrast or unfavourable to another

circumstance.
- Acknowledge the strength/ validity of an idea before presenting an alternate
view. This does not weaken your critique; rather it can show balance and
fairness in your analysis.

E.g.: While this article produced significant results …, there are limitations related
to…

(University of New South Wales, 2015)

Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277

 3.1. Language focus
3.1.5. Unreal conditionals (Recommendations)

E.g. This article would have been more convincing if the author had related
his findings to previous work on the topic.
It would have been better if the author had given their main findings in
the form of a table.
Would/ might have been + comparison, if + subject + had done

(University of New South Wales, 2015)

Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277

 3.2. Introduction paragraph
3.2.1. Author & title announcement:
- The article “ABC” written by author X + Verb + Aim (Relative clause - shortened
form, Passive voice)
- In the article “ABC”, author X + Verb + aim
E.g. In the article “What leaders really do?”, Kotter examines the difference
between leadership and management…
3.2.2. Thesis statement:
- Use concessive/ contrastive clause to mention both positive and negative points.
E.g. Despite its limitations, the article provided valuable insights into the field of…
(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)
Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277
 3.3. SUmmary paragraph
Overview of the article (key points, author’s intentions and text organization)
E.g.
- This book / article is aimed at…
- The article / book begins with a short historical overview of…
- This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of…
- The author challenges the notion that…
- Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as…
- This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First…
- The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader…
(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)
Presenter: Nguyen Phuong Thao - 22045277
 3.4. Critique paragraph
3.4.1. Positive Evaluation:

• The beginning of...provides an informative overview into…

• On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that… By

combining these two dimensions…

• In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to…

• The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a

qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements.

(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)

Presenter: Quách Phương Ly
 3.4. Critique paragraph
3.4.2. Neutral Evaluation:

• Given the hesitation to generalise to … the limitation of … does not seem

problematic…

• Despite my inability to … I was greatly interested in …

• This article/ book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as…

• The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the
literature.
(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)
Presenter: Quách Phương Ly
 3.4. Critique paragraph
3.4.3. Negative Evaluation:
• This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it rationalises the...

• This analysis intends to be … but falls a little short as ...

• The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a
number of reasons. First …
• It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book/

article as ...

(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)

Presenter: Quách Phương Ly
 3.5. Conclusion
Restate the thesis statement:
- Overall this article / book is an analytical look at … which within the
field of … is often overlooked.

- Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights/

interesting examples/ a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for
students/ researchers of … with an interest in...

(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)

Presenter: Quách Phương Ly
 3.6. Some common mistakes
Vocabulary mistakes:
- Inconsistent use of American and English spelling. E.g. center vs.
centre
- Confusion over the plural forms of some classical words. E.g. Data,
criteria, phenomena,...

Grammar mistakes:
- Inconsistent tenses. E.g. Past simple and present simple
- Faulty parallels. E.g. She loves reading books, listening to music and
to travel.
(Academic Writing Centre, 2021)

Presenter: Quách Phương Ly

 References
1. University of New South Wales. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2021, from
https://www.unsw.edu.au/
2. Planning and writing a critical review. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2021,
https://cdn.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/Us
efulDownloads_Download/8F0C97287F844BF5A87A3C12DCD4E15E/Criti
cal%20review.pdf
3. Academic Writing Centre (2021). Writing a critique. University College
London. Available at:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe-writing-centre/critical-reading-and-writing/critical-r
eview.
4. New South Wales University, AU. How to Write a Critical Reviews.
Retrieved from https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/writing-critical-review
A PICTURE IS WORTH
A THOUSAND WORDS