Part 1:
This should be either summary, where you explain the author’s main points, or analysis, in which you explore a certain theme within the assigned readings. The objective of summary is accurate representation; the benefit of summary is confirming comprehension. The objective of analysis is exploration; the benefit of analysis is the opportunity for constructive engagement. This part will comprise the bulk of your essay.
Part 2: Critique, in which you formulate a balanced evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the readings, namely, what you find positive/persuasive vs negative/unpersuasive. The objective of critique is appraisal; the benefit of critique is development of one’s critical apparatus.
Part 3: Thematic question, through which you demonstrate your ability to think beyond the text to broader or deeper concerns that emerge from the readings. Your question should not be just one sentence, but rather a paragraph, in which you collect your ideas to set up your question, and then express the question itself. If you think you already know or are certain of the answer, it is not a suitable question.
- Part 1 of your essay must be academic in nature. Parts 2 and 3 may be more personally reflective, but should still maintain academic rigor.
- The three components must be separated into their own sections of the essay, and sections must be clearly indicated, such as through paragraph breaks, line spaces, or section headings.
- Make sure you provide support as needed in your essays. Please use parenthetical citations, providing only the page numbers if you are drawing on one source only, or author/page number if you are drawing on more than one source. Limit use of direct quotes in the body of your essay.
- Each assignment must have a proper heading, including your name, assignment number, date of submission, and readings addressed.
Summary:
What is the thesis of the paper? what question(s) is he addressing?
Why is this question interesting (per the writer)?
Which arguments are used to support the writer’s
position?
Critique:
Are the arguments convincing (in your view)?
Is the structure of the paper coherent?
Are there any logical errors or gaps in the arguments?
Does the conclusion follow the arguments?
Does the writer address all the questions he or she
raised?
Thematic Question /Reflection:
If you were to write a follow-up paper, which research questions would you like to follow?
What interests you to think about, based on your reading?
This should be either summary, where you explain the author’s main points, or analysis, in