English literature Book Review Format.pptx.pdf

It explains how book review must be done

1. BOOK REVIEW

2. BY THE END OF THE LESSON, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
•Determine the purpose of a book review.

•Define the context for a book review
•Analyze the features of a book review.

•Use transitions to connect ideas; and produce an effective book review.

3. WHAT IS A BOOK REVIEW
•It is a specialized form of academic writing in which a reviewer evaluates the
contribution to knowledge of scholarly works.
•It is a critical assessment , analysis, or evaluation of work.
•It involves your skills in critical thinking and recognizing arguments.

4. •It is usually ranges from 250 to 750 words.
•It aims to offer a persuasive opinion and addresses a more specific audience.
book reviews use both proof and logical reasoning to substantiate their opinion.

5. STRUCTURE OF A BOOK REVIEW

6. •Tittle of the book/article
•Writer's name
•Writer's thesis statement
INTRODUCTION (AROUND 5% OF THE PAPER )

7. •Writer's objective or purpose
•Methods used ( if applicable)
•Major findings or claims
SUMMARY (AROUND 10% OF THE PAPER)

8. •Appropriateness of methodology to support the arguments
•Theoretical soundness
REVIEW/CRITIQUE
(AROUND 75% OF THE PAPER)

9. •Soundness of explanation in relation to other available
information and experts.
•Sufficiency of explanation.
•Other perspectives in explaining the concept and ideas.
•Coherence of ideas.

10. •Overall impression of the work.
•Scholarly value of the reviewed article/book.
•Benefits to the intended audience.
•Suggestion for future directions.
CONCLUSION ( AROUND 10% OF THE PAPER)

11. WHEN WRITING A
BOOK REVIEW
MAKE SURE TO
ASK THE
FOLLOWING:

12. 1. WHAT IS THE TOPIC OF THE BOOK OR ARTICLE?

2. WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

3. WHO ARE ITS INTENDED READERS?

4.DOES THE WRITER EXPLICITLY STATE HIS/HER THESIS STATEMENT?

5.WHAT THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS (i.e., A SCIENTIFIC/LOGICAL EXPLANATION WITHOUT EVIDENCE )
ARE METIONED IN THE BOOK OR ARTICLE? ARE THEY EXPLICIT DISCUSSED?

13. 6. WHAT ARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE BOOK OR ARTICLE TO THE FIELD (e.g.,
language, psychology) IS IT SITUATED IN?

7. WHAT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES ARE DISSCUSSED IN THE BOOK OR ARTICLE?

8. WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION (e.g., observation, survey, statistics, historical accounts) ARE
PRESENTED IN THE BOOK OR ARTICLE? HOW ARE THEY USED TO SUPPORT THE
ARGUMENTS OR THESIS?

14. 9. ARE THERE OTHER WAYS OF SUPPORTING THE ARGUMENTS OR THESIS ASIDE
FROM THE INFORMATION USED IN THE BOOK OR ARTICLE? IS THE AUTHOR SILENT
ABOUT THESE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF EXPLANATION?

10. WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL REACTION TO THE WORK?

15. GUIDLINES IN
WRITING A BOOK
REVIEW

16. 1.READ THE ARTICLE OR BOOK TO BE REVIEWED CAREFULLY TO GET ITS MAIN
CONCEPT.

2. REREAD TO GET THE ARGUMENTS BEING PRESENTED.

3. RELATE THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE OR BOOK TO WHAT YOU ALREADY
KNOW ABOUT THE TOPIC. THIS WILL MAKE YOU MORE ENGAGED WITH THE
BOOK.

17. 4. FOCUS ON DISCUSSING HOW THE BOOK TREATS THE TOPIC AND NOT THE
TOPIC ITSELF.

5. SITUATE YOUR REVIEW. THIS MEANS THAT YOUR ANALYSIS SHOULD BE
ANCHORED ON THE THEORIES PRESENTED BY THE BOOK..

6. EXAMINE WHETHER THE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED OR NOT.

18. 7. ANALYZE THE TYPE OF ANALYSIS THE WRITER USED (e.g., quatitative, qualitative,
case study and how its supports the arguments and claims.

8. SUGGEST SOME WAYS ON HOW THE WRITER CAN IMPROVE HIS/HER
REASONING OR EXPLANATION.

9. DISCUSS HOW THE SAME TOPIC IS EXPLAINED FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE.
COMPARE THE WRITER'S EXPLANATION OF THE TOPIC TO ANOTHER EXPERT
FROM THE SAME FIELD OF STUDY.

19. 10. POINT OUT OTHER CONCLUSIONS OR INTERPRETATIONS THAT THE WRITER
MISSED OUT. PRESENT OTHER IDEAS THAT NEED TO BE EXAMINED.

11. EXAMINE THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN IDEAS AND HOW THEY AFFECT THE
CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS.

12. SHOW YOUR REACTION TO THE WRITER'S IDEAS AND PRESENT AN EXPLANATION.

13. SUGGEST SOME ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND PROCESSES OF REASONING THAT
WOULD RESULT IN A MORE CONCLUSIVE INTERPRETATION.

20. Part A: Analyze the following text very carefully. Then, complete the table that
follows.

This paper purports to assess the linguistic complexity of students' narratives and reading texts.
However, the authors never stated the purpose behind the study. The authors provide no
motivations and goals for the study, no research questions, no strong methodological practices,
and very few findings that can be easily interpreted. While reading the study, every new
sentence is a surprise. There are no details and the entire paper is completely under referenced.
Below I will discuss some of the major problems with the paper. First, the authors never
provide a rationale for their study. They never give a reason as to why they are studying reading
and writing together and they fail to link the two skills. The authors assume that the reader
knows the narrative and made no attempt to assist them in developing the narrative of the
paper. Another major problem with the paper is the naiveté that is apparent in the literature
review, the methods, and the analysis. The literature review is perhaps two pages long and
boost up on their knowledge of L2 writing and reading theory before they submit a paper to a
professional journal.

21. It is interesting that the language background of the participants is never made explicit(participants are
at the mid beginners to high beginners level in using English as a second language). The extent to
which any results found in the study would be widely generalizable to what is typically conceived as an
EFL/ESL learner is not clear. Moreover, the authors continually draw on literature meant for an L1
acquisition audience and therefore of dubious extension toL2 contexts.
The methods section contains no details at all. Ten participants per grade level, in a stratified random
sample, hardly seemed enough to get much stable data. Since, there are only ten participants per grade
level on both accredited and non-accredited schools due to logistical constraints; the paper is more on
exploratory study. In other words, it seems a stretch to ask most journal readers to generalize from such
a limited sample from such a specific population. The authors state that "pupils were not given limits as
to time and number of words, for them to be relaxed in their narrative production" (p.5).
However, later the authors explain that those written data also form the basis of the corpus used for
analysis. How does this differential production affect the results of the analysis? Surely, a participant
who produces 1,000 words will have different results from one who produce 500. It is not clear how the
authors can assert any sort of pattern from linguistic 'snapshot' from just 10 students per school,
producing such heterogeneous data samples. Again, from such a modest sample size.

22. In general, the paper is hard to read. This likely goes back to the lack of research problems.
There are few transitions and, organizationally, the paper does not set up any expectations for
the reader.

The first paragraph is a great example because it contains a single sentence and at least five
different clauses. The final paragraph in the introduction (right before the methods sections) is
another example. I have read that paragraph four times and am not sure how to process it.

There are major problems with this paper, but I do not have a time or the energy to discuss
them all. The authors really need to rethink the purpose of the collected data and educate
themselves in the field of L2 reading and writing. I would highly suggest that the authors reread
issues of the journal of Second Language Writing and Reading in a Foreign Language.

23. Type of Document:
Purpose of the Review:
Writer's Personality:
Intended Reader:
Strengths:
Weaknesses: