Summary of the Article Critique Paper:
Each student will select one article from a credible news source (e.g. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, etc.) or scholarly journal (e.g. American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, etc) in which to present. Wikipedia is not a credible source!! Students will then prepare a 2-3 page (typed & double-spaced) critique of the contents. Note: Anything less than 2 complete pages will be penalized points. In addition, the cover page and work cited page DO NOT count as part of the page count. If you wish to provide additional sources of information, please cite the source and include it on your work cited page. Articles have to relate with government somehow (war, policy, right-to-die, etc.).
- Successful Critique Papers: In order to do extremely well on this assignment, you need to make sure to critique the author and how he/she conveyed the information. Do not simply write a summary of the article or critique the topic itself. Your main purpose is to critique the author’s presentation of logic, facts, reason, analysis, stance, etc. Though you can briefly critique the topic in your conclusion, at least ninety percent of the entire paper should be the critique of the author. See the article critique examples from former students and handout below. Those who follow these specific instructions, examples, and handouts will do extremely well on this assignment. In addition, do not speak in first person (or using “I”), as it presents your work more in the form of an unsupported opinion.
- In addition, when you open the Article Critique examples (below), you will see that some of the text is in bold. The text that you see in bold is a critique. You will see text in bold throughout the entire papers in order to give you a good idea on what an actual critique should look like. The final draft that you submit to me should have plenty of critiques throughout in order to score well. You do not need to bold your text (or critiques) throughout your paper. I simply provided the examples with the text in bold to show you the critiques. Lastly, make sure to thoroughly read the handouts below, especially the one that pertains to the formatting for all papers. Students who do not follow the formatting guidelines usually do not score well on the papers.
Article Critique: “Left Behind—By Design.”
by
Caren Duncan
American Federal Government
Dr. Markus Smith
Oklahoma City Community College
February 20th 20015
Duncan 1
Amy M. Azzam’s article, Left Behind-By Design, was recently printed in the January edition
of Educational Leadership. In this article, Azzam summarizes a recent study done by researchers
from the University of Chicago on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This article is
written with an unbiased perspective that relays only statistical evidence and key findings
from the original lengthy research. It seems that Azzam’s true purpose for this article is not to
persuade readers to her own perspective, but rather to provide people with logical evidence and
research findings that may influence them to look further into this topic or other topics that are
closely related.
Azzam’s thesis statement is clearly presented early on in this article, when she states that “A
recent study by two University of Chicago economists suggests that No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) is leaving many children behind, especially low and high performers” (Azzam 1). Her
first premise logically supports the articles claim by presenting the researchers findings on how
“…accountability systems that place great weight on students who score in the middle provide
few incentives for teachers to focus time and effort on the least and most able students” (Azzam
1). This statement makes a sound argument, but it is lacking much of the evidence to support
why the problem is substantial. This article would seem more cogent if Azzam had made a
further point to relay the original researchers’ statistics on how many children are affected by the
high stakes accountability systems.
Although Azzam’s article was an accurate representation of the original research conducted,
her succinct writing style made the research findings that she presented seem questionable at
times. One instance that her writing actually made me question the credibility of the researchers,
was how she introduced the years that were chosen for test score comparison. In Azzam’s
introduction to the research, she stated that “The authors base their findings on two sets of test
Duncan 2
scores from 5th graders in the Chicago Public Schools: scores from 2002, after implementation of
NCLB, and scores from 1998, when a similar reform approach was tried” (Azzam 1). This
statement neglects to include the logic that the researchers incorporated into their own report that
explains that they compared test scores from the year previous with the year immediately
following the enactment of NCLB and another comparable education system (Neal and
Schanzenbach 3).
In this article, Azzam accurately lists the views of the researchers but failed to include much
of the supporting evidence for the information provided. This method of writing supplies a
concise overview of the key concerns that the researchers expressed as primary issues associated
with effort allocation. While this writing style does increase awareness, the lack of information
to support these claims may require the reader to find information elsewhere in order to gain
more knowledge on the subject. An example of this is when Azzam factually stated that raising
the standards of high stakes exams may actually increase the amount of low-achieving students
that are being left behind. This is because it will increase the amount of students in which the
standard is out of reach (Azzam 2). In the article, this statement is written in bullet point style
with no premises to provide evidence for a sound argument, but it is written in a way that may
encourage a reader to examine this topic further.
Azzam’s article objectively presents many of the researcher’s key points without changing the
integrity of their original argument with any biases that she may have on the subject. This is
positive, because it enables a reader to examine the evidence presented throughout her article
without persuading them to her own perspective on the subject. This article could be a benefit
for anyone with a strong interest in the current research of the educational field.
Duncan 3
Works Cited
Azzam, Amy M. “Left Behind—By Design.” Educational Leadership (January 2008): 91-92.
Neal, Derek and Diane W. Schanzenbach. “Left Behind By Design: Proficiency Counts
and Test-Based Accountability.” July 2007. 20 February 2008 <http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070716_NealSchanzenbachPaper.pdf>.
