the essay reviews

the essay reviews

The Art of Writing Persuasive Essay Reviews

1. Introduction to Essay Reviews

While essay reviews have not been the focus of much research, issues connected with their readability and acceptability have occasionally been discussed. Recent attention has focused on the readability of test questions, especially in test-preparation materials. Here it is almost a truism that the more onerous reading scientific papers is, the greater the payoff for the reader; and to whatever extent that claim can be supported by specific arguments, a fortiori the same will apply to essay reviews, which are, presumably in recognition of this simple argument, more selectively read. Indeed, various forms of writing instruction, chiefly creative writing but, more recently, also English-for-academic-purposes writing instruction, as well as peer editing and reading-to-write instruction, widely encourage and rely on student response to textual peers, familiarizing students with the ordinary textual structures of entire essays rather than only parts thereof. Even single responses have been claimed to offer substantial benefits to their authors, which suggests that existing reviews might also be improved by having them reviewed.

2. Key Elements of a Persuasive Essay Review

A persuasive essay requires making a commitment, taking a stance, defending against attacks, and making points clearly and effectively. A confident review, a clear, focused thesis, an interesting and dynamic opening, and a plan that sets up body paragraphs are elements of great persuasive essays. Facts, rather than merely repeating a familiar argument, are crucial for convincing an audience. Selecting strong, effective evidence is the foundation of any persuasive essay. In addition, it is important to point out the important policy disputes, involve a discussion of intentions, background, and personal insights. Included in your review should be a closing that completes your argument for any successful essay. Structured correctly, the closing refocuses your arguments and makes them relevant, giving the ability to understand things in a wider context.

For a successful persuasive essay, the review must have the right blend of logical appeal, emotional insight, and powerful writing. It is important to first understand what a persuasive essay is and how to write it. This will help in forming these reviews. Emphasis on clarity, precision in language use, and the artful crafting of a review can change a normal essay to something magnificent. A successful review should combine a formal and balanced style with imaginative expression and sound reasoning. Composition can sometimes be challenging, but with careful editing, good style, grammar, and punctuation, a review can lead to an engaging and powerful essay.

3. Strategies for Effective Critique and Analysis

Part of the job description of the author found in the abstract is to provoke thought, to force the reader to reconsider entrenched views, to take the reader out of his or her comfort zone. As the slave philosopher Euthyphro put it, “Go over to the Sophists, and if you are a wise man, improve on their wisdom; and if you are neither of these things, try to appear as if you are.” After reading the article of the week, the students should be so turned around by incoming data, logic, and foundation that their former beliefs are nothing more than passing faded shadows of an uneducated past. “In order for a person or a thing to be of value, it is only needed that someone should recognize the value; by which is meant, to know better than that, which is of value, that it is of value.”

When writing critique essays, focus on both positive and negative responses to the author’s weekly offerings. Beware of expending too much energy on your own personal likes and dislikes, and focus instead on how the assigned article works or does not work. Be precise and specific in responding to the weaknesses and strengths of the piece. Do not use too much jargon. A scholarly review should be accessible to the informed lay reader and should provide an up-to-date foundation on which class discussions can build. Organize accurately, coherently, and logically the knowledge base on a given subject. Refrain from using two paragraph narratives to retell the vaccine or evolution story, for example. That factual knowledge is now presumed to be known and accepted as background data necessary for the shared understanding of our classes today. Take care to avoid resorting to name-calling even when professors or authors resort to certain historical figure branding strategies. Basic human courtesy verbally projected can preserve an aura of respectability and civility.

4. Ethical Considerations in Essay Reviews

Implicit in its very structure, the essay review is not designed to support the deep and closely reasoned explorations of essay versus essay, as one might support more extended argumentation. An essay review can support the essay by suggesting areas that need expansion because the provocative, reflective, and insightful voices of the contributing authors are worthy of rich conversation. Yet any voice in conversation is enriched by the skill, attention, and patience of willing listeners. The willingness of a reviewer to provide feedback to an essay should, if possible, come from an informed reader with respect for the efforts of the author. And even the most well-informed and insightful critiques should be offered in a tone that supports the growth and development of the essay craft as much as that of the particular essays under discussion.

The process of providing feedback to an author has ethical implications for the reviewer as well as for the editor. Reviews should be as constructive and positive as possible, not only to support the growth of the particular essay but to support the growth of the author. A reviewer’s role is to notice what is effective and engaging as well as to note what may need further work and revision. Remember that a writer’s stated intention deserves consideration and respect. Writing an essay frequently leads to an exacting self-examination that is in itself valuable. We certainly want to encourage rather than squelch that developing voice. Reviewers should be aware that they hold an influential opinion, and word their intentions accordingly.

5. Conclusion and Future Trends

Lastly, in the educational organizations’ context both system and assessment data could be used as a mechanism to improve education and to compete for internal and external funding. The assessment processes and its results could make our scientific area emerge more quickly using MOOCs and its facilities, and the database should have become one more resource as the lecturers could take advantage of their students’ effort to provide these resources used to improve education.

Secondly, the reviewer has to know the context and content of the peer reviewing system and its documents by means of an unambiguous specification of the system; the concept and type of documents; documents components; review type; review elements; the review infrastructure (review periods; the reviewing infrastructure, including guidelines and deadlines); a description of intermediate reviews (optional but frequently advisable); and the review distribution. Furthermore, as the recommendation is based on an educational approach, and the students guided both in the review process and its results, essay peer review processes should introduce also a negotiated mechanism in order to solve the differences between reviews.

Suggestions for essay reviewers, spread in this and previous sections, address a wide range of concerns that can occur in the assessment of student essays and term papers. Based on one’s experience as essay reviewers both form-oriented and content-oriented reviews, there are several personal recommendations offered by the essay review process we have just described. Firstly, a peer review system has to be established based on an automated means, which will promote the collaboration between students acting as essay reviewers during a semester. As the reviewer has to analyze, review, and rate a significant number of documents that has to be performed in a relatively short time, a peer review environment must impose a set of constraints and benefits in order to guarantee the process.