Directions:  Make sure you incorporate differentiated instruction techniques , MS standards, etc. and the instructional approaches that vary as it is relates to individuals and diverse students. Reflective Journal format make sure information has scholarly meaning and citations. EXAMPLE Journal Article Critique-Required Format Article :   Darling-Hammond, L. (May/June 2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher                  education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (3), 186-213. (Double space after this section) Summary : Single-space the summary section of your article. Give a brief, but concise summary (overview) of the content of the article that you have selected to critique. In the summary section, do not give any direct quotes from the article. Do no t write more than one paragraph for this section of your critique. (Double space after you have typed the summary section) Analysis : Double-space the analysis section of your article critique. This is the most important section of the critique. This section must include information relative to numbers 1-3 shown below. You may include other information, as you deem appropriate. This section must be a minimum of two (double-spaced) pages , but no more than three pages. Use the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). 1. Recaptures the specifics of the article, has substance, is written in natural language. 2. Knowledge or information gained from your experiences (working in business/industry, teaching), or from information you have learned from other classes/professors or colleagues. 3. A pro or con summary or conclusion statement concerning your overall position about the article you are reviewing. Remember, you must have a rationale for your beliefs or views about the article that you are reviewing. Reference(s) : Type all supplemental references, if you use other articles for your critique on a separate page . All References, including supplemental articles must not be dated back past three years. You must cite all references used in the appropriate section of your critique. Plagiarism is a serious offense. See section 6.22 and 8.05 of the APA Manual. 4.   Rubric Writing Rubric Writing    Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeAppropriate Details 20.0 pts Outstanding Judicious choice of details     maximizes interest and understanding 15.0 pts Very Good All relevant details presented,     but details not critical to understanding omitted 10.0 pts Good Enough critical details     presented for understanding, unnecessary details generally omitted 5.0 pts Satisfactory Most important details included     but may include too much or too little detail for easy understanding 0.0 pts Unacceptable Some critical details missing,     unnecessary details may be present 20.0 pts This criterion is linked to a   Learning OutcomeStatement of Context ...

1. Directions: Make sure you incorporate differentiated
instruction techniques , MS standards, etc. and the instructional
approaches that vary as it is relates to individuals and diverse
students. Reflective Journal format make sure information has
scholarly meaning and citations.
EXAMPLE
Journal Article Critique-Required Format
Article
: Darling-Hammond, L. (May/June 2006). Constructing 21st-
century teacher
education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57
(3), 186-213.
(Double space after this section)
Summary
: Single-space the summary section of your article.
Give a brief, but concise summary (overview) of the content of
the article that you have selected to critique. In the summary
section,
do not
give any direct quotes from the article.
Do

2. no
t write
more than one paragraph for this section of your critique.
(Double space after you have typed the summary section)
Analysis
: Double-space the analysis section of your article critique.
This is the most important section of the critique. This section
must
include information relative to numbers 1-3 shown below. You
may include other information, as you deem appropriate. This
section
must be
a minimum of
two (double-spaced) pages
, but no more than three pages. Use the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
(5th ed.).
1. Recaptures the specifics of the article, has substance, is
written in natural language.
2. Knowledge or information gained from your experiences
(working in business/industry, teaching), or from information
you have learned from other classes/professors or colleagues.
3. A pro or con summary or conclusion statement concerning
your overall position about the article you are reviewing.

3. Remember, you must have a rationale for your beliefs or views
about the article that you are reviewing.
Reference(s)
: Type all supplemental references, if you use other articles for
your critique on a
separate page
. All References, including supplemental articles
must not
be dated back past three years. You
must cite
all references used in the appropriate section of your critique.
Plagiarism
is a serious offense. See section 6.22 and 8.05 of the APA
Manual.
4.
Rubric
Writing Rubric
Writing Rubric
Criteria
Ratings

4. Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppropriate
Details
20.0 pts
Outstanding
Judicious choice of details maximizes interest and
understanding
15.0 pts
Very Good
All relevant details presented, but details not critical to
understanding omitted
10.0 pts
Good
Enough critical details presented for understanding,
unnecessary details generally omitted
5.0 pts

5. Satisfactory
Most important details included but may include too much or
too little detail for easy understanding
0.0 pts
Unacceptable
Some critical details missing, unnecessary details may be
present
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStatement of
Context, Relevance in Subject Area
12.0 pts
Outstanding
Place of study in field clearly described, illuminating links to
other studies or topics made
9.0 pts
Very Good

6. Place of study in field clearly described, some reference to
relationship to other studies or topics
6.0 pts
Good
General reference of study in field described
3.0 pts
Satisfactory
Attempt made to place in context, possibly not quite
appropriately
0.0 pts
Unacceptable
No attempt made to describe context of study
12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriter's
Evaluation of the Study
10.0 pts

7. Outstanding
Clearly articulated, well-supported statements of value and/or
shortcomings of study
7.0 pts
Very Good
Evaluation includes positive value of study as well as clearly
supported explanation of shortcomings
4.0 pts
Good
Good attempt at evaluation with some support of
conclusions; possibly more negative than positive comments
2.0 pts
Satisfactory
Some attempt at evaluation, comments valid but not
necessarily well supported
0.0 pts
Unacceptable
No attempt to evaluate study or evaluative statements

8. unsupported or inappropriate
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOverall
Organization
14.0 pts
Outstanding
Overall purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of study
clearly stated; seemingly effortless and seamless logic flow
11.0 pts
Very Good
Overall purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of study
clearly stated; logical flow always easy to follow
8.0 pts
Good
Purpose, methods, results and conclusions clearly stated;
most of presentation flows logically

9. 4.0 pts
Satisfactory
Purpose, methods, results, and conclusions stated; possibly
some awkwardness in logical flow
0.0 pts
Unacceptable
Major sections missing or lack of logical flow
14.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClarity of
Explanations
18.0 pts
Outstanding
Sophisticated use of language maximizes interest, enjoyment
and comprehension; explanations very clear, factually correct
14.0 pts
Very Good

10. All explanations are clear and easy to understand, factually
correct
10.0 pts
Good
Most explanations clear and easy to understand, mostly
factually correct
6.0 pts
Satisfactory
Overall meeting is understandable; possibly some areas of
slight confusion or minor factual errors
0.0 pts
Unacceptable
Serious difficulty explaining ideas, major factual errors; lack
of comprehensibility
18.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of
Terminology

11. 10.0 pts
Outstanding
Correct use of all terminology, attention to nuances of
meaning, judicious use of clearly defined jargon
7.0 pts
Very Good
All technical terms used correctly and defined clearly,
including terms with different common meanings; overuse of
jargon avoided
4.0 pts
Good
Few errors in use of terminology; definitions provided for
technical terms, overuse of jargon avoided
2.0 pts
Satisfactory
Most terms used correctly, possibly some incorrect usage or
use of unnecessary or undefined jargon
0.0 pts

12. Unacceptable
Jargon terms used incorrectly, without definition; attempting
to sound "scientific" without understanding meaning of terms
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Style
16.0 pts
Outstanding
Sophisticated, elegant style, complex yet lucid sentence
structure, flawless grammar
12.0 pts
Very Good
Error-free, easy to read writing style, well practiced and
polished use of language
8.0 pts
Good
Good basic writing style, easy to read, few errors, almost
entirely in author's won words, little paraphrasing or

13. unnecessary quotation
4.0 pts
Satisfactory
Mostly basic, correct writing style, relatively few errors and
little awkwardness, minimal use of unnecessary quotation or
paraphrasing
0.0 pts
Unacceptable
Serious errors and awkwardness, excessive use of quotation
in place of author's own words, excessive paraphrasing
16.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0