7th Class
Review
Unpredictable Meeting
(Author:
Fatimah)
Senin, 17 maret 2014. Kembali
bertemu dengan mata kuliah Academic Writing yang ke tujuh kalinya. Pertumuan
kali ini sangat membekas bagi saya pribadi karena teguran yang sangat
mengejutkan saya. Seperti disambar petir di pagi hari yang ranum. Perasaan
bercampur ketika kata- kata itu ditujukan pada saya “are you OK Fatimah?” saya
terdiam dn bigngung lalu segera menjawab bahwa saya benar - benar baik seperti
biasanya. Tapi kenapa teguran itu ditujukan kepada saya. pertanyaan terus menerus
berputar dalam hati dan otak. Saya bisa mengikuti mata kuliah ini dalam hati
saya, yakin.
Berikutnya tugas yang harus
diselesaikan adalah Critical Review yang ketiga yang sebelumya kami salah
gerbang. Bukan Critical Review yang kami buat malah Free Writing tentang Howard
Zinn. Sehingga kami harus memutar haluan 180 derajat dan merevisi bahkan
mengubah tugas lama yang salah agar menjadi benar atau setidaknya sesuai dengan
yang di inginkan Mr. Lala. Dengan pola- pola yang sudah di tentukan oleh Mr. Lala.
Salah satu tugas utama penulis
adalah untuk mengungkapkan kemungkinan- kemungkinan pemahaman baru. Menjalankan
bentuk- bentuk baru dari pemahama seperti dengan kata meniru kemudian dengan
kita meniru kita bisa menemukan lalu dengan menemukan tersebut kita
implementasikan dengan menciptakan atau membuat sesuatu yang baru. Menulis
adalah masalah menciptakan affordance dan eksplorasi potensi makna. Lal menulis
juga merupakan sebuah semogenitas : memahami, memaknai.
Thesis statement merupakan tahapan
paling penting untuk membuat dialog awal dengan pembaca yang diharapkan thesis
statement dalam sebuah essay merupakan mind idea. Salah satu komentar dari
Milan Kundera (L ‘Art’ Duramon, 1986) untuk penulis berarti untuk penyair untuk
menghancurkan dinding atau membuat tembok yang menyembunyikan sesuatu. Dala hal
in tugas penulis atau penyair tidak berbeda dai karya satra sejarah yang juga
menemukan dan menciptakan.
Kekuatan sorang penulis adalah
keuletan dan pantang menyerah. Karene seperti yang telah disampaikan oleh Milan
Kundera bahwa penulis harus mampu menguak menguak kebenaran yang tersembunyi
atau di sembunyikan di balik tembok. Jika tidak ulet ketika kebenaran di balik
tembok belum terpecahkan pasti akan down semangat kita sebagai penulis yang
seharusnya dapat menguak kebenaran.
Sebuah penulisan sejarah atau
menulis sejarah mempunyai kesamaan dengan linguistik, yakni sama-sama memahami
sebuah nilai yang terkandung di dalamnya. Hal ini menjadi catatan penting sebab
betapapun arti sebuah nilai tidak mungkin dihilangkan dalam hal apapun. Efek
dan maknanya begitu krusial sehingga wajib dipahami.
Memahami nilai dapat dengan berbagai
cara, seperti membaca , mendengarkan, merupakan langkah yang baik. Mengenai
“Creating affordances: to inspiring people”(Lehtonen). Penulis dalam
klasifikasi baik adalah ia yang mampu memberi “in-come” yang baik dan jelas.
Berikut adalah suplemen tambahan
mengenai cara menulis critical review saya ambil dari e-book yang berjudul
Helpsheet Critical review:
Wrting Critical review in 10 steps
Step 1
Skim
the article you have to review to gain a general idea of what it is about. This
process should take you about five minutes or less.
Step 2
Discuss
the article with someone else. Write down general ideas or themes. Discussing
the article may clarify your understanding and trigger some initial ideas.
Step 3
Read
it again. This time, highlight sections which seem important, or better still,
take notes of the important details. (The important things are the subject/s of
the article, the conclusion/s of the writer and the arguments and/or data that
the writer provides in order to reach his or her conclusion/s.)
Now
check your notes with someone else. Note differences and similarities in the
points you have written down. If there are major differences, go back and check
the article.
Step 4
Check
the main points with the article once more. Make sure your notes ‘agree’ with
the points raised by the writer. (You should be able to point to evidence from
the text to confirm that your notes are accurate.) Write out a quick “flow”
diagram of the article which covers the main points of each paragraph. The
point of the diagram should be to show the relationships between the main
points in the article.
Step 5
Have
a long, hard think about the article. Put the article aside and just think
about what you have read. Good critical review writing does not take five
minutes. It requires careful and clear thinking.
Step
6
Read your notes again and look at the
diagram you have made. Can you think of any criticisms that you have about the
article? (These may include questions, disagreements, doubts, etc.) You are not
criticising the author here, just the points he or she has raised. These
criticisms could relate to the:
•
theoretical
claims
•
evidence
•
case
method
•
statistical
support
•
use
of other writers’ arguments, etc
Now, can you think of
anything you agree with in the article? Perhaps you can think of a further
application of one of the writer’s ideas, for example. Any strong response that
you have to the article is generally useful. When you have finished, check your
criticisms and agreements with those of another person.
Step
7
Now begin to write your introduction to
the review. This should be about 10% of the total review. It should be short
and should be largely in your own words. (Use the helpsheet Language for Citing
to help you.) You will need to include in the introduction:
•
a
general overview of the article
•
an
overview of your review (your approach to the article)
•
an
anticipation of your conclusion (what will you say about the major ideas
expressed in the article).
·
In
introducing the article, you should also mention:
•
the
author’s name
•
the
title of the article
You should also
reference the article using a conventional referencing system (a complete
reference list should be included at the end of your review).
Below is a guide only; details have been
left out
Compare your version with the version of
another person. It should be similar in structure but not in the details.
Everyone’s review should be slightly different.
|
In this paper, I will discuss Pierre
Ryckmans’ article ‘On the University’ (give reference). Ryckmans’
article is about (say what it is about ). In particular, he argues
that (give a list of the main points). After summarising Ryckmans’
main points, I shall be claiming that (give a general overview of your
main criticisms—don’t give any details here). In concluding, I shall show
that (give a quick outline of your conclusion about the subject.)
|
Step
8
Now you need to write the body of the
review. This must consist of summary and criticism sections in roughly equal
proportions. The body could be written in either of these forms:
The important thing is that you balance
your criticisms with an adequate summary of the author’s work.
Step
9
After you have written the body of the
review, you need to write the conclusion. This should be about 10% of the
review and should include a brief recap of the main points raised in the
review, noting specifically where you have agreed and disagreed with the
writer. The conclusion might also give your suggestions for further research
work, or the contexts in which the work you have reviewed can be used.
Step
10
Leave your critique on your desk for a
week or two before looking at it again. Carefully edit and proofread it before
submitting it. (See helpsheet: Editing and Proofreading.)
(Helpsheet CRITICAL REVIEW:2010)
0 Comments