Scholarly Appraisal on Verbal Comprehension Subtests

The scholarly review (2 pages double spaced, APA format) requires an actively engaged response to a writer’s ideas, which represents more than simply an opinion, and the informed engagement that the reviewer offers is always supported by thoughtful reasoning and proof. Hence, writing an article review is a way for graduate and professional students to display their knowledge of a scholarly topic; to engage with ideas, theories, research and information in their disciplines or programs; to rethink and extend ideas in their field of study; and to show how their analytical response to an article is worthy of consideration. An excellent scholarly review signals the reviewer’s absorption of and reaction to existing scholarly knowledge, and they are an important way for novice and advanced scholars to begin to do authentic academic work in preparation for the dissertation.

When you write a scholarly review, you indicate your dynamic participation in the important conversation presented within the scholarly work, and consequently you don’t merely say whether you enjoyed an academic article or disliked it, but instead participate in the scholarly conversation itself by offering an analysis and extension of the existing ideas, concepts, arguments, and the findings of the scholarly work itself.

• By reporting the type of analysis, the writer performs (anecdotal, quantitative, qualitative, case study) and assessing how this type of analysis supports the writer’s reasoning and claims.
• By examining whether the writer’s analysis adequately supports the findings.
• By suggesting new information, methods of analysis, or theoretical approaches that might contribute to the writer’s reasoning.
• By comparing the writer’s reasoning with another expert’s approach to the topic.
• By discussing how the same topic is examined in another discipline or from another perspective.
• By pointing out conclusions or causes or effects of the writer’s reasoning that he or she has not addressed or anticipated.
• By examining the article for signs of coherent connections between ideas and, if appropriate, by showing how the lack of connections between ideas leaves the writer’s conclusions or findings unsupported.
• By suggesting how to shore up the writer’s claims with further study, information, data or analysis.
• By discussing what remains to be examined on the topic.
• By extending the writer’s attempts to make coherent connections between ideas with your own reasoning.
• By showing your agreement with the writer’s lines of reasoning and claims and explaining why they are a good fit with your own knowledge and experience.
• By supporting aspects of the writer’s claims and analysis and withdrawing your support in relation to other ideas, revealing how, in places, the writer does not offer convincing proof or analysis of claims or findings.
• By considering interpretations of data and information the writer has not by imagining alternative claims, positions, and theories in relation to findings.
• By bringing new analytical terms to an analysis of the topic that the writer has not considered.
• By suggesting new processes of reasoning or methodology by which the writer might arrive at new, productive conclusions or thinking.