# data[].attributes.body
P.1

# data[].attributes.body
due to i have a number of grammar area to improve. i used this source to be the model of my writing task 2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Walden University's Writing Center provides a number of services to support students' writing at all stages of their education. We offer one-on-one paper reviews, webinars, modules, podcasts, form and style reviews, web-based instructional content on writing and APA style, and much more.

# data[].attributes.body
P.1

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.body
P.2

# data[].attributes.body
Descriptive, Analytical, Critical/Evaluative, Reflective Writing Compared

# data[].attributes.body
Sentence Starters, Transitional and Other Useful Words

# data[].attributes.body
P.2

# data[].attributes.body
Being Critical

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As an academic writer, you are expected to be critical of the sources that you use. This essentially means questioning what you read and not necessarily agreeing with it just because the information has been published. Being critical can also mean looking for reasons why we should not just accept something as being correct or true. This can require you to identify problems with a writer's arguments or methods, or perhaps to refer to other people's criticisms of these. Constructive criticism goes beyond this by suggesting ways in which a piece of research or writing could be improved.
... being against is not enough. We also need to develop habits of constructive thinking.
Edward de Bono

Highlighting inadequacies of previous studies

Previous studies of X have not dealt with ...
Researchers have not treated X in much detail.
Such expositions are unsatisfactory because they ...
Most studies in the field of X have only focused on ...
Such approaches, however, have failed to address ...
Previous published studies are limited to local surveys.
Half of the studies evaluated failed to specify whether ...
The research to date has tended to focus on X rather than
published studies on the effect of X are not consistent.
Smith's analysis does not take account of ..., nor does she examine ...

The existing accounts fail to resolve the contradiction between X and Y.
Most studies of X have only been carried out in a small number of areas.
However, much of the research up to now has been descriptive in nature ...
The generalisability of much published research on this issue is problematic.
Research on the subject has been mostly restricted to limited comparisons of ...
However, few writers have been able to draw on any systematic research into ...
Short-term studies such as these do not necessarily show subtle changes over time ...
Although extensive research has been carried out on X, no single study exists which ...
However, these results were based upon data from over 30 years ago and it is unclear if ...
The experimental data are rather controversial, and there is no general agreement about ...

Identifying a weakness in a single study or paper

(However,)

Smith fails to fully define what ...
Jones fails to acknowledge the significance of ...
the author overlooks the fact that X contributes to Y.
what Smith fails to do is to draw a distinction between ...
the paper would appear to be over-ambitious in its claims.
another weakness is that we are given no explanation of how ...
no attempt was made to quantify the association between X and Y.
the main weakness of the study is the failure to address how ...
the study fails to consider the differing categories of damage that ...
the research does not take into account pre-existing ... such as ...
the author offers no explanation for the distinction between X and Y.
Smith makes no attempt to differentiate between different types of X.

Smith
The paper
The book

fails to
does not
makes no attempt to

specify ...
quantify ...
compare ...
separate ...
account for ...
suggest why ...
analyse how ...
ascertain whether ...
distinguish between ...
explain the meaning of ...
provide information on ...
address the question of ...
assess the effectiveness of ...
use a standardised method of ...
give sufficient consideration to ...
consider the long term impact of ...
offer an adequate explanation for ...
engage with current discourses on ...
determine the underlying causes of ...
systematically review all the relevant literature.

Offering constructive suggestions

The study would have been more interesting if it had included ...
These studies would have been more useful if they had focused on ...
The study would have been more relevant if the researchers had asked ...
The questionnaire would have been more useful if it had asked participants about ...
The research would have been more relevant if a wider range of X had been explored

Introducing problems and limitations: theory or argument

Smith's argument relies too heavily on ...
The main weakness with this theory is that ...
The key problem with this explanation is that ...
However, this theory does not fully explain why ...
One criticism of much of the literature on X is that ...
Critics question the ability of the X theory to provide ...
However, there is an inconsistency with this argument.

A serious weakness with this argument, however, is that ...
However, such explanations tend to overlook the fact that ...
One of the main difficulties with this line of reasoning is that ...
Smith's interpretation overlooks much of the historical research ...
Many writers have challenged Smith's claim on the grounds that ...
The X theory has been criticised for being based on weak evidence.
A final criticism of the theory of X is that it struggles to explain some aspects of ...

The theory is unable to

predict ...
explain why ...
fully account for ...
adequately explain the ...
explain what happens when ...
make any useful prediction about ...
explain the differences observed when ...
provide a comprehensive explanation for ...

Introducing problems and limitations: method or practice

The limitation of this approach is that ...
A major problem with the X method is that ...
One major drawback of this approach is that ...
A criticism of this experimental design is that ...
The main limitation of this technique, however, is ...
Selection bias is another potential concern because ...

Perhaps the most serious disadvantage of this method is that ...
In recent years, however, this approach has been challenged by ...
Non-government agencies are also very critical of the new policies.
All the studies reviewed so far, however, suffer from the fact that ...
Critics of laboratory-based experiments contend that such studies ...
There are certain problems with the use of focus groups. One of these is that there is less ...

However,

this method of analysis has a number of limitations.
this method does involve potential measurement error.
there are limits to how far the idea of/concept of X can be taken.
one of the problems with the instrument used to measure X was ...
approaches of this kind carry with them various well known limitations.

However, all the previously mentioned methods suffer from some serious

drawbacks.
limitations.
weaknesses.
shortcomings.
disadvantages.

Introducing general criticism

Critics question the ability of poststructuralist theory to provide ...
Non-government agencies are also very critical of the new policies.
Smith's meta-analysis has been subjected to considerable criticism.
The most important of these criticisms is that Smith failed to note that ...
The X theory has been vigorously challenged in recent years by a number of writers.
These claims have been strongly contested in recent years by a number of writers.
More recent arguments against X have been summarised by Smith and Jones (1982):
Critics have also argued that not only do surveys provide an inaccurate measure of X, but the ...
Many analysts now argue that the strategy of X has not been successful. Jones (2003), for example, argues that ...

Introducing the critical stance of particular writers

Smith (2014) disputes this account of ...
Jones (2003) has also questioned why ...
However, Jones (2015) points out that ...
The author challenges the widely held view that ...
Smith (1999) takes issue with the contention that ...
The idea that ... was first challenged by Smith (1992).
Smith is critical of the tendency to compartmentalise X.
However, Smith (1967) questioned this hypothesis and ...

Jones (2003) has challenged some of Smith's conclusions, arguing that ...
Another major criticism of Smith's study, made by Jones (2003), is that ...
Jones (2003) is probably the best-known critic of the X theory. He argues that ...
In her discussion of X, Smith further criticises the ways in which some authors ...
Smith's decision to reject the classical explanation of X merits some discussion ...
In a recent article in Academic Journal, Smith (2014) questions the extent to which ...
The latter point has been devastatingly critiqued by Jones (2003), who argues that ...
A recently published article by Smith et al. (2011) casts doubt on Jones' assumption that ...
Other authors (see Smith, 2012; Jones, 2014) question the usefulness of such an approach.

Smith (2020)

criticises ...
questions ...
challenges ...
is critical of ...
casts doubt on ...
points out that ...
takes issue with...
raises a number of questions about ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an academic writer, you are expected to be critical of the sources that you use. This essentially means questioning what you read and not necessarily agreeing with it just because the information has been published. Being critical can also mean looking for reasons why we should not just accept something as being correct or true.

# data[].attributes.body
Note about evaluation

# data[].attributes.body
Reporting verb

# data[].attributes.body
Quoting, Paraphrasing and Summarising :
This source can help me to improve the area of plagiarism from task 2.

# data[].attributes.body
In this processfolio. I will present task1-3 and show the process of my writing. I have included my reflection in every task after i have done the writing. My reflection analyse and demonstrate the area that i think i need to improve. such as from task 2, I can not paraphrase very well, I need to think about how to avoid using the same word as authors in task 3.

# data[].attributes.body
I might apply this on task 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using English for Academic Purposes: Information and Advice for Students in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.body
Task 3 (1)

# data[].attributes.body
Task 3 (3)

# data[].attributes.body
Task 3 (2)

# data[].attributes.body
I have been talking with some classmates about my all 3 articles, shared some ideas because i’m Facing a problem in my articles 3. It is rather difficult to understand everything and I can not write the summary of it well.

My friends suggested me that it would be great if I can read all of it even I do not understand but i will understand some area and link it in to another article that would be enough.

What I have learnt is that I do not have to try to understand everything in the articles. What I have to do is that understand the main ideas of the author and link it. Also if I do not understand something this will relate to the evaluation part.

About the articles, all of my articles are about business and innovation so I know more about innovation such as what does it mean, how are they related in the business.

In current life, the innovation play more significant role in the big company. The innovation is the driver of improvement in business.

Read something similar related to my article er can share some idea.

# data[].attributes.headline
Additional sources to help me >> Stance 

# data[].attributes.subject
Additional sources to help me >> Stance 

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.uefap.com/writing/function/stance.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Identifying a writer's stance & perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assuming the topic is interesting and controversial, and that you are able to find conflicting views, you need to put your effort into identifying and summing up the nature of those differences. These differences are not always clear from explicit statements in the text.

# data[].attributes.body
Task 3

# data[].attributes.body
After I got some peers review from partner and tutor. I decided to rewrite it a again by taking main ideas, collect some information that link with task 2

# data[].attributes.body
Task 1
Strengths:

- Evaluative comments included in the task which demonstrate your stance.

- There are informative summary points included which detail the main ideas in the article.

- Some tense issues, incorrect word forms and incomplete sentences. More thorough proof-reading is needed
- Keep working on the evaluative comments including adjectives and adverbs from Lesson 2.1 on criticality.

# data[].attributes.body
Task 2

# data[].attributes.body
Task 2
Strengths:
- An informative summary of Gassman et al.
- Excellent referencing and citations. Try to use some non-integral citations next time.

Areas to improve:
- Some areas of patchwork plagiarism. Please try to paraphrase more closely.
- Next time, try to add more synthesis between your articles. use the phrases from the Manchester Phrasebank.

# data[].attributes.body
Task 2

There are a number of area that I need to improve such as I can not paraphrase very well, I need to think about how to avoid using the same word as authors.

I can write the good references. The structure of my quite clear.

# data[].attributes.body
It quite difficult to think in the critical way. I also need to learn more about the vocabulary that may help in the Evaluation part.

# data[].attributes.body
On this task i have seen some area that i improved. i feel more confident with my writing even it might be a large number of area that i need to improve in my future course. Also this time i feel more comfortable on account of there are 400 words count which will be enough for the summary and evaluation.