# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

You have provided quite a clear overview of the article. There was a good use of appropriate language for summarising and describing. Keep this up.

Areas to improve:

Try to use a more academic vocabulary. You can use a good monolingual dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org).

Use the Manchester Phrasebank to develop critical thinking.

http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/being-critical/

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Clear structure. Well done, Ivan.

Correct citations with the use of several reporting verbs. Keep this up.

Weaknesses:

Make sure to state clearly whose ideas you are using. You can refer to the author by surname, you can use the word "author" and its synonyms or you can substitute it with pronouns.

Make sure that when you compare or combine your sources, you consider their key points. Your personal experience is less relevant here. However, if you illustrate your personal experience, be as objective as possible. Try to use the Manchester Phrasebank.

RR

# data[].attributes.body
S:

You have made some very good points in the summary. You have paraphrased some ideas well.

E:

At this stage it is very encouraging to see you evaluating the authors` assumptions. This is definitely a good start. Keep this up, Ivan.

R:

Too brief. There is far more about reliability. Please check on

https://skillshub.northampton.ac.uk/2017/04/25/evaluating-sources-for-credibility-video/

RR

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Your summarising has improved noticeably. You are paraphrasing more than in your first written tasks and you are able to express your ideas more clearly. Well done, Ivan. Keep up the good job.

Weakness:

There is a lot more to say about reliability.

https://skillshub.northampton.ac.uk/2017/04/25/evaluating-sources-for-credibility-video/

RR

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Excellent summary. Clear and correct English, use of own words. Well done, Ivan.

Clear and well-supported evaluation. Well done, again.

Weaknesses:

There is a lot more to say about reliability.

RR

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY

- good summary with most key points of the lecture well- presented with good coherence (organised logically) and cohesiveness (well-linked)

B

REACTION

- all main points of reaction are covered successfully

B+

EVALUATION

- a  good critical evaluation with some criticality expressed throughout, and opinions fairly well supported, yet didn't you notice that the author mostly read from his notes?

B

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY

- fairly good summary, successfully presenting the main points of the lectureÂ

B-

REACTION

-Â Â good reaction, with all points covered

B

EVALUATION

-Â  A fairly good attempt atÂ critical evaluation, with your opinions mostly supported You also need to refer to other aspects of criticality such as context, and bias.

C+

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY

Your summary is well-structured, with a clear topic sentence and fairly good supporting sentences present. You have covered most main points, though the main aspect of the lecture (Does economic growth lead to greater gender equality) is not quite evident. Your text is very cohesive and logical.

C+

REACTION

You have covered most aspects mentioned in the instruction, apart from a list of new words you have learnt. You need to support your opinions with more evidence, as this will make your reaction more effective (and longer). Again, good cohesion and coherence.

C+

EVALUATION

A fair attempt at evaluation with some personal opinions, but you do not refer to some aspects of the question (lecture’s application in contexts, and speaker’s bias) as evidently you ran out of time.  That makes your evaluation less effective.

C