Critical Book Review Research Articles

Perceptions of English and Literature Department Students on Lecturer’s Feedback for Critical Book Review (CBR)

This study aims to analyze Perceptions of English and Literature Department Students perceptions on lecturer’s feedback for Critical Book Review (CBR). A descriptive qualitative design was used in this study. The data sources are all students outside the English Education study program who take 5 courses, namely Curriculum and Textbook Analysis, Translation in Language Teaching, English Culture in ELT, Technology in ELT and Management of English Based Institution. The data are the results of questionnaires given to students outside the Study Program who are conducting the student exchange program (Permata). Research shows that students feel helped by the feedback provided by the lecturer in the form of corrections, criticisms, suggestions, and providing solutions either orally or in writing. The reason why lecturers provide feedback is to measure students' abilities in doing CBR assignments.

Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach

This paper examines the evolution of criticisms (CRs) and their targets in a corpus of 100 French-written book reviews (BRs), 50 published between 1890 and 1900 (Block A) and 50 between 1990 and 2000 (Block B). Critical and uncritical BRs were identified. The number of CRs, their level of specificity and hedginess and their targets were recorded in each critical BR. The targets identified were classified as either contextual, conceptual or textual. Within- and between-Block comparisons were performed using chi-square tests. Results show that critical BRs are more frequent in Block A than in Block B, although the difference is not statistically significant. They also show that hedged CRs outnumber unhedged ones in the whole corpus ( p = .0001) and in each Block ( p = .0001) and that unhedged CRs are more frequent in Block A than in Block B ( p = .0034). Conceptual and contextual targets are the most frequent ones in the whole corpus. Contextual CRs in Block A outnumber those in Block B ( p = .0001), whereas both conceptual and textual CRs are more frequent in Block B than in Block A ( p = .0008 and p = .03). Our findings underline the increasing social function and cognitive complexity of today's scientific enterprise.