Donald Lateiner


216 Sturges Hall

Ohio Wesleyan

Delaware OH 43015


Valuable College Critiques for the Twenty-First century
Public Lecture (or Scholarly Article, Book Chapter, or Entire Book)
Due: Seven days after the “Event” attended (lecture, performance, etc.)

The report should be two full pages (TYPED & numbered, of course). It should not be a mere summary but an informed evaluation (which includes minimal summary)

To insure a sound paper, we divide the work into three stages. Save and submit all previous stages with each delivered stage (portfolio concept). Here are the due dates for your typed submissions. Earlier delivery is encouraged and eulogized. Start now! Keep each stage on a diskette in a separate file and copy for later stages. Copy these dates into your appointment book, palm-pilot, or amanuensis’s brain.

Edit your confusing and still disorganized notes of the original event or article as you shape your final copy. Prepare drafts. Thus, you can produce a mature and intelligent critique. The result should be coherent to a student peer (in our course) as well as to a professor. Keep all your notes until the semester ends.

You must follow standard rules of spelling, grammar, punctuation (quotations, running footnotes, if any), paragraphing, etc. found in current English Handbooks and my “Grading Guide.” Be sure to title your critique. Check your spelling and proofread. Your name and the date of delivery to me should appear high on the right of p.1 of the text. Staple and number all pages (if more than one). Do not hesitate to be critical and witty as well as profound. Provide lucid answers to these questions in at least three (3) paragraphs. Following this sensible format (some requirements, some advice only, not a straightjacket) will simplify your task.

  1. State the name and rank of the author/speaker, home institution or base (for lecturers) , title for the lecture or chapter, and the date and place of the event (or of the publication). This should appear at top in summary form, e.g.,
    Brian Rose, Professor of Archaeology, University of Cincinnati.
    “The Archaeological Survey of Troy”
    17 February 2003, Ohio Wesleyan University
    (Errors here, e.g., misspelling the presenter’s name, are especially embarrassing and damaging to your grade, so double-check your facts.) Tell your reader upfront the Who what where when why? of the presentation.

  2. State the topic of the lecture/chapter/book. N.B. Title, topic, and thesis are often three distinctly different items. Do you know the difference?

  3. State the speaker’s or writer’s principal thesis. You may choose to underline OR italicize the thesis. Identify the main divisions of the oral or written presentation (sections, chapters).

  1. What kind and quantity of evidence did the presenter offer? Supply specific examples. Was the evidence literary, anecdotal, archaeological, statistical, historical, etc.? Quoted sentences or summarized examples will make your paper more credible and enjoyable.

  2. Did the evidence logically support the thesis? Did each division support the thesis? Was evidence sufficient? Was argument thorough and understandable?

  3. State the strongest AND weakest points of the author or speaker’s case or presentation. In other words, where do you think the author/speaker was most convincing and what doubts or concerns remain in your mind?

  1. Mention lecturer’s or author’s significant topics, evidence, theories, and conclusions that supplement, parallel, or contrast to our current course’s material. Apply what you gained from this learning experience to our course.
Halicarnassus boat-making

Halicarnassus boat-making