REACTION, REFLECTION, REVIEW, CRITIQUE, RESPONSE

ESSAY

Reaction paper- type of academic writing that requires you to

critically analyze and respond to a specific text, such as an article,
book, film, lecture, or any other piece of content.
Its primary purpose is to articulate your thoughts, opinions, and
feelings about the material you've encountered, highlighting your
understanding and engagement with the subject matter.
Characteristics of a reaction paper include:
Personal Response: It involves sharing your subjective thoughts,
emotions, and opinions about the content, reflecting on how it
impacted you intellectually or emotionally.
Critical Analysis: You're expected to analyze and evaluate the
material, discussing its strengths, weaknesses, relevance, and
implications. This may involve assessing the author's arguments,
evidence, and logic.
Connection to Personal Experience: You can relate the content to
your own experiences, beliefs, or prior knowledge, making the paper
more personal and reflective.

Reflection paper- ponders on how your perspective evolved or what

you learned from the initial reaction phase.
It focuses on personal growth, insights gained, and any changes in
your understanding or perspective after deeper contemplation.

Structured framework for reflection includes answers to:

•How has this art piece/event/occasion/ impacted your perspective
on the subject at hand?
•What have you learned from this experience?
•How does this relate to your personal growth and understanding?

Review paper- summary and evaluation focusing on the overall

impression and recommending the piece to a general audience.

Critique paper- A detailed analysis focusing on the piece's

strengths, weaknesses, literary elements, themes, and targeted at a
more academic audience.

 All these aforementioned papers do not rely on mere opinions;

they use both proofs and logical reasoning to substantiate
their comments.
They range in length from 250-750 words.

They are not simply summaries but are critical assessments,

analysis, or evaluation of a work.

Structure of a Reaction/Review/Critique

1. Introduction (presenting the material)

- around 5% of the paper
• Title of the book/article/work
• Writer’s name
• Thesis statement
2. Summary or overview of the content
-around 10% of the paper
• Objective or purpose
• Methods used (if applicable)
• Major findings, claims, ideas, or messages
3. Reaction/Review/Critique
- 75% of the paper
• Appropriateness of methodology to support the
 arguments (for books and articles) or
appropriateness of mode of presentation (other
works)
• Theoretical soundness, coherence of ideas
• Sufficiency and soundness of explanation in
relation to other available information and experts
• Other perspectives in explaining the concepts and
ideas
4. Conclusion
- around 10% of the paper
• Overall impression of the work
• Scholarly or literary value of the reviewed
article, book, or work
• Benefits for the intended audience or field
• Suggestions for future direction of
research

Response essay- one where you examine, explain, and often defend
your personal reaction to a reading. You ask yourself what the
situation was, how you reacted to the situation, and why you
reacted the way you did.
Response essays are usually evaluated by how well you
demonstrated an understanding of the reading and how clearly you
explain your reactions.
What does writing a response essay help you to do?
Helps you to understand your personal reaction to what you read:
what you think about the topic, how you judge the author's ideas,
and how the words on the page affect you as a reader.
WRITING A REVIEW/CRITIQUE PAPER

Review -a critical, constructive analysis of the literature in a specific field through summary,
classification, analysis, comparison.

The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic.
Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an
understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research
papers.

The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject. You need to
read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about
the meanings of those papers.

A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a
field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute
that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that
were used to generate the data.

What is the function of a review article?

to organize literature
to evaluate literature
to identify patterns and trends in the literature
to synthesize literature
to identify research gaps and recommend new research areas

Who is the audience of review articles?

experts in specific research areas
students or novice researchers
decision-makers

A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references
you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers
to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.
Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:
• Scientific American
• Science in the "Perspectives" and "Reviews" sections
• Nature in the "News and Views" section
• Compilations of reviews such as:
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology
Annual Review of Physiology
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
• Almost every scientific journal has special review articles.

Your paper should consist of four general sections:

Introduction
The body of the paper
Conclusion and future directions
Literature cited

Organizing the Paper:

Use topic headings. Do not use a topic heading that reads, "Body of the paper." Instead the topic
headings should refer to the actual concepts or ideas covered in that section.

What Goes into Each Section:

Section of the paper What it should contain

Introduction & Background  Make it brief (~1/5 of the paper’s total length).
 Grab the reader's interest while introducing the topic.
 Explain the "big picture" relevance.
 Provide the necessary background information.

Body of the Paper  Experimental Evidence: Describe important results from

recent primary literature articles and
 Explain how those results shape our current understanding of
the topic.
 Mention the types of experiments done and their
corresponding data, but do not repeat the experimental
procedure step for step.
 Point out and address any controversies in the field.
 Use figures and/or tables to present your own synthesis of the
original data or to show key data taken directly from the
original papers.

Conclusion  Succinctly summarize your major points.

 Point out the significance of these results.
 Discuss the questions that remain in the area.
 Keep it brief.

Literature Cited  Typically, at least 8-10 references are required.

What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper?
A research paper is based on original research. The kind of research may vary, depending on
your field or the topic, (experiments, survey, interview, questionnaire, etc.), but authors need to
collect and analyze raw data and conduct an original study. The research paper will be based on
the analysis and interpretation of this data.
A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It does not report original
research. Review articles generally summarize the existing literature on a topic in an attempt to
explain the current state of understanding on the topic. Review articles can be of three kinds:
• A narrative review explains the existing knowledge on a topic based on all the published
research available on the topic.
• A systematic review searches for the answer to a particular question in the existing
scientific literature on a topic.
• A meta-analysis compares and combines the findings of previously published studies,
usually to assess the effectiveness of an intervention or mode of treatment.
Review papers form valuable scientific literature as they summarize the findings of existing
literature. So readers can form an idea about the existing knowledge on a topic without having to
read all the published works in the field. Well-written review articles are popular, particularly in
the field of medicine and healthcare. Most reputed journals publish review articles. However,
you should check the website of the journal you wish to get published in to see if they accept
such articles. If published in a good peer-reviewed journal, review articles often have a high
impact and receive a lot of citations.

Format for a review paper

Title page:
Title-- reflecting topic of review
Your Name
Date
Abstract: An abstract should be of approximately 200-300 words. Provide a brief summary of
the review question being addressed or rationale for the review, the major studies reviewed, and
conclusions drawn. Please do not cite references in the Abstract.
Introduction: Introduce the topic and your rationale for addressing this topic focusing on why
this topic is important. Clearly define exactly what this article will discuss, outline the order in
which you will discuss each subtopic to give the reader any background information needed to
understand the coming sections.
Body/Discussion (subtopics being addressed): Although the structure may vary based in the
sub-topics or review questions being addresses. For example, if you are reviewing three different
methodologies, you might divide the body of the article into three sections, each discussing one
of the methods. In these sections, be sure to describe the research methods and evaluate how
studies were conducted focusing on the study design and analysis e.g., intention to treat versus
completers/retention rate, compare studies, and discuss their implications.
Don't summarize!
A review paper is not simply a summary of literature you have reviewed. Be careful not
to leave out your own analysis of the ideas presented in the literature. Synthesize the
 material from all the works—what are the connections you see, or the connections you
are trying to illustrate, among your readings.
Analyze, Synthesize, Interpret.
A review paper is not a pure summary of the information you read for your review. You
are required to analyze, synthesize, and interpret the information you read in some
meaningful way. It is not enough to simply present the material you have found, you
must go beyond that and explain its relevance and significance to the topic at hand.
Establish a clear thesis from the onset of your writing and examine which pieces of your
reading help you in developing and supporting the ideas in your thesis.
Stay focused.
Keep your discussion focused on your topic and more importantly your thesis. Don't let
tangents or extraneous material get in the way of a concise, coherent discussion. A well-
focused paper is crucial in getting your message across to your reader.
Organize your points.
Keeping your points organized makes it easier for the reader to follow along and make
sense of your review. Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that relates back to your
thesis. The headings used for this guide give you some idea of how to organize the
overall paper, but as far as the discussion section goes use meaningful subheadings that
relate to your content to organize your points.
Relate the discussion to your thesis.
Your thesis should illustrate your objectives in writing the review and your discussion
should serve to accomplish your objectives. Make sure your keep your discussion related
to the thesis in order to meet your objectives. If you find that your discussion does not
relate so much to your thesis, don't panic, you might want to revise your thesis instead of
reworking the discussion.
Conclusions: You should develop the conclusion by briefly restating the rationale for your
review and the purpose of the article, then discussing the conclusions you have drawn. You
should also discuss the implications of your review findings and where you think research in this
field should go from here.
Literature Cited: Use a standardized referencing system. A widely used one in the medical
literature is the AMA style.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml#References
http://library.aecom.yu.edu/resources/bms/EndNoteAgreement.htm

CRITICAL APPROACHES IN WRITING A CRITIQUE

Formalist Criticism or Formalism- focuses on form. The analysis stresses items like symbols,
images, and structure and how one part of the work relates to other parts and to the whole.

Following are the aspects looked into in formalism:

Author’s technique in resolving contradictions within the work
Central passages that sums up the entirety of the work
Contributions of parts and the work as a whole to its aesthetic quality
Contribution of rhymes and rhythms to the meaning or effect of the work
Relationship of the form and the content
Use of imagery to develop the symbols used in the work
Interconnectedness of various parts of the work
Paradox, ambiguity, and irony in the work
Unity in the work

 How is the work’s structure unified?

 How do various elements of the work reinforce its meaning?
 What recurring patterns (repeated or related words, images, etc.) can you find? What is
the effect of these patterns or motifs?
 How does repetition reinforce the theme(s)?
 How does the writer’s diction reveal or reflect the work’s meaning?
 What is the effect of the plot, and what parts specifically produce that effect?
 What figures of speech are used? (metaphors, similes, etc.)
 Note the writer’s use of paradox, irony, symbol, plot, characterization, and style of
Narration. What effects are produced? Do any of these relate to one another or to the
theme?
 Is there a relationship between the beginning and the end of the story?
 What tone and mood are created at various parts of the work?
 How does the author create tone and mood? What relationship is there between tone
and mood and the effect of the story?
 How do the various elements interact to create a unified whole?

Feminist Criticism or Feminism-focuses on how literature presents women as subjects of

socio-political, psychological, and economic oppression. It also reveals how aspects of our
culture are patriarchal, i.e., how our culture views men as superior and women as inferior.

The common aspects looked into when using feminism are as follows:
How culture determines gender
How gender equality (or the lack of it) is presented in the text
How gender issues are presented in literary works and other aspects of human production and
daily life
How women are socially, politically, psychologically and economically oppressed by patriarchy
How patriarchal ideology is an overpowering presence

Reader Response Criticism-is concerned with the reviewer’s reaction as an audience of a work.
This approach claims that the reader cannot be separated from the understanding of the work; a
text does not have meaning until the reader reads it and interprets it. Readers are therefore not
passive and distant, but are active consumers of the material presented to them.

The common aspects looked into when using reader response criticism are as follows:
Interaction between the reader and the text in creating meaning
The impact of reader’s delivery of sounds and visuals on enhancing and changing meaning
Marxist Criticism or Marxism-is concerned with differences between economic classes and
implications of a capitalist system, such as continuing conflict between the working class and the
elite. Hence, it attempts to reveal that the ultimate source of people’s experience is the
socioeconomic system.

The common aspects looked into when using Marxist criticism are as follows:
Social class as represented in the work
Social class of the writer/creator
Social class of the character
Conflicts and interactions between economic classes

Biographical Criticism- focuses on connection of work to author’s personal experiences.

 What aspects of the author’s personal life are relevant to this story?
 Which of the author’s stated beliefs are reflected in the work?
 Does the writer challenge or support the values of her contemporaries?
 What seem to be the author’s major concerns? Do they reflect any of the writer’s
personal experiences?
 Do any of the events in the story correspond to events experienced by the author?
 Do any of the characters in the story correspond to real people?

Historical Criticism- focuses on connection of work to the historical period in which it was
written; literary historians attempt to connect the historical background of the work to specific
aspects of the work.

 How does it reflect the time in which it was written?

 How accurately does the story depict the time in which it is set?
 What literary or historical influences helped to shape the form and content of the work?
 How does the story reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the time in which it was written
or set? (Consider beliefs and attitudes related to race, religion, politics, gender, society,
philosophy, etc.)
 What other literary works may have influenced the writer?
 What historical events or movements might have influenced this writer?
 How would characters and events in this story have been viewed by the writer’s
contemporaries?
 Does the story reveal or contradict the prevailing values of the time in which it was
written? Does it provide an opposing view of the period’s prevailing values?
 How important is it the historical context (the work’s and the reader’s) to interpreting
The work?

Psychological Approach-focuses on the psychology of characters.

 What forces are motivating the characters?

 Which behaviors of the characters are conscious ones?
 Which are unconscious?
  What conscious or unconscious conflicts exist between the characters?
 Given their backgrounds, how plausible is the characters’ behavior?
 Are the theories of Freud or other psychologists applicable to this work? To what
degree?
 Do any of the characters correspond to the parts of the tripartite self? (Id, ego,
superego)
 What roles do psychological disorders and dreams play in this story?
 Are the characters recognizable psychological types?
 How might a psychological approach account for different responses in female and male
readers?
 How does the work reflect the writer’s personal psychology?
 What do the characters’ emotions and behaviors reveal about their psychological
states?
 How does the work reflect the unconscious dimensions of the writer’s mind?
 How does the reader’s own psychology affect his response to the work?

Sociological Approach- focuses on man’s relationship to others in society, politics, religion, and
business.

 What is the relationship between the characters and their society?

 Does the story address societal issues, such as race, gender, and class?
 How do social forces shape the power relationships between groups or classes of people
in the story? Who has the power, and who doesn’t? Why?
 How does the story reflect the Great American Dream?
 How does the story reflect urban, rural, or suburban values?
 What does the work say about economic or social power? Who has it and who doesn’t?
Any Marxist leanings evident?
 Does the story address issues of economic exploitation? What role does money play?
 How do economic conditions determine the direction of the characters’ lives?
 Does the work challenge or affirm the social order it depicts?
 Can the protagonist’s struggle be seen as symbolic of a larger class struggle?
How does the microcosm (small world) of the story reflect the macrocosm (large world)
of the in which it was composed?
 Do any of the characters correspond to types of government, such as a dictatorship,
democracy, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.? What attitudes toward these political
structures/systems are expressed in the work?

Archetypal Approach- focuses on connections to other literature,

mythological/biblical allusions, archetypal images, symbols, characters, and themes.

 How does this story resemble other stories in plot, character, setting, or symbolism?
 What universal experiences are depicted?
 Are patterns suggested? Are seasons used to suggest a pattern or cycle?
 Does the protagonist undergo any kind of transformation, such as movement from
innocence to experience, that seems archetypal?
  Are the names significant?
 Is there a Christ-like figure in the work?
 Does the writer allude to biblical or mythological literature? For what purpose?
 What aspects of the work create deep universal responses to it?
 How does the work reflect the hopes, fears, and expectations of entire cultures (for
example, the ancient Greeks)?
 How do myths attempt to explain the unexplainable: origin of man? Purpose and destiny
of human beings?
 What common human concerns are revealed in the story?
 How do stories from one culture correspond to those of another? (For example, creation
myths, flood myths, etc.)
 How does the story reflect the experiences of death and rebirth?
 What archetypal events occur in the story? (Quest? Initiation? Scapegoating? Descents
into the underworld? Ascents into heaven?)
 What archetypal images occur? (Water, rising sun, setting sun, symbolic colors)
 What archetypal characters appear in the story? (Mother Earth? Femme Fatal? Wise old
man? Wanderer?)
 What archetypal settings appear? (Garden? Desert?)
 How and why are these archetypes embodied in the work?

Gender Criticism
Mythological Criticism
Deconstructionist Criticism
Philosophical Criticism