Responding to a Critical Feedback: Analysis of a Scholar–Practitioner–Leader Identity
Standing in the shoes of a writer is not an easy task; when every single word needs to be weighed and the acid remarks of critics are just around the corner, writing turns into a real problem. A true Scholar–Practitioner–Leader would use critical feedback, both negative and positive, as a guide for further skills improvement. However, when I see a negative feedback, I easily become upset; when I see a positive feedback, I feel that I have reached the top and, therefore, can rest on laurels. Both attitudes are wrong, and it will take a considerable effort to change them.
The right attitude towards criticism seems to have much in common with self-esteem. As long as I feel uncertain about myself, I will assume that critical evaluation of my work is also a critical evaluation of my way of thinking, while in reality, it is only an evaluation of my ability to persist in my opinion. In order to become a Scholar–Practitioner–Leader and use criticism constructively, it is required to consider the critical remarks as the directions for further improvement of one’s skills.
However, judging by my own experience, I must admit that it is relatively hard to remain composed and with my mind open when watching the work in which such great effort was put being criticized. The given reaction, however, shows that I have to work on my perception of other people and their opinions. I will have to realize that, when criticizing y work, they do not criticize me and my intelligence; on the other hand, they trust me to be intelligent enough to accept their opinion and perfect my skills.
Difference Between Summarizing and Critically Analyzing a Text: Sample Paper Quality Evaluation
One of the major mistakes made by most people who are only starting to write academic papers is the inability to draw the line between a summary and a critical analysis. To be honest, the difference between the two is rather slight yet crucial for defining whether the paper in question belongs to a summary genre or is an analysis of another work. In most cases, summaries do not provide an evaluation of the work – they merely shrink an entire text to several sentences.
As a rule, summaries feature key elements, main features and results. An analysis, on the contrary, presupposes that its author should evaluate the elements, features or results of the work in question (Pivamik-Nova, 2012). With that being said, it would be a good idea to consider a sample paper and figure out whether it fits the genre of a summary or belongs to the family of analytical works.
The paper chosen for the analysis is titled Effects of information literacy on scholarship, practice and leadership in teaching profession (n. d.). Evaluating the paper, one must mention that the topic introduced in the title was covered successfully; the author has provided a detailed account of the effects that information literacy has on scholarship and practice. It is also worth noting that the author has provided a definition for information literacy, which is also a positive feature.
However, the paper has its imperfections a well. To be more exact, it could have tied in the concepts of leadership and information literacy. By stressing the need for leaders to manage information, the author of the essay could have improved the paper.
Therefore, the lesson learned from the given example concerns the necessity to learn to search for links between different concepts. The more relations are found, the more efficient and evident the solution to the problem is.
Effects of information literacy on scholarship, practice and leadership in teaching profession (n. d.). MS Word file.
Pivamik-Nova, D. (2012). Kaplan AP English literature and composition 2013–2014. New York, NY: Kaplan Publishing.