how to read a book

1整體而言，這本書到底在談些什麼？
      - summarize in simple paragraph
      -找出作者要問的問題，或者想要解決的問題
2作者細部說了些什麼，怎麼說的？
       - find important statement, idea..
       - use own words present again
       - find the argument behind, which are hypothesis
       -區別一段論述是用歸納法還是演繹法陳述
3這書說的有道理嗎？全部有道理？還是部份有道理？
       - make your critique with arguments
       - is author 's argument logical?
        規則 12: 證明作者的知識不足。

        規則 13: 證明作者的知識錯誤。

        規則 14: 證明作者的論點不合邏輯。

       規則 15: 證明作者的分析與理由不完整。

注意：關於最後這四點，前三點是表示不同意見的準則，如果你無法提出相關的佐證，就必須同意作者的說法，或至少一部分說法。你只能因為最後一點理由，對這本書暫緩評論

4這本書跟你有什麼關係？如果這本書給了你一些資訊，你一定要問問這些資訊有什麼意義。為什麼這位作者會認為知道這件事很重要？你真的有必要去瞭解嗎？如果這本書不只提供了資訊，還啟發了你，就更有必要找出其他相關的、更深的含意或建議，以獲得更多的啟示


除非你看完了一本書，否則不要看某個人的導讀。這個規則尤其適用於一些學者或評論家的導言。要正確地運用這些導讀，必須先盡力讀完一本書，然後還有些問題在干擾著你時，你才運用這些導讀來解答問題。如果你先讀了這些導讀，可能會讓你對這本書產生曲解。你會只想看那些學者或批評家提出的重點，而無法看到可能同樣重要的其他論點


http://huan-lin.blogspot.com/2008/05/blog-post_16.html

Start your critique with sentences giving the following information:
1. Author’s name
2. Book/Article title and source
SUMMARY
Summarize the author’s purpose and main points/evidence cited that are used for back up.
REVIEW & EVALUATE
To critically review the piece, ask the following questions:
1. What are the credentials/areas of expertise of the author?
2. Did the author use appropriate methods to gather the evidence?
3. Was the evidence used by the author accurate?
4. Does the author’s use and interpretation of this evidence lead the reader to the same conclusion (this is in light of what you have learned during this module
5. Did the author build a logical argument? )?
6. Is there other evidence that would
7. Are the article and the evidence still valid or are they outdated, leading to an invalid conclusion?
8. Was the author successful in making his/her point?
CONCLUSION
Wrap up by:
1. Stating whether you agree (or disagree) with the author.
2. Back up your decisions by stating your reasons.
Give a general opinion of the work.

Conduct of a Written Research Critique

1. Be sure to comment on the study's strengths as well as its limitations. The critique should be a balanced consideration of the worth of the research. Each research report has somepositive features. Be sure to find them and note them.
2. Give specific examples of the study's strengths and limitations. Avoid vague generalizations of praise and fault finding.
3. Try to justify your criticisms. Offer a rationale for how a different approach would have solved a problem that the researcher failed to address.
4. Be as objective as possible. Try to avoid being overly critical of a study because you are not particularly interested in a topic or because you have a world view that is inconsistent with the underlying paradigm.
5. Be sensitive in handling negative comments. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the researcher receiving the critical appraisal. do not be condescending or sarcastic.
6. Suggest realistic alternatives that the researcher (or future researchers) might want to consider. Don't just identify problems--offer some recommended solutions, making sure that the recommendations are practical ones.
7. Evaluate all aspects of the study--its substantive, theoretical, methodologic, ethical, interpretive, and presentational dimensions.