Introduction
This paper includes the evaluation of a piece of scholarly discussion in terms of its quality, levels of critical thinking, and content issues. The piece in question is a response to a question concerning Humanistic Psychology, its peculiarities, and effects on the development of the understanding of human behavior, as well as the difference between this school and the school of Behaviorism. It is possible to note that the response is not very effective although it addresses the major content issues of scholarly communication and is characterized by the use of higher levels of critical thinking.
Some parts of the response cannot be characterized by a high level of academic writing, so certain improvements are needed. The evaluation of the response will begin with the evaluation of content issues and levels of analysis as these aspects reflect the overall efficiency of an academic piece, but this paper also includes a more detailed analysis of the text under consideration.
Levels of Analysis and Content Issues
The response is characterized by the use of higher levels of critical analysis and proper content. For instance, the piece in question includes such major aspects as the presentation of certain ideas, the provision of evidence and interpretation, which shows the high quality of academic writing (The importance and meaning of scholarly communication, n.d.). The response also reveals the use of higher levels of critical analysis outlined by Bloom as the author displays understanding and the ability to apply the knowledge (Successful courtroom postings and critiques, n.d.).
The paper also involves quite a good analysis, evaluation, and creation. There are references to reputable sources, but instead of a mere summary of other people’s ideas, the author often explains and interprets those opinions and ideas. However, it is necessary to note that these features are not sustained in each paragraph.
Composition of the Response’s Sections and Possible Improvements
The composition of the response is consistent with the major rules of academic writing as there is an introduction, body, and conclusion. However, these parts are not connected well enough, and many of them are characterized by ineffective composition. A proper paragraph should contain four major elements: main idea, evidence, argument, and a link. The second paragraph of the response is the only one having all the parts mentioned above.
All the best parts of the paper do not have the necessary linking words, expressions, or sentences that could keep the whole text together. The way to improve each part is to provide some links. It is necessary to note that the fourth paragraph seems somewhat superfluous. This point is not mentioned in the introduction (or conclusion), and it is quite difficult to understand why the author provides data on the extent to which the school is popular in the USA. The conclusion is one of the least effective paragraphs as it simply restates major areas mentioned in the response. There are no conclusions at all, and the reader may fail to understand the primary goal of the writing. At that, the introduction is even less appropriate and can hardly be regarded as an academic piece of writing.
Evaluation of the Introduction
The introduction should include some data concerning the subject matter of the paper and provide some background to make the reader aware of the context, but these conventions are violated in the response in question. The introduction includes a list of areas that are discussed in the paper. It is a good strategy to provide a brief outline of the paper in the introduction, but it cannot be the only information given. In this paragraph (as well as in the conclusion), the author used low levels of critical analysis.
The author revealed certain understanding and remembering (of the points being asked). There is no analysis or evaluation in this part. The part could be improved through the provision of the reasons why these schools are compared (not others). The part could also include relevant evidence and argument, which are lacking in some parts of the response.
Evaluation of Details
For example, the fifth paragraph does not include relevant evidence to support the main idea of the paragraph. The author states that major principles and methods will be compared in the paragraph. Instead, principles and methods of behaviorist psychologists are provided while some principles of supporters of Humanistic Psychology are given with no data concerning particular methods used. More so, the author simply provides some quotes without any analysis or evaluation of the evidence used, which makes the paragraph rather confusing.
Conclusion
On balance, it is possible to note that the response under analysis is not a sufficiently effective piece of academic writing as it lacks consistency and cohesion. The author makes attempts to use higher levels of critical analysis and follow the rules of academic writing. However, these attempts are insufficient since only one paragraph is solid and relevant. The rest of the work needs improvements related to the use of linking tools, the provision of evidence, its interpretation, and evaluation. Some of the weakest parts of the writing are introduction and conclusion that can be regarded as two lists of points mentioned in the paper. The author should revise the paper and use the second paragraph as an illustration (or even a template) of an effective piece of academic writing.
References
Successful courseroom postings and critiques. (n.d.). Web.
The importance and meaning of scholarly communication. (n.d.).