Special Programme in Science

Task 3 | Critical Abstract (Your Article)

Instructions

what you have to do	Critically read and then write a critical abstract of not more than 750 words on the research article you picked. — You should write this critical abstract based on what you learnt from Task 2A and Task 2B. You should seek(provide) help for this task from(to) your group-mates and mentors. — Your group will meet twice (Week 10 and 11) for this task. — Please prepare a 10 minute presentation on your article for the Meet the Mentor session in week 10. — The mentors have been instructed to provide feedback to only one draft of your critical abstract. This is to ensure fairness to your mentors and to all your classmates. This task will contribute 15% to your final score. Please note that you do not have to submit your annotations (i.e. Task 3A); just the critical abstract.
delivarable	A critical abstract of not more than 750 words made up of: An abstract of no more than 200 words Critical comments of no more than 550 words Please indicate the length of writing (e.g. 750 words). Please format your documents in 12 point, Times Roman or Calibri with a line spacing of 1.5. Please submit a PDF document to LumiNUS folder Task 3. Name the file `task3_a1234556b.pdf`, where ‘A123456B’ is your matriculation number.
dates	Begins : 6 pm, Mon 5 Oct Ends : 8 pm, Sun 1 Nov You have approximately four weeks for this task.
why are we doing this?	You will have to write your research at some point in your scientific journey. So this is a good place to start your training in scientific writing. You will also become familiar with the peculiarities and demands of scientific writing. Further, this task will not only help you learn-to-write but will also help you write-to-learn. You will realise you have developed a deeper understanding of the topic at the end of this exercise.
note	Please come prepared for Meet the Mentors sessions. For example, jot down any points that you do not understand that can be discussed. Please remember that you are responsible for how well you use this opportunity to develop and strengthen your skills. Make sure you refer to the rubrics. Finally, please ask us if you have any queries.

Rubric

5: Excellent	4: Good	3: Average	2: Below Average	1: Needs improvement
Displays almost all (≈ 90%) of the indicators.	Displays a vast majority (≈ 75%) of the indicators.	Displays many (≈ 50%) of the indicators.	Displays several (≈ 25%) of the indicators.	Displays a few (≈ 10%) of the indicators.

	Assessment Items	4 Very good / Mostly no problems / Meets requirements well	3 Good / Minor problems / Largely meets requirements	2 Only fair / Some problems / Only meets basic requirements	1 Poor / Major problems / Does no reach requirements
	Content (40%)
(a)	Summary clearly and succinctly reflects the gist in the study.	Summary clearly and succinctly reflects the gist in the study.	Summery is generally clear and succinct but some areas need more work/ but there is slight imbalance in content reported.	Summary may touch on key points and does not give context to allow for better understanding OR summary gives too much elaboration on particular ideas.	Summary is either too elaborated or not comprehensive.
(b)	Information is accurate.	Information is fully accurate.	Information is accurately nearly all the time.	Information is generally accurately but has noticeably lapses.	Information is seriously inaccurate.
(c)	Attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study.	Successful attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study with substantial elaboration.	Good attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study with sufficient elaboration/ but there are some lapses.	Some attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study with some elaboration/ but there are noticeable lapses. 2	Some attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study/ but there are serious lapses OR evaluation is based on personal and not scientific assessment.
(d)	Demonstrates one or more of the following features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth.	Fully demonstrates the following features in analysing the study:clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study.	Demonstrates most of the features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study.	Demonstrates some of the features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study.	Demonstrates few of the features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study.
	Organization (20%)
(a)	Demarcation between rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion) are very clear.	Very clear and effective demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion).	Generally clear and effective demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion).	Some indication of demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion) but this is not always easily discernible.	Some attempts at demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion) but the flow of ideas is not clear at all.
(b)	The sentences and paragraphs are coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” smoothly).	The sentences and paragraphs are coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” very smoothly. There are no gaps between ideas.).	The sentences and paragraphs are generally coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” smoothly in most cases. There are some gaps between ideas but these are minor.).	The sentences and paragraphs are fairly coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” smoothly in most cases but there are some obvious gaps between ideas which might impede meaning.).	The sentences and paragraphs are incoherent (i.e. the ideas are poorly organized and do “flow” smoothly, causing difficulty in understanding in many instances.
	Language (40%)
(a)	Use of vocabulary is precise.	Use of vocabulary is precise.	Use of vocabulary is mainly precise, but could be more exact.	Use of vocabulary is precise most of the time, but there may be occasional lapses.	Use of vocabulary is imprecise.
(b)	Uses a range of language (e.g. for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study).	Effectively uses transitions and signal markers for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study).	Good use of transitions and signal markers) for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study.	Occasionally missing in use of transitions and signal markers) for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study.	Frequently missing in use of transitions and signal markers) for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study.
(c)	Clear and concise sentences.	Very clear and concise sentences.	Generally clear and concise sentences, but there are occasional lapses but these are minor.	Fairly clear and concise sentences, but there are lapses that impede meaning.	“Murky” and poorly structured sentences which are incomprehensible.
(d)	Makes few or no grammar, spelling or punctuation errors.	Makes few or no grammar, spelling or punctuation errors.	Makes occasional grammar, spelling or punctuation errors, but this does not impede communication.	Makes frequent grammar, spelling or punctuation errors, which impede meaning occasionally.	Makes frequent grammar, spelling or punctuation errors which impede meaning in several instances.