Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(CHEMISTRY) Performance Task - Journal Critique
(CHEMISTRY) Performance Task - Journal Critique
The study entitled "Comparative Analysis of Air Particulates Present in Diliman Preparatory School Main
Campus" is a descriptive research comparing air particulates among the facilities of the aforementioned
school. It follows a simple premise of collecting air particles using the adhesive property of petroleum jelly.
Its content can be summarized in the following abstract:
Air particulates, commonly known as dust, are the most visible and obvious forms of air
pollution. Establishments with high traffic and activity such as schools suffer from the
surplus of air particulates. The Diliman Preparatory School (DPS), specifically, suffers from
air pollution due to its proximity to the Commonwealth Avenue which is known to be a
polluted road. To enhance the awareness of the people in the DPS, especially the
maintenance department, of potential pollutants, this study compares the different air
particulates present in the Diliman Preparatory School main campus. An air particulate
collector was made by spreading 0.5g of petroleum jelly on a 5”x5” plastic cover attached
to a bond paper. The mass of the collectors were then measured. A string was used to
hang the air particulate collector in the 17 selected rooms. After three days of exposure,
the final masses were obtained and the air particulate collectors were observed. A rating
scale was used to describe the appearance of the collector. The HS Library is ranked first
in amount of pollution since its collector captured the most air particulates and has obtained
an additional 0.2g. The room which ranked the last (out of 17 rooms) is the HS APSA Office
that lost 0.1g in the final weight of its collector.
While following the expected format, the research paper still suffers from many novice mistakes, both in
form and in content. Thus, the critique is divided into two parts. The first part discusses how the authors
communicate their ideas while the second part discusses the validity of their research. Both of these
aspects are crucial in writing a strong research paper.
Particles in the atmosphere, which range in size from about one-half millimeter (the size
of sand or drizzle) down to molecular dimensions, are made up of an amazing variety of
materials and discrete objects that may consist of either solids or liquid droplets.
is directly lifted from Stanley Manahan's (2001) Fundamentals of Environmental Chemistry. While the
authors cited the source, it is not an excuse to copy the excerpt verbatim. Research writers should
paraphrase or summarize the original text alongside the proper citation. Direct quotes can be used if and
only if the specific phrasing is relevant to the author's point. After the paraphrasing or the summary, the
research writer should bring back the focus on the relevance of the source to their paper. This literature
review did not consider those at all and failed to be a proper literature review in every aspect.
Miscellaneous comments
Some parts of the paper exhibit unsupported claims or subjective opinions. For example, the authors posit
that, even through constant maintenance, air particulates cannot be avoided. However, they did not provide
evidence to support the claim. This statement is followed by another claim that everyone can "help in
[maintaining] our places clean for us to live and breathe freely". Not only is the statement irrelevant to the
whole study and the tone unscholarly but it also a subjective judgement that had no basis.
Conclusion
Overall, the premise of the research is simple enough to be executed yet still provides valuable insight.
However, it does suffer from many methodological flaws and a few problems in structure. Possibly, the
worst offense in the paper is the literature review. It lacks details. Structure-wise, the text jumps from one
idea to another with no proper transition. Worst of all, a major chunk of the review is plagiarized. Thus, the
readers do not have a sense of where current body of knowledge stands and how the authors place their
research. They also do not synthesize the information and inject their original thoughts. In short, the
researchers see the literature review as a list of definitions with no added context to their study.
As someone who had critiqued papers from juniors, I often witnessed these common errors and misguided
perception of literature review. Hopefully, in the future, novice researchers consider these changes and see
the research paper as a writing endeavor that warrants skills such as making coherent, cohesive and unified
text. It is never just a science requirement. Research is just as much communication as it is science.
Criteria
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Content of the Journal Review
Thouroughness of the Discussion
Organization of Thoughts
Format and Mechanics
TOTAL / 25