Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Navigation
Main page
About
People
Publications
Teaching
Resources
Research Blog
Wiki Functions
Recent changes
Help
Licensing
User page
Discussion
Edit
View history
Editing
User:Aaronshaw/Assessment
(section)
From CommunityData
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Written work === Overall, my assessment of students' written work boils down to "how well does this piece of writing fulfill the expectations and requirements for this assignment?" The rubric below breaks this down into some general criteria that apply pretty well to almost any sort of written work. That said, specific assignments may incorporate specific expectations or requirements not mentioned here. If you have questions about how the criteria apply to a particular assignment or type of writing, please ask me and I'll be happy to discuss it. Instructor(s) in my classes will evaluate written assignments using the following criteria. Keep in mind, these criteria don't correspond to specific point values or anything like that. We usually evaluate them qualitatively/holistically. The criteria also tend to escalate in terms of difficulty. An exceptional piece of written work (such as a research paper) does all of these things exceptionally; a very good paper does all of these things well; a good paper does most of these things well; etc. * '''Clarity & style:''' Is the work readable and clear? Is it free of errors? Is the writing logically organized and coherent? Are sources appropriately cited/documented? * '''Quality of analysis:''' Does the work provide clear, original, and well-supported arguments and interpretation? Does it identify and analyze the challenge(s), complexities, and count-arguments effectively? Where possible/reasonable, does the analysis draw on relevant evidence to support its claims and recommendations? * '''Scope:''' Does the work and the argument adapt a suitable scope given the constraints of the assignment? Does it provide a thorough and focused analysis of the key issues at hand? Is there an appropriate balance between high-level generalities and specific details? * '''Quality of insight:''' If appropriate, does the work propose a clear strategy to pursue or intellectual synthesis of the issues at hand? Does the proposed strategy or synthesis seem compelling and worth adopting given the evidence presented? Does the proposed strategy or synthesis reflect a thoughtful and sophisticated (i.e., neither obvious, superficial, nor reductive) interpretation of available evidence, relevant course materials, and other resources the author has chosen to draw upon? Would other members of the class (not the instructor(s)) be likely to find the argument interesting and insightful and maybe even counter-intuitive?
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to CommunityData are considered to be released under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (see
CommunityData:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Tools
What links here
Related changes
User contributions
Logs
View user groups
Special pages
Page information