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:Benjamin Mako Hill/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!
== Writing Rubric == In formal papers, I will always ask you to connect something you have experience or knowledge about to the material and concepts we have covered in the course. Although specific details or prompts might vary, all writing assignments in my class are structured in this way. A successful paper will present your topic of interest and demonstrate that you understand and have read, learned, and engaged deeply with the course material. A "4.0" paper will tell a compelling story and will engage with, and improve upon, the course material to teach an audience that includes me, and your classmates, and other students taking this class in future years, how to take advantage of course material. The very best papers will give us all a new understanding of some aspect of course material and change the way I teach some portion of this course in the future. * '''4.0—Excellent:''' Writing demonstrates impressive understanding of readings, discussions, themes, and ideas. Written work is fluid, clear, analytical, well-organized, and grammatically polished. Reasoning and logic are well-grounded, and examples are precise. * '''3.0—Good:''' Work demonstrates a thorough and solid understanding of readings, discussions, themes, and ideas. Written work is clear and competent but is somewhat general, a bit vague, or otherwise lacking in precision. While analytical, writing presents more description than analysis. Arguments are solid but not thoroughly original or polished. * '''2.0—Fair:''' Work demonstrates a somewhat fragmented understanding of readings, discussions, themes, and ideas. Shows acquaintance with readings and ideas but not intellectual engagement. Written work is choppy and argument somewhat difficult to follow, examples are vague or irrelevant, and ideas are imprecise. Work veers toward underdeveloped ideas, off-topic sources or examples, personal anecdotes, creative writing, memoirs, etc. * '''1.0—Unsatisfactory:''' Work demonstrates little understanding or even acquaintance with readings, discussions, themes, and ideas. Written work is choppy, fractured, and unclear. This argument follows little logical development, or work presents little discernible argument whatsoever. * '''0.0—Failure / Unacceptable:''' Work does not demonstrate understanding of topics, ideas, and readings. This is also the grade for work not submitted and plagiarized work. If you need help improving your writing, the [https://depts.washington.edu/owrc/ Oodegard Writing & Research Center] has many resources that can help.
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