address the comments 1
hsj
progresstowardmasteryrubric--3.docxHeba
Progress toward Mastery – Scholarly Writing
*All marks should be in the proficient category, with some in the approaching category okay. Emerging means more work needs to be done. Comments only pertain to the topics already covered in class.
|
TOPIC |
Proficient |
Approaching |
Emerging |
|
Introduction |
|||
|
Hook |
|
Needs a cite P: Less clear than before. |
|
|
Problem |
|
A bit unclear – teachers need to understand democracy but the paper doesn’t address teachers necessarily, just basic ideas about democracy and education. Clarity needed. P: Still not sure exactly what the problem is. It could be one of several in the intro paragraphs. |
|
|
Purpose |
|
A report on democracy? There’s no such system in the world, so I don’t understand how it will be “demonstrated.” P: Several purposes noted, but what is the overall purpose? To argue for the inclusion of democratic values in SpEd teacher education? If so, say so directly. |
|
|
Organization/Content |
|
See note on paper. |
|
|
Literature |
|||
|
Section intro |
|
|
Section 2 - None – it needs one. Tell us what lit and why. |
|
Topic sentences |
|
|
Section 2 - None that link to the purpose of the paper. |
|
Evidence |
|
|
Section 2 - No evidence – appears to only be opinions? |
|
Transitions (in and within paragraph) |
|
Some present. |
|
|
So whats |
|
|
All opinions and not based on any evidence. |
|
Surface Features |
|||
|
Grammar |
Excellent |
P: In the final version, grammar and wording is really problematic |
|
|
Spelling |
Excellent |
|
|
|
Commas |
|
Almost proficient |
|
|
Word use |
|
Small issues P: Lots of problems, noted in the paper |
|
|
APA |
|
Tiny issues – almost proficient |
|
|
Conclusions |
|||
|
Accuracy |
|
|
|
|
Overall |
|||
|
Logic/argument |
|
P: I get the overall argument, but the pieces don’t hang together |
|
|
Format |
|
PL The use of subtitles is good |
|
|
Organization |
|
|
|
|
Transitions (Cohesion and flow) |
|
|
|
|
Conciseness |
|
|
|
|
Abstract |
|
P: Needs some clarity – I suggested edits that may or may not work. |
|
|
Title |
|
P: Okay but could be clearer |
|
|
Paraphrasing/plagiarism |
Good so far |
|
P: No cite for the NTP proposal list. |
Comments: I could only comment on what I got, and there wasn’t a section after the intro. MY FAULT.
P:, I know that you have all these ideas and what you want to say about them, but in writing they’re very unclear. You make the same “mistakes” over and over, and you don’t use evidence to support your very arguable opinions. Read my comments closely and apply them THROUGHOUT the paper even though I didn’t point out every instance where you need to revise. I advise you to revise the intro asap using the guidelines from class (try doing ONE paragraph) and sending it to me to check. Once that works, I’ll understand what you’re trying to do/say and whether you’ve done it.
