Government State of the Controversy Assignment

Paper

Introduction/

Conclusion

Strong introduction of the topic through an

attention getting device. Strong thesis

statement. Clear preview of the document to

come. Narrative flows nicely from

introduction to body of paper. Conclusion

reviews the major arguments of the document

and demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

productively engage in discourse around it.

Good introduction of the topic. Thesis

statement is identifiable and clear. Preview

of the document effectively communicates

the general organization of the document.

Narrative flows nicely from introduction

to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the

major arguments of the paper and

demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

engage in the debate.

Introduction and conclusion are present

but could use some work to make them

more compelling and effective as opening

and closing movements of the document.

Thesis statement is present but not strong.

Preview of document is present but

unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments

of the paper and starts a conversation

about what new perspectives we might

take on the controversy.

Introduction and conclusion are weak

and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is

missing or very weak. No preview is

identifiable or is ineffectual. The

conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little

effort at reviewing the major arguments

of the document.

Explication of

Theory

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are specifically addressed, defined,

and their importance is articulated. Steps of

the analysis process of clear, concise, and

organized. Writing explains and justifies why

they chose the specific texts analyzed.

Explains the connection the texts have to the

controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized

explanation of why the texts analyzed are the

most rich in terms of content.

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are defined and their importance

explained. Steps of the analysis are clear.

Writing explains why they chose the

specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the

connection between the texts and the

controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a

good justification for the selection of texts

is crafted.

Group provides an explanation of theory

used to analyze the rhetoric of the

controversy. Theoretical concepts are

generally explained and their importance

to the analysis is noted. Steps in the

analysis could be more clear or organized.

Explanation of the connection between the

texts and the controversy itself is apparent

but could use more detail or clarity.

Overall, adequate justification for the

selection of texts is crafted.

Group’s explanation of theory used to

analyze the rhetoric of the controversy

is missing, significantly under-covered,

and/or very unclear. Theoretical

concepts are missing or treated with no

depth. Steps in the analysis are missing

or incorrectly explained. Explanation of

the connection between the texts and

controversy is missing or muddled.

Overall, little effort is made in the way

of justification for the selection of texts.

Analysis of

Arguments

Analysis is clearly documented with several

examples provided from the controversy as it

appears in the public sphere. Application of

theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly

demonstrates a new perspective on the

rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is

organized efficiently and effectively to

progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape

of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily

repetitive claims. All parts of the theory

explained above are addressed in each section

of the analysis where relevant. Where the

chosen theory is insufficient to explain the

rhetorical features of the controversy

alternative explanations or theory suggestions

are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples

are abundant as evidence for the claims

forwarded.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is detailed and

clearly demonstrates a new perspective on

the rhetoric of the controversy itself.

Analysis is organized to avoid

unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts

of the theory explained above are

addressed in each section of the analysis

where relevant. Where the chosen theory is

insufficient to explain the rhetorical

features of the controversy alternative

explanations or theory suggestions are

provided. Clear, topical examples are used

as evidence for the claims forwarded in the

paper.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is demonstrated. A

new or different perspective of the rhetoric

of the controversy is developed. Analysis

is organized and clear, but falls into

repetition in some places. The theory

explained above is mostly apparent in each

section of the analysis. Topical examples

are used as evidence for the claims

forwarded in the paper.

Analysis is missing examples, or

examples provided do not support the

claims of the paper. Application of

theory is weak or missing. A new or

different perspective of the rhetoric of

the controversy is missing or is not

clearly discernable. Analysis is

unorganized and repetitive. Theory

explained above is apparent in each

section of the analysis but does not help

understand the rhetorical features of the

controversy. Examples are missing or

do not support the claims forwarded in

the paper.

Organization

and

Mechanics

Well organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can easily

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt.

Times New Roman font; few grammatical

errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and

no longer than 12 pages.

Well-organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12

pt. Times New Roman font; some

grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at

least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages.

Somewhat well-organized sections with

transitions. Readers can follow the flow of

the argument, but must fill in gaps or

jumps in logical transitions between ideas

or points. Some errors in citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

moderate number of grammatical errors or

typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no

longer than 12 pages.

Document is not effectively organized

and lacks useful transitions. Readers

cannot follow the flow or argument of

the document. Writing jumps between

and among ideas. Lacks a narrative

quality. Problems with citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

many or very many grammatical errors

or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages

or is over 12 pages.

316: Controversy in America Research Paper Format

I. Introduction

a. Introduce your controversy

b. Thesis statement

c. Purpose statement (why does it matter)

d. Preview main points for analysis

II. Methodology

a. Methodological framework: describe rhetorical criticism

b. Why is rhet crit the best framework for analysis of your controversy

c. Describe the method of analysis you used; content analysis, media analysis, critical

theory, etc.

III. Analysis

a. Contextual orientation – situate your controversy in light of its historical context

i. Political

ii. Social

iii. Cultural

iv. Technological

v. Religious

b. Rhetorical strategy

i. Define the rhetorical strategies surrounding your controversy

ii. Show how the rhetorical strategies surrounding your controversy are used

iii. Show how the rhetorical strategies surrounding your controversy impact the

private, technical, or public sphere

c. Examine facets of your controversy in light of the methodological and theoretical

frameworks you adopted for this project (this may produce additional main points)

IV. Conclusion

a. Remind readers of your thesis

b. Remind readers of your purpose for exploring this phenomenon

c. Succinctly review each of your main points showing readers how they all fit together

d. Show readers what is different now that you have undertaken this research project;

what has changed?

Format requirements:

*APA (including cover page, abstract, and references) *In text citations *Papers will be submitted through SafeAssign

Paper

Introduction/

Conclusion

Strong introduction of the topic through an

attention getting device. Strong thesis

statement. Clear preview of the document to

come. Narrative flows nicely from

introduction to body of paper. Conclusion

reviews the major arguments of the document

and demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

productively engage in discourse around it.

Good introduction of the topic. Thesis

statement is identifiable and clear. Preview

of the document effectively communicates

the general organization of the document.

Narrative flows nicely from introduction

to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the

major arguments of the paper and

demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

engage in the debate.

Introduction and conclusion are present

but could use some work to make them

more compelling and effective as opening

and closing movements of the document.

Thesis statement is present but not strong.

Preview of document is present but

unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments

of the paper and starts a conversation

about what new perspectives we might

take on the controversy.

Introduction and conclusion are weak

and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is

missing or very weak. No preview is

identifiable or is ineffectual. The

conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little

effort at reviewing the major arguments

of the document.

Explication of

Theory

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are specifically addressed, defined,

and their importance is articulated. Steps of

the analysis process of clear, concise, and

organized. Writing explains and justifies why

they chose the specific texts analyzed.

Explains the connection the texts have to the

controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized

explanation of why the texts analyzed are the

most rich in terms of content.

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are defined and their importance

explained. Steps of the analysis are clear.

Writing explains why they chose the

specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the

connection between the texts and the

controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a

good justification for the selection of texts

is crafted.

Group provides an explanation of theory

used to analyze the rhetoric of the

controversy. Theoretical concepts are

generally explained and their importance

to the analysis is noted. Steps in the

analysis could be more clear or organized.

Explanation of the connection between the

texts and the controversy itself is apparent

but could use more detail or clarity.

Overall, adequate justification for the

selection of texts is crafted.

Group’s explanation of theory used to

analyze the rhetoric of the controversy

is missing, significantly under-covered,

and/or very unclear. Theoretical

concepts are missing or treated with no

depth. Steps in the analysis are missing

or incorrectly explained. Explanation of

the connection between the texts and

controversy is missing or muddled.

Overall, little effort is made in the way

of justification for the selection of texts.

Analysis of

Arguments

Analysis is clearly documented with several

examples provided from the controversy as it

appears in the public sphere. Application of

theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly

demonstrates a new perspective on the

rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is

organized efficiently and effectively to

progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape

of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily

repetitive claims. All parts of the theory

explained above are addressed in each section

of the analysis where relevant. Where the

chosen theory is insufficient to explain the

rhetorical features of the controversy

alternative explanations or theory suggestions

are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples

are abundant as evidence for the claims

forwarded.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is detailed and

clearly demonstrates a new perspective on

the rhetoric of the controversy itself.

Analysis is organized to avoid

unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts

of the theory explained above are

addressed in each section of the analysis

where relevant. Where the chosen theory is

insufficient to explain the rhetorical

features of the controversy alternative

explanations or theory suggestions are

provided. Clear, topical examples are used

as evidence for the claims forwarded in the

paper.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is demonstrated. A

new or different perspective of the rhetoric

of the controversy is developed. Analysis

is organized and clear, but falls into

repetition in some places. The theory

explained above is mostly apparent in each

section of the analysis. Topical examples

are used as evidence for the claims

forwarded in the paper.

Analysis is missing examples, or

examples provided do not support the

claims of the paper. Application of

theory is weak or missing. A new or

different perspective of the rhetoric of

the controversy is missing or is not

clearly discernable. Analysis is

unorganized and repetitive. Theory

explained above is apparent in each

section of the analysis but does not help

understand the rhetorical features of the

controversy. Examples are missing or

do not support the claims forwarded in

the paper.

Organization

and

Mechanics

Well organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can easily

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt.

Times New Roman font; few grammatical

errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and

no longer than 12 pages.

Well-organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12

pt. Times New Roman font; some

grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at

least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages.

Somewhat well-organized sections with

transitions. Readers can follow the flow of

the argument, but must fill in gaps or

jumps in logical transitions between ideas

or points. Some errors in citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

moderate number of grammatical errors or

typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no

longer than 12 pages.

Document is not effectively organized

and lacks useful transitions. Readers

cannot follow the flow or argument of

the document. Writing jumps between

and among ideas. Lacks a narrative

quality. Problems with citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

many or very many grammatical errors

or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages

or is over 12 pages.