Appendix A: Grading Criteria for Blog Response Writing
Formal analysis is not necessary, but responses should be error-free, should have a main point, and should question, extend, argue against, or provide insight into (or even explain confusion with) the assigned texts for that week. These responses will be read by me and used as part of the class discussion, and may be presented on the overhead. Recommended length is 500-750 words (the equivalent of 2-3 pages double-spaced).
Since the blog responses are informal writing, meant to exercise your practice in close reading, analysis, and rhetorical engagement, they will be evaluated with full letter grades only. The post must meet all the criteria for a grading category.
A – an “A” composition demonstrates the highest quality of composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric.
- Poses an intriguing, nuanced, and well-developed response that engages with the ideas and discourses of all the texts for that week. Has a clear purpose that questions, extends, counters, and/or rethinks the discourses and theory.
- Presents the response with an effective internal logic, utilizing creative rhetorical choices in design and structure for the digital composition space.
- Demonstrates close reading, analysis, and synthesis of the text(s), theory, and observation(s)/experiences, supported by specific examples and credible outside sources, dialogically integrated into the response.
- Invokes a specific audience (the discourse community) through rhetorical choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Composes the text with a superior use of diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar. There will be no errors.
B – a “B” composition demonstrates a capacity to engage in quality composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric, although at times struggling in one or more areas.
- Poses a clear response that mostly engages with the ideas and discourses of the texts that week, though not fully responding to all. Purpose is somewhat clear, but may struggle to be fully developed, containing holes and additional questions, and lacking in originality or creativity.
- Develops the response with a logic that is not always effective rhetorically, containing gaps in logical connections, rough transitions, a design or structure that does not always make effective use of the digital composition space.
- Sometimes struggles to demonstrate close reading and analysis of the text(s), theory, and/or observation(s), making broad statements or unsubstantiated claims, or struggling to effectively synthesize all texts and discourses. Examples will be cited, as well as outside sources (not always credible), but these references will struggle to be dialogically integrated into the argument.
- Invokes a broad audience, meeting at times—but also struggling with—discursive and rhetorical choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Contains errors and inconsistencies in diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar that are sometimes distracting to the reader and confuse meaning.
C – a “C” composition demonstrates a development toward quality composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric, attempting but struggling to compose quality analysis, research, and rhetoric.
- Struggles to pose a clear purpose, and fails to engage with all texts and discourses for that week. The response tends to be limited, failing to adequately incorporate theory, interpretation, and/or analysis.
- Struggles to develop the response with a rhetorical and logical structure and design, leaving the reader confused: gaps in logic and connectivity, missing transitions, undeveloped or misplaced ideas, poor use of the digital composition space.
- Struggles to demonstrate close reading, analysis, and synthesis of the text(s), theory, and/or observation(s), relying on broad statements or unsubstantiated claims with few effective and credible examples and references. Most examples/references will not be dialogically integrated into the argument.
- Rarely considers audience/discourse community with choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Contains distracting errors and inconsistencies in diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar that confuse meaning.
D – a “D” composition struggles and fails to meet expectations of quality in composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric, either through a need for continued experiences or by lack of effort.
- Little to no discernable purpose, with little if any incorporation of theory and analysis. Clearly did not read the texts, or read them well.
- Confusing and limited structure of ideas without rhetorically effective design, transitions, and internal logic.
- Does not demonstrate close reading and analysis of text, theory, and observation, relying on ineffective examples and no outside references. No synthesis of ideas and discourses.
- Does not consider audience/discourse community with choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Contains severely distracting errors and inconsistencies in diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar that confuse meaning.
F – an “F” composition fails to meet any expectations of quality in all areas; this composition is typically very short, messy, and a demonstration of little to no engagement in the subject.
Appendix B: Grading Criteria for ReWriting Humanism Project
A composition must meet ALL of the criteria to achieve the specified letter grade. (+) and (-) indicate slightly higher achievement or slightly lower achievement in that letter grade’s criteria. For example, an A- composition might meet all of the criteria but the last, containing several errors in grammar or confusing syntax.
A – an “A” composition demonstrates the highest quality of composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric.
- Poses an intriguing, nuanced, and well-developed argument or purpose that focuses on the humanist and posthumanist theories and practices of rhetoric, significantly adding to the discourse of this field.
- Develops the argument/purpose with an effective internal logic, utilizing creative rhetorical choices in design and structure.
- Demonstrates close reading, analysis, and synthesis of the text(s), theory, and/or observation(s), supported by specific examples and credible outside sources, dialogically integrated into the argument.
- Invokes a specific audience (the discourse community) through rhetorical choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Composes the text with a superior use of diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar. There will be no errors.
B – a “B” composition demonstrates a capacity to engage in quality composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric, although at times struggling in one or more areas.
- Poses a clear argument/purpose that focuses on the theory and practice of writing. However, the argument will struggle to be fully developed, containing holes and additional questions, and lacking in originality or creativity.
- Develops the argument with a logic that is not always effective rhetorically, containing gaps in logical connections, rough transitions, a design or structure that may be confusing at times.
- Sometimes struggles to demonstrate close reading and analysis of the text(s), theory, and/or observation(s), making broad statements or unsubstantiated claims. Examples will be cited, as well as outside sources (not always credible), but these references will struggle to be dialogically integrated into the argument.
- Invokes a broad audience, meeting at times—but also struggling with—discursive and rhetorical choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Contains errors and inconsistencies in diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar that are sometimes distracting to the reader and confuse meaning.
C – a “C” composition demonstrates a development toward quality composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric, attempting but struggling to compose quality analysis, research, and rhetoric.
- Struggles to pose a clear argument/purpose that focuses on the theory and practice writing. The argument tends to be limited, failing to adequately incorporate theory, interpretation, and/or analysis.
- Struggles to develop the argument with a rhetorical and logical structure and design, leaving the reader confused: gaps in logic and connectivity, missing transitions, undeveloped or misplaced ideas.
- Struggles to demonstrate close reading and analysis of the text(s), theory, and/or observation(s), relying on broad statements or unsubstantiated claims with few effective and credible examples and references. Most examples/references will not be dialogically integrated into the argument.
- Rarely considers audience/discourse community with choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Contains distracting errors and inconsistencies in diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar that confuse meaning.
D – a “D” composition struggles and fails to meet expectations of quality in composition, analysis, research, and rhetoric, either through a need for continued experiences or by lack of effort.
- Little to no discernible argument or purpose, with little if any incorporation of theory and analysis.
- Confusing and limited structure of ideas without rhetorically effective design, transitions, and internal logic.
- Does not demonstrate close reading and analysis of text, theory, and observation, relying on ineffective examples and no outside references.
- Does not consider audience/discourse community with choices in style and conventions, research, language, and theory.
- Contains severely distracting errors and inconsistencies in diction, voice, syntax, punctuation, and grammar that confuse meaning.
F – an “F” composition fails to meet any expectations of quality in all areas; this composition is typically very short, messy, and a demonstration of little to no engagement in the subject.
Appendix C: Grading Criteria for Scholarly Contribution
Critical thinking and writing are a process of idea generation and revision, refining your argument and analysis. Active discussion with your peers helps you better understand difficult concepts in new discourses by creating a community of scholars who learn through the comparison and contrast of varying perspectives, and the pooling of knowledge. Your contribution in small groups, full class discussion, and online discussion forums is essential for the success of the class. I will take note of everyone’s level of contribution each class session and online. Your base grade will be the percentage of class sessions attended; ie. if you attended 80% of classes, the best grade you can receive in this category is a B-.
A – consistently and thoughtfully participates in full class and small group discussions; completes all reading and brings annotated copies and notes to class; never is a distraction nor engages in non-academic technology use. Is fully prepared and effective in leading the discussion or presenting a philosophical reading, having engaged in outside research to provide clarity and context. Keeps presentations concise and engaging, and demonstrates a strong plan for guiding discussions.
B – mostly participates in full class and small group discussions; completes readings but typically does not have notes or annotations for class discussion; rarely if ever a distraction nor engages in non-academic technology use. Is not always effective in leading a discussion, lacking in preparation and outside research. Presentations might drag, and the guiding of discussion lacks purpose.
C – struggles to meaningfully participate in full class and small group discussions; sometimes fails to complete readings for bring materials to class; sometimes engages in non-academic technology use. Is ineffective in leading discussion, demonstrating a clear lack of preparation.
D – rarely participates in discussions; fails to complete readings and does not bring material to class; may frequently engage in non-academic/course-specific technology use. Unprepared to lead the discussion or present material in an effective manner.
F – does not participate in discussions; does not complete readings; may consistently engage in non-academic technology use and/or be a distraction to others. Fails to effective lead a discussion or present material.