|
Teaching and Critical Pedagogy
|
|
|
|
After reading/assessing your paper, the evaluator has come to the following general conclusions about your writing. I. Your paper is reflective of an "outstanding, excellent, extraordinary" paper worthy of an "A,” because as a whole it is extremely well written and generally reflects exceptional skill in/mastery of the following focus areas: • As far as ideas go, writing is clear and focused, the writer uses creative, insightful detail and ideas are easy to understand; there is no question as to what the topic/purpose/goal is and where the paper is headed; the writer is in complete control of all of his/her ideas and the material presented; ideas are richly and effectively communicated. • When it comes to content/organization/structure: the complex organization, the attention to paragraph basics, helps move the reader through the text with ease, the student organizes thoughts into meaningful categories and performs the skill with no significant errors, the key features of the skill process clearly understood; the paper is “smooth,” there is an ease to your writing, ideas/thoughts simply flow quite well together; from intro to conclusion, topic sentences, connective transitions, in and in between paragraphs – all work together to make the paper easy to digest; attention clearly placed on organization and presentation of material by this writer; there are no sentence fragments. • As for voice/clarity/fluency: the voice of the writer comes through in vivid and precise word choice and varied sentence structure; mature writing skills obvious; the writer creates a paper that is memorable and leaves the reader wanting more; the reader understands the writer's point of view, sees inside his/her mind and clearly “gets what the writer intended”; no questions unanswered. • The writer uses the standard writing conventions with skill; although there may be a couple of small things, taken as a whole, the paper is easy to follow/understand due to attention placed on the conventions of writing. • When it comes to critical thinking/analysis/critical reflection and support of ideas: the writer clearly demonstrates analysis/thought about the assignment, the paper is filled with quality thinking/precise evidence/support from text/resources/the interviewees; the writer identifies patterns running through information, shows complete and detailed understanding of the information important to the chosen topic; it appears that the writer took time to really consider issues, thought about their importance, clearly highlights a high level of thinking and application; it appears that a good deal of time was taken to make sure there is good support/varied sources and solid explanation as to why support is important and/or what it should mean to the reader; as a whole, the paper reflects careful attention to detail and depth when it comes to content; there is simply no room for question – the writer “nailed it cold,” both informing and proving to the reader the writer thought about, analyzed, and understood the issue related to society and education. II. Your paper is reflective of "very good/high pass" grade of "B," as the paper meets some of the requirements, but still lacks in some of the more critical areas reflective of "A" quality work. For example: • Writing is basically clear and focused, the writer using some basic detail(s); there still needs to be a bit more focus; at times, writing/content tends to stray or some of your ideas leave the reader hanging and/or trying to figure out what you mean; refining the purpose/goal of paper might be needed; the paper's content was suitable, and generally the ideas were communicated to the reader. • Overall organization is apparent, that is true, but it still needs a tweak; it's possible that the paper is mechanically structured, it reads as if "it is simply written"; it's also possible that some of the basics i.e. topic sentences, explanations, connective transitions, intro, conclusion, etc., could be stronger as a whole; some things good, thoughts are organized and classified, the skill process performed w/o significant errors but still need some tweaks to get to the next level; there may be a couple of sentence fragments in this paper as well. • As a whole, clarity/voice is generally achieved through accurate word choice, sentence structure, etc., but as a whole, the paper does feel or read as if the writer's approach was a bit too general; it may feel as if it was just good enough, not too bad; it's good taken as a whole, but a tweak with creativity, clarity, and/or personality would help get to the next level; a few questions may remain for the writer of the paper; the paper also may fall into an overabundance of 1st /2nd person point of view; perhaps too much when it comes to 'non-specific pronouns' such as 'we, us, they, youo,' etc. • It is true that the writer does have skill with most of the standard writing conventions; generally speaking, the writer follows the rules with minimal errors; still, some attention needs to be placed on this area because errors do make it difficult to read/understand at times. • The paper reflects thought and does show some analysis of the content; the writer shows some understanding of the information important to the topic and identifies patterns running through the information; there is thought apparent, attempts at making comparisons/contrasts, connections, reflections, etc., but it's possible that just a bit more could be done, perhaps greater detail is needed, perhaps more 'voice' from the interviewees; the paper does reflect some analysis, thought and/or reflection, and it is apparent that the writer attempts to apply research/illustrations/ support, but a bit more could be done; it's possible that support/explanation aspect of paper needs to be developed, varied, broadened, etc.; it may be that there is “more of one, not enough of the other”; as a whole, there is still some “wiggle room,” some room to consider with the persuasive/analytical/support aspect of the paper; the writer is close but the reader still needs a bit more. III. Your paper is reflective of an "adequate/satisfactory" paper receiving a "C” because as a whole it might meet some of the key criteria/requirements but: • Writing includes details but is general in application; there may not be enough development as a whole; there also may be too much going on, too many ideas to handle for one paper and the writer should think about taking some stuff out for the next time; it's also possible that ideas sometimes digress into irrelevant discussion, what you say just doesn't seem to fit and appears "clunky”; revision and focus on simplifying and/or developing ideas the next time. • Some organization is apparent, it looks as if the writer is attempting some of “the basics,” but there are things that must be addressed the next time; it's possible that there needs to be more focus on developing topic sentences, connectives, explanations, clearer intro/conclusion, etc.; the paper has potential, but more attention to the way you organize your thoughts and material is needed the next time; some significant errors here with performing the process, a rough approximation of the skill/process; possibly more than two sentence fragments. • When read, the paper possibly came across as a bit ordinary/trite and/or inappropriate to the task at hand; whether sentence structure, overall feel, or the writer's thinking, things appear as “fuzzy” or superficial taken as a whole; considering the task at hand, all told, the reader is left with too many things to ask of the writer when it comes to voice, clarity of purpose, etc. • The writer does okay with conventions, but this is an area that clearly needs more attention; there were several errors with conventions and the reader lost focus/thought due to the errors; more time needed with this area to help the reader follow along smoothly, without pausing to figure out what is happening or being said; there needs to be more focus here for the next time. • After reading the paper, the reader either feels as if the support/explanation element is too general, possibly unclear, inaccurate or inappropriate and/or that some features of the main patterns running through information are apparent but possibly excludes some important detail, like the thoughts and feelings from interviewees; it's also possible that the paper reflects incomplete understanding or misconception of some of the information; clearly, more needs to be done on the paper as a whole; it appears as “basic,” the presentation leaves reader with too much to ask or decide about what is being analyzed/discussed; deeper thought necessary concerning analysis/support/contrast/comparative/connective aspect and reader remains ill-informed. IV. Your paper reflects a "D", reflecting considerable problems and/or poor quality of work, support, organization, planning, etc., and/or concerns such as: • Writing lacks central idea/purpose, and/or lacks detail; it is very hard to figure out the writer's key ideas/direction; the ideas are superficial at best or maybe the reader is not sure of a purpose or intent; the paper does appear as a "work in progress,” ideas communicated as isolated pieces of random thought. • Organization is lacking or not apparent, the writer does not seem to understand and/or apply the “the basics” of organization/paragraph structural devices; intro/conclusion, transitions, and/or topic sentences, etc., really need focus; the paper also may appear as “not finished,” work in progress, as if the writer didn't really have a plan to present ideas; more thought the next time or meeting to discuss basics are advised, so many errors in performing skill/process that there is doubt she/he can perform the skill/process. • Quite difficult to figure out the writer's voice; paper is difficult to “get,” or understand; whether word choice being limited or inappropriate, whether the sentence structure lacking variety, the paper does leave the reader wanting more from the writer and comes off as a “work in progress.” • Although it does appear that the standard writing conventions are being followed, there were simply too many errors as a whole; it was difficult to “get what was going on,” or understand the writer due to time spent on figuring out punctuation, spelling, etc.; this is a biggie, a key focus area in the future. • It is quite apparent that the writer offers little to no fact, ties to class, and/or analysis/connection/reflection ; this paper appears superficial, like a "work in progress," the understanding of the topic appears too incomplete or misconceived; it's possible that the main patterns running through the information are not dealt with; too much still remains unanswered or not developed, possible that research element is very superficial - no quotes from teachers, for example; it is possible that the paper did not keep user interested, ideas may not have been relevant or not really related to the material discussed and/or the assigned task.
• Perhaps when reading, the paper comes off as 'last ditch' attempt, a paper that feels upon reading that the writer did it at the last minute; it is so badly organized, written, structured, etc., that it makes reading for understanding way too difficult for the reader; there is absolutely no support at all, no direct citations from research, no quotes from the interviewees; essentially all opinion without any attempt at all to ground opinion in fact/scholarship; there really is no substance, perhaps paper is way too short, feeling like it is is a 'half done' assignment (3-4 pages) as opposed to being close to a finished product. In short, it is more than clear that the assignment is less than acceptable for a junior/senior level research project - a semester 'final' worth 30% of the overall course grade.
___________________________________________________ |
|
|
|