Lori Ostergaard

Project 1 Grading Standards

3.6 - 4.0

Suggests the rhetor has identified a clear approach to take in analyzing the text and has performed that analysis successfully by asking critical questions about the document's context, audience, and purpose, and by discovering within the work something that casual observation would not reveal.
Illustrates the rhetor's understanding of the concepts discussed in course materials and in class and ability to apply those concepts to their reading and interpretation of the text.
Illustrates a quality of thought that is generally ambitious and mature.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to utilize ideas and insights gained from the reading and class discussion. Such use involves incorporation of those insights into the analysis of the text, but the analysis likewise informs and expands upon insights from the reading and class discussion. Such incorporation may provide analysis, synthesis, and support.
The paper reflection provides a detailed and indepth analysis of the writer's process. Analyzes the choices the writer made in composing and revising the text, providing examples of those choices. Includes direct references to the text as support or examples. Thoroughly discusses the role that peer and instructor feedback played in developing the writing.

3.0 - 3.5

Suggests the rhetor has identified an approach to take in analyzing the text and has performed that analysis with some success by asking critical questions about the document's context, audience, and purpose, and by discovering within the work something that might not be revealed in a more casual observation.
Illustrates the rhetor's familiarity with the concepts discussed in course materials and in class and ability to apply those concepts--with some success--to their reading and interpretation of the text.
Illustrates that the writer is a little less ambitious in choice of intended topics or less sophisticated in the way he/she addresses his/her readers, although these essays clearly illustrate a maturity of thought not found in a C analysis.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to incorporate ideas and insights gained from reading and class discussion into his/her own texts: such incorporation may be critical and/or as support or proof.
The paper reflection provides a somewhat detailed analysis of the writer's process. Analyzes the choices the writer made in composing and revising the text, providing some examples of those choices. Includes some direct references to the text as support or examples. Discusses, with some specifics, the role that peer and instructor feedback played in developing the writing.

2.0 - 2.9

Suggests the rhetor has identified an approach to take in analyzing the text and has performed that analysis with some occasional success by critiquing the persuasive appeal of the text and discovering within the work some appeal that the casual observer might not discover.
Illustrates the rhetor's acquaintance with the concepts discussed in course materials and in class and ability to use those concepts--with limited success to their reading and interpretation of the text.
Illustrates a quality of thought that is competent and sometimes compelling, though often standard or familiar.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to incorporate some ideas and insights gained from reading and class discussion into his/her own texts: such incorporation is generally as support or proof and may be done with little sophistication. Suggests the writer may have difficulty synthesizing his/her ideas about the text with ideas discussed in class and in course materials.
The paper reflection offers a step-by-step description of the writer's process with some analysis or evaluation of that process. Reflects on at least one of the choices the writer made in composing and revising the text. May include some direct references to the text as support or examples. May reference the role that peer and instructor feedback played in developing the writing.

1.0 - 1.9

Suggests the rhetor has not identified an approach to take in analyzing the text, but has performed only some analysis--without purpose--of the persuasive appeal of the text. Relies heavily upon description of the features of the document or summary of its main points without consideration of how that text was shaped by its rhetorical situation.
Illustrates the rhetor's passing acquaintance with or little understanding of the concepts discussed in class--although that acquaintance may not include the ability to use those concepts in the reading and interpretation of the text.
Illustrates evidence of a quality of thought that is frequently stock or perfunctory.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to incorporate some ideas and insights gained from reading and class discussion into his/her own texts: such incorporation is only as support or proof and is done in a cut and paste fashion with little paraphrase or analysis.
The paper reflection offers a step-by-step description of the writer's process which might be vague, general, or generic. May reflect directly on at least one of the choices the writer made in composing and revising the text. May include one or two direct references to the text as support or examples. May reference the role that peer and instructor feedback played in developing the writing.

0.9 - 0.0

Suggests the rhetor relies heavily on description and elaboration of those descriptions without analysis. Focuses upon cliched interpretations (persuasive appeal in the text's ability to get the audience's attention or superficial reasons for the text's persuasive success).
Illustrates the rhetor's lack of familiarity with the concepts discussed in class and, thus, the inability to utilize those concepts in the reading and interpretation of the text.
Illustrates evidence of a quality of thought that is perfunctory, obvious, or unclear.
Suggests the rhetor's struggles with using or inability to use insights gained from reading and class discussion in his/her work.
The paper reflection provides a description that is too short to do justice to the writer's process and/or too generic to qualify as an analysis. Relies heavily on description and elaboration of those descriptions without analysis. May discuss revision, peer response, or difficulties the writer had to overcome, but without much specific detail.