Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
Links from this page may contain content which does not represent the views of the Round Rock ISD.
Jimmy Stephens,Webmaster
Jimmy Stephens,Webmaster
20 comments:
I gave the paper a 36. I gave A 10 points, because the writer really did hit all of the points of their thesis and the prompt. I gave B 7 points because they adresses their points very well, but the counter claims, if any, are only identified. I gave C 4 points because while the Areas of knowledge played a huge part in their essay, but the ways of knowing weren't touched on. I gave D 5 points because the writer was very clear on how their essay would progress. I gave E 5points because they used a few examples in quotes, but most of them came from their own knowledge and enriched the essay. I gave F 5 points because there wasn't any factual inaccuracy and they included a bibliography
I gave the essay a 34.
For A I gave all 10 points. I think they did a great job with the essay overall, stayed relevant and showed a lot of knowledge.
Part B I gave a 6. They were critical, justified and evaulated the main points and everything seemed to be logically valid. But I didn't see as much evaulation of counter claims as I think was necessary to get an 8 or 10.
Part C I gave a 3 because they did a really good job as far as the 'areas of knowledge' part but they focussed too much on that and left little to be said about the 'ways of knowing'. Therefore they couldn't really draw comparisons between them, causing me to give them a low grade.
I gave D 5 points. I thought the introduction was really strong- the analogy of building a strong house caught my attention and added to the conclusion as well. The essay was well structured, made sense and was clear.
E I gave 5 points as well. I thought their examples were excellent in effectiveness and appropriateness. They clearly had a lot of knowledge in various areas and showed it.
Part F got a 5. I didn't spot any factual inaccuracy and they had their sources cited.
I gave the essay a total score of 35.
A:10
B:7
C:5
D:4
E:5
F:4
I thought that the writer did a very good job overall of going off of their thesis. They hit the majority of the points in their essay. Some things that they were not as precise on and did not go into enough depth about were the ways of knowing.
My grade for Essay 2 is as follows:
A:10
B:10
C:3
D:5
E:4
F:5
TOTAL: 37
I believed that this essay was well structured. I loved the building the house analogy with the foundation and the roof...etc.
I think the writer did a very sufficient job of just answering the question/prompt. The only flaw was the lack of going into depth on the ways of knowing. The writer mentioned a few of them but didn't explore them.It felt like he was only trying to answer the question. Other than that, It was an essay well written.
If i would have to disagree, it would be with Megan. I think essay 1 did a much better job of exploring the ways of knowing. Essay 2 did not.
A:10
B: 8
C: 3
D: 5
E: 4
F: 5
Final Score: 35
I gave A 10 points because, as the rest of us have already stated, the prompt addressed in an interesting way with the house example, and the thesis was hit on throughout the entirety of the essay. I gave 8 points to B because he (I think it's a guy)reflects on the problems knowledge has, but minimally reflects on the counter-arguments. C was awarded 3 points because while the areas of knowledge were hit on (and pretty well), the ways of knowing were not, which is probably a common mistake. I gave D 5 points because I thought the structure of their essay was the best part of it; he knew where he was going. E gets 4 because all the examples he uses are great (the World War II one made me think, it was cool), but I thought he could have fit another one in. Finally, F got 5 because I believe all of the sources were factual and he cited all of them and had a bibliography, so there's no reason it should be any lower. His final score is hence a 35 out of 40.
My grading:
A:10, The author of the essay covered all the points for this section, they talked about the problem of knowledge and their ideas and thoughts flowed.
B:6, They did reflect on their claims and did a lot of analyzing on those, but their counterclaims lacked some reflection
C:4, They did a good job on covering areas of knowing and a tiny bit on the ways of knowing but they weren't really linked that much
D:5, I think they did a good job on their structure and clarity and coherence but i think it could have been a tad bit better
E:5, Their thoughts were their own but they used examples to back them up
F:5, Because they included a bibliography
It's hard to spot someone to disagree with at the moment, but I do disagree with Ethan giving F a four because all of it was true and he put in a bibliography. I agree with everybody giving A ten points because that is what it deserves; anything lower than that is a disgrace.
While I mostly agree with Zach, I find that giving part B 10 points is a little too generous. Yes, he did hit his points splendidly and everything was logically valid. BUT, he lacked counterclaims, if not legitimate ones, to make his paper more wholesome and broad. Because of that, his grade must suffer. It is integral to include the converses to your arguments in a way to strengthen your thesis.
Reiley's evaluation is one that I can agree with. She saw the things that the writer did best which were the adressal of the topic in a vey progressive manner and inclusion of structure, clarity, accurate examples, and citations. She also realized that while the essay touched on these things it abandoned things like evaluation of counter claims or connection and identification with different ways of knowing. If feel that she managed to catch everything the writer left out and reward all of the things the writer included. Kudos.
I deleted my first comment because I had a typo so I copied and pasted into a new comment.
I graded the paper and gave it the following scores for each section:
A-10
B-8
C-3
D-5
E-4
F-5
I gave A a 10, because the author mentioned each part of his thesis and explained his reasoning behind it with his examples. B was an 8 because their claims were very well addressed, but I couldn't really find much of their counter claims or any support for them. I gave the C a 3 because even though the author mentioned the areas of knowing, they didn't go in depth into how to know using these areas of knowing, which really lacking because they could have knocked this out of the park had they just described the ways of knowing used a little more. D got a 5 because the author was very straight forward with the development of their argument which allowed for a good paper. I gave E a 4 because I thought the author used very appropriate examples, but not enough of them. I gave F a 5 because the bibliography was sufficient and didn't miss any citations.
Total: 37
A: 10, I believe the essay was very thorough in addressing the prompt and was able to maintain that throughout the whole paper.
B: 8, Although it addresses many statements and follows them up with quotes or information, the paper fails to follow up many of the possible counter-arguments that it mentions.
C: 4, I didn't really see the areas of knowledge being discussed in depth.
D: 5, The essay was easy to follow. It contained no highly complicated sentences or difficult vocabulary and thus could appeal to any reader.
E: 5, The writer used various examples and quotes from situations and people all over the world.
F: 5, Bibliography and footnotes were included. All quotes attributed.
I agree most with Vince's grading and his reason for awarding points the way he did. I had the same thoughts and reasons for why I gave the points I did.
I also agree with Megan's statement in that the beginning of the essay did seem a little too blunt. Stating that one would "lay the foundations" and then "explain what [he/she] understands" in the essay is not necessary. The writer should have just focused on making sure he/she made their points and backed them up through the content of their writing and not their personal statements inserted into the essay. However, I don't believe this interfered with the flow of the essay too much, so the possible 5 points for clarity is fully rewarded.
A:10 The paper does a good job in addresing the prompt thoroughly and staying consistent.
B:7 The author does present critical reflection and insight, but no real counter claims are present, and if they are they need to be explained not oly acknowledged.
C:4 The author identifies the Areas of knowledge throught the paper, but the ways of knowing were not really present or well linked.
D:5 The paper has a good structure and logical coherency. He doesn't drift of topic and stays consistent.
E:5 The author uses many sources to prove his point. Such as the blood types, the Sweed and Russian, and so on.
F:5 The author has cited his sources, thus hopefully implying his data was factualy accurate.
Thus the grade this paper deserves is a 36.
Zach had a good point on noticing that the ways of knowing were not really prevalent, but then it leads me to disagree with the grade of a 10 which he awarded on category B. If you acknowleded the problem why the writer receive full credit?
Grades are as follows:
A-10
B-8
C-4
D-4
E-5
F-5
Overall Grade: 36
A- The writer answered the prompt thoroughly, making sure to support their claims.
B- I thought it was good, but I still felt it did not completely encompass the differing views.
C- They mention the different Ways of Knowing, yet did not fully expand on this concept.
D- The structure was good, yet there were times when I felt the flow was not smooth-although overall is was acceptable.
E-They consistently used examples, like the carpenter and Palestine/Israeli historians differing views.
F- They have a good works cited and incorporated the quotes nicely in the essay.
A:10
B:8
C:4
D:5
E:5
F:5
Total:37
I gave this essay an overall score of 37. I gave all 10 points for part A because the author in my oppinion hit all the points. Part be was good but not enough support. For part C I gave a 4 because not enough about the ways of knowing. Parts D-E I gave this essay all 5 points because I thought they were done well.
I agree with Zach's second comment, on the basis that the first essay did a better job on exploring the ways of knowing.
Post a Comment