Individual Assignment
Due: March 18, 2019 by 11:59pm
Purpose: This short paper provides an opportunity to reflect on the process of creating the final project, your involvement, how well your team functioned from your perspective, and what, if anything you might have done differently.
Task: Write a 2-page single-spaced (or 4-page double spaced) reflection that describes:
- (50 pts) Your overall assessment of your team’s project
- (50 pts) Your role on the team and your contributions
- (50 pts) How well the team functioned
- (50 pts) What, if anything, you would do differently
Criteria for Success: See task description for points per prompt. Each prompt will be assessed for the quality of your writing. See the writing rubric for details.
| WRITING RUBRIC | Exemplary (4.0) | Proficient (3.0) | Emerging (2.0) | Unsatisfactory (1.0) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity & Content | Clear thesis statement & argument. Cohesive. Raises important issues or ideas not previously covered in literature cited. | Topic is carefully focused & clearly outlines major points related to topic. General ideas are expanded upon in logical manner, extending the significance of student's work. | Ideas presented closely follow conventional concepts with little expansion or development. Certain logical connections or issues essential to topic omitted. | Major ideas related to the content may be ignored or inadequately discussed | |||
| Evidence | Evidence provided is appropriate (relevant) and sufficient. Evidence is properly cited and positioned within the text to support the argument. | Sources are well chosen but students' handling of material may not fully support their argument. May have errors in attribution. | Some sources do not support, or may be insufficient to support, argument. Sources may be poorly selected and improperly cited. | Evidence is insufficient or irrelevant to the thesis and/or is improperly cited or uncited. | |||
| Organization | Excels in organization & representation of ideas. Writing flows smoothly throughout from intro to conclusion. Transitions effectively aid reader in following writer’s logic. | Ideas are logically arranged to present sound scholarly argument. | Ideas & concepts are generally satisfactorily presented although lapses in logic & organization are apparent. | Content may be poorly focused or the scholarly argument is weak. Overall, the content & organization needs significant revision to represent a critical analysis of the topic. | |||
| Grammar | Word choice is appropriate. Sentence structure is correct and clarifies meaning. Essentially error-free in terms of mechanics. | While there may be minor errors, the paper follows normal conventions of spelling and grammar throughout. Errors do not significantly interfere with topic comprehensibility. | Inconsistency and/or errors in syntax and/or grammar result in weak formulation of argument or lead to difficulties in reader understanding. | Frequent errors in spelling, grammar (such as subject/verb agreement & correct tense), sentence structure, and/or other writing conventions make comprehension difficult. |