Experience shows that many students do not read comments made on their writing.
That is certainly within their rights, but it suggests that writing such comments is a poor use of a professor’s time.
In this class, I will respond to your work with a graded rubric (see below), and hope that this offers enough direction for many students. If you would like to receive more feedback, please print out a copy of your essay or discussion forum entry and stop by my office. I am always happy to discuss your writing with you.
Each posting will receive up to six points:
Length (0-2 pts)
2 = at least 500 words.
1 = at least 400 words.
Content (0-3 pts)
3 = good discussion, helpful and enjoyable to read, and assertions were justified; exhibits clear evidence of having worked through the relevant readings, and incorporates those readings (where relevant).
2 = coherent discussion, possibly with minor problems of organization or understanding; or a failure to make use of class readings; or a failure to move much beyond the mere assertion of one’s opinion.
1 = serious problems in the organization, or evidence that you’ve misunderstood the topic.
Mechanics (0-1 pts)
1 = flawless writing, impeccable punctuation, with neither typos nor misspellings.
0 = presence of typos, misspellings, or poor punctuation.
Each comment will receive up to 2 points:
2 = appropriate discussion, relevant to the entry, and helpful (namely, you respond directly to points made in the post, either offering further evidence in support of some claim, or counter-evidence against the claim). You raise at least one useful question for furthering the discussion.
1 = comment is helpful, but either too brief (less than 100 words), poorly justified, poorly written, or fails to further the discussion.
0 = comment is inappropriate, or else shows little evidence of having understood the entry, or else is nothing more than a note of praise or condemnation.
Each blog entry will receive up to 6 points:
6 = Careful and well-written discussion of the case study, following Veatch’s Five-Step Model: (1) brief statement of the problem, (2) the relevant clinical and situational facts, (3) the ethical values and principles at play in this case study, (4) the available options, and (5) the relevant stake-holders that will need to be addressed, along with that option that you think is most appropriate.
5 = Good discussion of the case study, but some material is overlooked, or the solution is hurried, or the writing needs improvement.
4 = Discussion is either too brief, hastily written, or with a number of writing errors.
3 = The entry is in serious need of work.
Each extra credit journal entry will receive up to 10 points:
Length (0-2 pts)
2 = at least 600 words.
1 = at least 400 words.
Summary (how well you summarized the relevant material: 0-2 pts)
2 = a perfect summary. You captured what was essential to the reading with the fewest number of words possible.
1 = irrelevant details were included, or the essence of the reading was neglected.
0 = the summary needs a complete overhaul.
Discussion (organization and understanding: 0-4 pts)
4 = excellent discussion; enjoyable to read and helpful.
3 = good discussion, possibly with minor problems of organization or understanding.
2 = coherent, adequate discussion, some problems of organization or understanding.
1 = organizational problems make the discussion difficult to follow, or else it is evident that you've seriously misunderstood the reading.
Grammar/Spelling/Mechanics (for the journal entry as a whole: 0-2)
2 = flawless writing, with neither typos nor misspellings.
1 = one to three errors.