Grading guide: Felesha

I am persuaded to give a 22.

The basic criteria was met, e.g. find and define an audience (college students), and an idea and argument was made. The only reason I would take any points away is for construction. Spelling and grammar errors made it difficult to understand at times, and it dragged on at times.

The writer states a basic major and minor premise argument because money needs budgeting, and college is expensive so college students need to know how to budget they money. Simple as that.

Plenty of supporting points for the argument for the website, including why it would not be just another college budgeting website. Also, the audience and argument are very clear.

The criteria for narratives:

Do I want to read it again?

Not really, but I would like to read something that followed-up on progress made with the website.

Do I understand it's purpose?

Very well.

Would a recognizable community of users understand the writer's purpose?

The audience is implied and understood.

Any supporting research?

Very little.

Do I want to actualize any of the goals of the paper?

Definitely. The idea for the site seems like a great idea, but there would be a lot of politicking to go through to make something like that happen, and it didn't seem like the writer understood that.

Are these goals ascertainable, that is, can I find the document's "starting points" and assumptions (premises)?

Not particularly, but it was just an introduction to the idea, not a plan, so it was not really necessary.

Can I recognize and follow the lines of narrative, argument, and inquiry it promises and endeavors to develop?

Narrative and argument, yes.

Can I follow the directives it offers to users?

A little bit, again, not a plan, just an introduction to the idea.

Have I come away from the narrative with a fresh perspective on the topic(s)?

Not a fresh perspective, but enlightened with a new idea.

How well does the wiki space you are engaging and evaluating draw from and deploy relevant tools of narrative and argument (definition, analogy, cause, evaluation) for its case?

None.

Can I find places where the narrative could have been strengthened?

Structurally, mostly.

Was the space composed in an accessible manner?

Yes.

Was it designed for ease of use?

Not really, I had to go back to the class roster page just to find out whose it was after reading it.

____________________________________

The criteria for remixes:

How effective is this rhetorical performance?

In two of the three, the rhetorical performance was well-constructed. The power-point adds a whole new dimension to the story, while the remix of Vivian's work condensed the story without taking anything away from its effectiveness.

Some revisions aim to introduce new ideas to peer narratives in process:

Her new idea was to play with style and form and that a story can be told in many different ways, not just by telling it.

Are these sharp remixes stimulating?

Her remix of James was very stimulating, I just wish it didn't take me so long to figure out what was going on before I got to it.

Other revisions amplify the plot, distinguish between mission and vision statements, and patterns already at work in the narratives they select and remix.

Again, the remix of James did all these things, and maybe even added another element to the story by describing it as one day in Jimmy's life, going to the game, not just as a game.

Do these remixes improve the found original, or in any way open up the work in progress in ways that make it easier for others to revise?

The power point construction adds a whole new element, thus improving the story.

Felesha's Narrative

Back toPortfolio Page