25 points
place your work, and select 3 projects to evaluate, right here
script by Marvin Simkin
(1) Set aside at least an hour. You may not need it, but it will be good to have the time.
(2) Scan, skim, browse, and then, read through the project carefully. Now read it again. If you spot spelling, stylistic or grammatical errors, fix them (make sure that you are logged in under "user settings," first). This way you have not only judged the project but also improved it, and this is your goal. If there are places that you feel ought to respond to CounterArguments not entertained by the writer, make links and name and/or include them. Remember, CounterArguments aren't necessarily antagonistic, and you should probably only dock points if an obviously available common-place is elided or neglected. Try to compress the narrative into an enthymeme with a major and minor premise, and restate the argument, as you see it, for the peer you are evaluating.
(3) Ask yourself the following questions, and keep track your responses in the word processor or text editor of your choice: Do I want to read it again? Do I understand it's purpose? Would a recognizable community of users understand the writer's purpose? Test your answer with some research. Do I want to actualize any of the goals of the paper? Are these goals ascertainable, that is, can I find the document's "starting points" and assumptions (premises)? Can I recognize and follow the lines of narrative, argument, and inquiry it promises and endeavors to develop, can I follow the directives it offers to users? Have I come away from the narrative with a fresh perspective on the topic(s)?
(4) 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? Can I find places where the narrative could have been strengthened? Was the space composed in an accessible manner? Was it designed for ease of use? Use the language shared and developed in this course to discuss these moments in the rationale you write to support the number of points you assign to the project under review.
(5) Now trace the remixing activity performed by writer of the narrative project under review. How effective is this rhetorical performance? Some revisions aim to introduce new ideas to peer narratives in process. Are these sharp remixes stimulating? Other revisions amplify the plot, distinguish between mission and vision statements, and patterns already at work in the narratives they select and remix. 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? Most of us also query narratives in progress, and make suggestions for revision. Consider the efficacy of these communications, as well.
The following questions will help you compose your evaluation/rationale, the text you will write for each grade you assign: what grade does the project persuade you to give it? Why? How? Think of this as a short causal argument: "This paper caused me to give it a "17 out of 25 points" because...." Post your evaluation to the wiki.
GradingGrid
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.