Grading guide: Vivian

I am persuaded to give a 25. All the criteria were met, such as defining an audience and describing an event in a narrative form with a particular goal in mind.

She painted a scene and used the class' trip to the CAC to set-up the meeting, so as not to bore you with a story about some meeting. She also came full-circle at the end with other resources and information for readers who were interested enough to read that far.

The criteria for narratives:

Do I want to read it again?

Maybe not, but I would be intrigued to read more into the links, or to read about another meeting and what came out of it.

Do I understand it's purpose?

Yes, to discuss what came out of the meeting and the importance of making students aware that not only do they have a college that cares about them and provides many resources for them, but students are not using them enough.

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

Any USF student probably would.

Any supporting research?

Enough. The event itself along with the links to other sites broaden things up a lot.

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

I would probably look into these resources she speaks of and attend the next meeting to give my own feedback.

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

Easily ascertainable.

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

The narrative is well-constructed, telling the story about the meeting to get to it's conclusion, stopping along the way to meet some faculty and hear what students had to say.

Can I follow the directives it offers to users?

Yes, quickly and easily.

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

A little bit, but if not, she gives me enough resources to make sure I do.

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?

Very well. Linking to so many different things, even professors' names, provides more information to those who need/want it.

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

The language seemed a little conversational, but that might have been it. I don't know if it affected the narrative or if it was trivial.

Was the space composed in an accessible manner?

Yes. Easily accessible and navigable.

Was it designed for ease of use?

Yes.

____________________________________

The criteria for remixes:

How effective is this rhetorical performance?

Very. She took the original author's thoughts and ideas and added her own flavor to them, getting the same point across in her own way.

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

She added links to a couple of the narratives, adding some depth where it originally may have lacked.

Are these sharp remixes stimulating?

Yes. Easy to read and a little more compact than the originals.

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

I think she played well with what was given to her, and again, got the same point across with her own spin on it.

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?

A couple of them do. Vast improvements in creativity and storytelling make them much more effective.

Vivian's Portfolio

Back to Portfolio Page