Assignment 2: Opening the Conversation with Blogs

Overview: When we're involved in meaningful inquiry, listening carefully as other voices shape ideas, we often want to discuss with others what we're learning and the questions our research raises. It can help, too, if we seek out others in our community who may have different ways of looking at the ideas we want to discuss. This assignment asks you to initiate a critical conversation by synthesizing some of the materials that have informed our discussion of “the rhetoric of green.”  We will begin this discussion by creating individual blogs to present and share on our class website, extending the conversation we've begun in class about the rhetoric of green with people who are likewise thinking critically about these issues.

Purpose: To create a substantial blog entry aimed at initiating a critical discussion with your classmates.  You should synthesize an issue raised by one of the films with one of the course readings.  You will need to inform your readers of the content of the materials (film and article) and convince your readers that the discussion you are initiating is worth having, especially in light of the class’s exploration of green rhetoric. 

Audience: Your audience is the instructor and the class—in other words, members of a closed blogging community.

Synthesis: Choose an issue from one of the following films to synthesize with one of the class readings. Use this synthesis to prompt your blog entry as you begin to engage in the critical conversation:

Films:

Articles:

Author: Demonstrate you are someone who has watched the films and read the articles closely and critically. From this position, engage your readers in working towards a broader and deeper understanding of the issue.

 Strategies. To achieve your purpose with your audience, use these strategies:

Response:   After you have completed your blog entry, read blog entries of three designated classmates.  Respond in a way that demonstrates you’ve read their entries thoroughly and critically.  Your response engages the material, shows respect for the student’s entry, and is accurate and pertinent to the ideas presented. The objective here is to keep the discussion going.

The Response Should:

 
Details

Length: 1200-1400 words-blog post & 250 words for each response comment

Percentage: 15%

Due: TBD

 

Assignment 2 Grading Rubric (INSTRUCTOR VERSION)

Excellent (5)

Satisfactory (4)

Unsatisfactory (3)

Points

Initiating a critical discussion: The blog identifies and addresses a particular connection that is made between the two texts, clearly arguing for a critical relationship between ideas.  The connection and subsequent argument offer support with sound reasons and concrete examples that are clearly relevant because of your careful explanation.

The blog focuses on engaging the texts in a critical discussion but could do so more effectively.  It may need stronger support, stronger explanation of how the texts are connected, and/or more attention to the needs of the audience.

The blog does not maintain focus on engaging the texts in a critical discussion.  Rather, it merely summarizes or reports information, OR it discusses the texts generally, without a clear sense of audience or purpose.

X10

Representing the articles: The blog accurately and objectively represents the arguments of both texts, focusing specifically on the ideas and information pertinent to the way you plan to show the connection between the two texts. 

Overall, the blog accurately and objectively represents both texts; however, there may be one or two minor inaccuracies.  The information from the articles could be better focused because there are areas of too much summary or where more information is needed.

The blog shows that you have an incomplete understanding of the texts because it contains incomplete and/or inaccurate information.  Blogs that contain only opinions about the articles are also unsatisfactory.

X8

Response:  There are three responses each with a minimum of 250 words.  The responses show thoughtfulness and accuracy to the primary post; the responses are pertinent to the post using concrete examples in order to perpetuate the conversation.

There are three responses each with a minimum of 250 words, but the response is hasty or shallow; the responses do not show thoughtfulness nor reflect the quality of the critical thinking of the original post; they may only assert or counter-assert the original post; or the writer’s examples are highly generalized or non-distinguishable from the original entry.

There are fewer than three responses, and/or one or more of the three responses is fewer than 250 words.  The responses do not reflect the critical thinking in the original entry.

X5

Using the texts: The blog cites the author, title, date, and publication of both texts; uses author tags for all borrowed material; and frames summary, paraphrases, and quotes with careful and effective explanation.  Not only does the original post use texts effectively, but so, too, do the three responses.

Overall, the blog makes clear references to the texts, but it could use more variation in author tags and/or it needs to make better choices in what is summarized, paraphrased, and quoted.  References may be effective but framing is thin or missing.  The responses show little effectiveness in using texts.

The blog does not have sufficient references to the texts, and it is hard to tell when you are referring to them and when you are expressing your own thoughts.  Ineffective use of summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting raises concerns about plagiarism and/or interferes with understanding.  The response is ineffective in using texts.

X4

Conventions & Style: The language, tone, and voice of the blog are those of a careful and critical reader, and the blog is edited for clear communication that is free of distracting errors.  Blogging etiquette and conventions are upheld.

While the blog could be more careful edited for style, it is generally clear and readable.  There may be some minor breaches of blogging convention.

Because of poor editing and/or style choices, the blog is confusing, distracting, or offensive to readers.

X3

Total points = _____/ 150
Percentage = ______%

 

 

Assignment 2 Grading Rubric (STUDENT VERSION)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Initiating a critical discussion: The blog identifies and addresses a particular connection that is made between the two texts, clearly arguing for a critical relationship between ideas.  The connection and subsequent argument offer support with sound reasons and concrete examples that are clearly relevant because of your careful explanation.

The blog focuses on engaging the texts in a critical discussion but could do so more effectively.  It may need stronger support, stronger explanation of how the texts are connected, and/or more attention to the needs of the audience.

The blog does not maintain focus on engaging the texts in a critical discussion.  Rather, it merely summarizes or reports information, OR it discusses the texts generally, without a clear sense of audience or purpose.

Representing the articles: The blog accurately and objectively represents the arguments of both texts, focusing specifically on the ideas and information pertinent to the way you plan to show the connection between the two texts. 

Overall, the blog accurately and objectively represents both texts; however, there may be one or two minor inaccuracies.  The information from the articles could be better focused because there are areas of too much summary or where more information is needed.

The blog shows that you have an incomplete understanding of the texts because it contains incomplete and/or inaccurate information.  Blogs that contain only opinions about the articles are also unsatisfactory.

Response:  There are three responses each with a minimum of 250 words.  The responses show thoughtfulness and accuracy to the primary post; the responses are pertinent to the post using concrete examples in order to perpetuate the conversation.

There are three responses each with a minimum of 250 words, but the response is hasty or shallow; the responses do not show the thoughtfulness and critical thinking of the original post; they may only assert or counter-assert the original post; or the writer’s examples are highly generalized or non-distinguishable from original post.

There are fewer than three responses, and/or one or more of the three responses is fewer than 250 words.  The responses do not reflect the critical thinking in the original entry.

Using the texts: The blog cites the author, title, date, and publication of both texts; using author tags for all borrowed material; and frames summary, paraphrases, and quotes with careful and effective explanation.  Not only does the original post use texts effectively, but so, too, do the three responses.

Overall, the blog makes clear references to the texts, but it could use more variation in author tags and/or it needs to make better choices in what is of summarized, paraphrased, and quoted.  References may be effective but framing is thin or missing.  The responses show little effectiveness in using texts.

The blog does not have sufficient references to the texts, and it is hard to tell when you are referring to them and when you are expressing your own thoughts.  Ineffective use of summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting raises concerns about plagiarism and/or interferes with understanding.  The response is ineffective in using texts.

Conventions & Style: The language, tone, and voice of the blog are those of a careful and critical reader, and the blog is edited for clear communication that is free of distracting errors.  Blogging etiquette and conventions are upheld.

While the blog could be more careful edited for style, it is generally clear and readable.  There may be some minor breaches of blogging convention.

Because of poor editing and/or style choices, the blog is confusing, distracting, or offensive to readers.