rhetorics of the everyday, where they may be found
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Paper Graded C+
ENGL 101 Portfolios Provide a substantive comment about why the paper matches the grade given. Use the ENGL 101 Portfolio Rubric as a basis for your comments.
Right away, the way the first paragraph started "I meet the criteria....." is confusing. I was thinking maybe I missed something else that was writen before that. It seems that the writing started in the middle of a thought or in a strange way that made it hard for me to understand what it was saying.
Overall it seems that they talked about everything that they were suppose to but not as indepth as the assignment was asking.
Personally I liked the style of writing and think that it definitley earned at least a C+. There were of course some spots that seemed to be very informal but I think they used good wordchoice throught the paper.
I thought this paper was deserving of a lower grade, but not much lower, like a B. this is because both of the papers contained a lot grammatical errors that would have been really simple to correct, and i wonder how the writer didn't notice them since i'm sure any writing program would've said something. I would give them points for effort, because you can tell they didn't try to do the bare minimum, even though writing may not be their best talent. obviously improvement for them will happen over time. Critical thinking was not her strong suit, but in my opinion she did do well in sentence structure and organization. Also her use of rhetorical analysis got a lot better over the course of the semester.
Right off the bat in the introduction paragraph, the writer had to justify the fact that they are following the criteria of the assignment, as well as giving specific locations in the paper as to where we can find it. The writer didn't need to tell the readers of that, the paper should've been written clearly enough to where we would understand that the instructions were being followed. . Everything was addressed, it just couldve used a little bit more information. This was a well deserved C+ paper, and was pretty average. Simple errors could've been avoided as well as a few other things that might have bumped it up to a B.
I agree with the above comment saying that the author shouldn't have to tell us, the audience, that he is following the criteria of the assignment. I was confused about the short paper before the final research paper. Many sentences were too short and contributed to the paper's C quality. The paragraphs did not flow together and overall this could have been much better if there had been perhaps one more draft.
This paper deserved a C+ because the paragraph structure and length is decent. The sentence structure was weak and they did not flow together. Also, the author uses "The" and other words in the begining of their sentences too frequently within the paragraphs. They also use "I" to start off the entire paper which, to me, is a terrible mistake.
This paper received the grade that it deserved. Their use of conventions was rather poor because the tone and mechanics were very informal and, in some cases, improper; this eventually became a distraction and detracted from the entirety of the paper. There also seemed to be no successive revisions or proofreading done and this appeared to be the only draft written. The use of critical thinking was adequate and was probably the only factor that gave this paper an average grade since many other areas of the rubric were completed poorly.
I would agree with the grade of a C+ for this portfolio. The papers in this portfolio seem to meet most of the standards, but as mentioned earlier, just barely. I also agree that the opening sentence of the cover page was awkward and unnecessary. It is apparent that writing is not the authors strong suite, but the effort is there. The paper's structure was awkward at times and paragraphs did not flow as nice as they could have.
I do agree with everyone when It comes to the writer having a C+ on their portfolio. There are a lot of open and awkward sentences and transitions which makes It harder to follow and see the flow of the paper. They seem to jump around a lot with there ideas and can't really focus on the main points. I do although see the critical thinking the writer used but the whole thing seemed pretty average.
this paper is a 50 50 paper it wasn't poorly written but it wasn't well written. it met the points in the middle. there was several grammatical errors but not too many. the transitions in the paper were weak but the word choice was good most of the time. the paper was not well organized but wasn't poor. it was an 50 50 paper and thats why it deserved a C+
This paper has the bare requirements that it needed to have but it was not particularly the best written paper. There were grammatical errors, confusing organization sometimes, weak transitions, and not too much voice in the writing. It received the grade it did because of these imperfections.
This final portfolio looked as though there was some time put into it however not enough for a higher grade than the C plus that it was given. The critical thinking seemed like it was mostly all there, the ideas were strong but the writing was not. Even after the peer reviews the final essays still contained gramatical errors. The theses were strong and supported pretty well in the essay. But many of the grammar errors made me discredit the information presented. Also repetative word choice was a strong reason why the essay was somewhat hard to read. All in all this final portfolio was done somewhat well but not nearly enough time was put into it to come out with a better grade than a C plus.
Although the paper did follow the rubric and did talk about the important aspects that were mentioned in the rubric, it lacks depth. It seems that the writer did consider the rubric but did not understand well enough to elaborate in terms of the context. There were repetitive words which could have been revised. Some sentences were wordy and hard to follow. The writer's casual tone also deducted his/her ethos. Overall, the paper could have improved with more revising.
This final portfolio deserved a C+. I could see that the writer put time into the paper, but didnt dedicate enough of it to get a higher grade then what was given. If the writer put more time into his final draft to recorrect any gramatical errors present, then they could have maybe recieved a higher grade. I also think the paper lacked an in-depth response and the paper should have went more into detail about the topic. I also agree that the writer didn't have to address at first, that "they met the critieria". That caused somewhat of a confusion. Overall, if the writer dedicated more time and effort, the grade could have been higher but I see how they got a C+.
This portfolio was deserving of the C+ it was given. The portfolio meet the requirements of the grading rubric, but just met them minimally. There are plenty of grammar errors and the structure of the paper is poor. If the writer would have spent time editing and fixing the simple errors that were made they would have received a higher grade.
I agree with the C+ grade. The paper was average. It meet the requirements but it did not meet them in an organized well thought out way. The paper could have used stronger organization and editing. The sentence structure needed some revising. The writer had good ideas and plenty of critical thinking. There was a good amount of concrete detail and conversation. The paper just needed better organization.
Right away, the way the first paragraph started "I meet the criteria....." is confusing. I was thinking maybe I missed something else that was writen before that. It seems that the writing started in the middle of a thought or in a strange way that made it hard for me to understand what it was saying.
ReplyDeleteOverall it seems that they talked about everything that they were suppose to but not as indepth as the assignment was asking.
Personally I liked the style of writing and think that it definitley earned at least a C+. There were of course some spots that seemed to be very informal but I think they used good wordchoice throught the paper.
I thought this paper was deserving of a lower grade, but not much lower, like a B. this is because both of the papers contained a lot grammatical errors that would have been really simple to correct, and i wonder how the writer didn't notice them since i'm sure any writing program would've said something. I would give them points for effort, because you can tell they didn't try to do the bare minimum, even though writing may not be their best talent. obviously improvement for them will happen over time. Critical thinking was not her strong suit, but in my opinion she did do well in sentence structure and organization. Also her use of rhetorical analysis got a lot better over the course of the semester.
ReplyDeleteRight off the bat in the introduction paragraph, the writer had to justify the fact that they are following the criteria of the assignment, as well as giving specific locations in the paper as to where we can find it. The writer didn't need to tell the readers of that, the paper should've been written clearly enough to where we would understand that the instructions were being followed.
ReplyDelete. Everything was addressed, it just couldve used a little bit more information. This was a well deserved C+ paper, and was pretty average. Simple errors could've been avoided as well as a few other things that might have bumped it up to a B.
I agree with the above comment saying that the author shouldn't have to tell us, the audience, that he is following the criteria of the assignment. I was confused about the short paper before the final research paper. Many sentences were too short and contributed to the paper's C quality. The paragraphs did not flow together and overall this could have been much better if there had been perhaps one more draft.
ReplyDeleteThis paper deserved a C+ because the paragraph structure and length is decent. The sentence structure was weak and they did not flow together. Also, the author uses "The" and other words in the begining of their sentences too frequently within the paragraphs. They also use "I" to start off the entire paper which, to me, is a terrible mistake.
ReplyDeleteThis paper received the grade that it deserved. Their use of conventions was rather poor because the tone and mechanics were very informal and, in some cases, improper; this eventually became a distraction and detracted from the entirety of the paper. There also seemed to be no successive revisions or proofreading done and this appeared to be the only draft written. The use of critical thinking was adequate and was probably the only factor that gave this paper an average grade since many other areas of the rubric were completed poorly.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the grade of a C+ for this portfolio. The papers in this portfolio seem to meet most of the standards, but as mentioned earlier, just barely. I also agree that the opening sentence of the cover page was awkward and unnecessary. It is apparent that writing is not the authors strong suite, but the effort is there. The paper's structure was awkward at times and paragraphs did not flow as nice as they could have.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with everyone when It comes to the writer having a C+ on their portfolio. There are a lot of open and awkward sentences and transitions which makes It harder to follow and see the flow of the paper. They seem to jump around a lot with there ideas and can't really focus on the main points. I do although see the critical thinking the writer used but the whole thing seemed pretty average.
ReplyDeletethis paper is a 50 50 paper it wasn't poorly written but it wasn't well written. it met the points in the middle. there was several grammatical errors but not too many. the transitions in the paper were weak but the word choice was good most of the time. the paper was not well organized but wasn't poor. it was an 50 50 paper and thats why it deserved a C+
ReplyDeleteThis paper has the bare requirements that it needed to have but it was not particularly the best written paper. There were grammatical errors, confusing organization sometimes, weak transitions, and not too much voice in the writing. It received the grade it did because of these imperfections.
ReplyDeleteThis final portfolio looked as though there was some time put into it however not enough for a higher grade than the C plus that it was given. The critical thinking seemed like it was mostly all there, the ideas were strong but the writing was not. Even after the peer reviews the final essays still contained gramatical errors. The theses were strong and supported pretty well in the essay. But many of the grammar errors made me discredit the information presented. Also repetative word choice was a strong reason why the essay was somewhat hard to read. All in all this final portfolio was done somewhat well but not nearly enough time was put into it to come out with a better grade than a C plus.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the paper did follow the rubric and did talk about the important aspects that were mentioned in the rubric, it lacks depth. It seems that the writer did consider the rubric but did not understand well enough to elaborate in terms of the context. There were repetitive words which could have been revised. Some sentences were wordy and hard to follow. The writer's casual tone also deducted his/her ethos. Overall, the paper could have improved with more revising.
ReplyDeleteThis final portfolio deserved a C+. I could see that the writer put time into the paper, but didnt dedicate enough of it to get a higher grade then what was given. If the writer put more time into his final draft to recorrect any gramatical errors present, then they could have maybe recieved a higher grade. I also think the paper lacked an in-depth response and the paper should have went more into detail about the topic. I also agree that the writer didn't have to address at first, that "they met the critieria". That caused somewhat of a confusion. Overall, if the writer dedicated more time and effort, the grade could have been higher but I see how they got a C+.
ReplyDeleteThis portfolio was deserving of the C+ it was given. The portfolio meet the requirements of the grading rubric, but just met them minimally. There are plenty of grammar errors and the structure of the paper is poor. If the writer would have spent time editing and fixing the simple errors that were made they would have received a higher grade.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the C+ grade. The paper was average. It meet the requirements but it did not meet them in an organized well thought out way. The paper could have used stronger organization and editing. The sentence structure needed some revising. The writer had good ideas and plenty of critical thinking. There was a good amount of concrete detail and conversation. The paper just needed better organization.
ReplyDelete