Unit 3 Evaluation Criteria

1.  Does the writer include a creative, thought-provoking two-part title?

2. Does the writer use the initial (introductory) paragraphs to offer a brief overview of the discourse community and the primary sources s/he has chosen to study? Has s/he found a way to begin the essay without making obvious claims (“Since the history of time, man has struggled with communication”) or gross generalizations (“In today’s world, the Internet pervades all aspects of humans’ lives”)?

3. Does the writer show s/he has carefully read and understands the secondary sources used? Is there proper introduction of each secondary source before the writer includes quotations?

4.  Does each paragraph have ONE purpose or main idea, and is there sufficient conceptual glue (transitions) between the paragraphs that allow the reader to follow the writer’s train of thought without having to guess at what the connection(s) is/are?

5. Does the writer explicitly include a discussion or reference to Weinberger’s claims or theories (ie does the writer use Weinberger as a secondary source)?

6. From the examination of both primary and secondary sources, does the writer create a new perspective through which to consider the discourse community in question? Does the writer offer a closing to the discussion that shows how the research has brought about a new meaning or way to think about the culture of that discourse community regarding new media?

7. Does the writer include both proper in-text citation and a clean, error-free Works Cited page?

8. Does the writer avoid the pitfalls of second person perspective, unnecessary passive voice? Are the sentences parallel (when appropriate)? Do pronouns and antecedents agree? Do subjects and verb tenses agree? Is syntax clear?

9. Does the writer adhere to the checklist on page 175 and avoid the components of bias on page 174 of The Writer’s Harbrace Brief Handbook ?