Unit 4 Evaluation Criteria

Written Reflection

1. Creative, though-provoking, two-part title?
2. Introductory paragraph offers brief overview/definition/description of discussion area, without making obvious claims or gross generalizations?
3. Is constructed with a singular voice that is attentive to the checklist on page 175 and avoid the components of bias on page 174 of The Writer’s Harbrace Brief Handbook ?
4. Avoids 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?
5. Uses a wide range of texts, drawing on a variety of perspectives, to consider and create a way of thinking about the topic that is critical, generative, and new(ish)? Identifies the major themes of the discussion and considers how those themes fit in or contribute to a new perspective?

Presentation of Research

1. Each participant contributes in near-equal fashion?
2. Presentation has clearly been rehearsed? Has the group reviewed Garr Reynolds’ Top Ten Delivery Tips and considered those tips that might apply to the classroom as an audience?
3. Presentation communicates the findings of the reflection without the recitation of the paper itself?
4. Thoughtful inclusion of an extra-textual medium to *complement* the presentation? Does it provide the audience with concrete examples and evidence of the thematic findings? If using PowerPoint, does the group use slides effectively, modeling their work on the principles of one of the following PowerPoint innovators? Lessig, Godin, Kawasaki, Reynolds.