Looking ahead, Brief Assignment 10

[Ryan]

Hey Group,

Students don't have an assignment due next week, but I thought I'd
start the discussion going now.

First things first, Dr. Lang spoke to me in the hall this week and
said she thought our rubric idea was great. She'll be sending us some
comments soon, but we can go ahead and start drafting the category
text. Mark, I think you volunteered to write the introduction category
and Amber the grammar, punctuation, and spelling text. If the rest of
you could review the thesis sample I posted in the "Draft 1.2 Rubric
Construction" post and also choose a caterogy to write that would be
helpful as well. We need to turn this around quickly to give to
students.

Also, Dr. Lang really appreciated the teaching approaches y'all
offered for last week's assignment. Please continue to do the same for
BA10. Dr. Lang also asked if we had discussed re-teaching certain
grammar issues we've encountered in students' work. DIs, are you
seeing some consistent errors patterns across student work? I know I'm
still seeing lots of comma splices.

Brief Assignment 10 (assignment description pasted below) asks
students to revisit their ethical lens. This particular assignment
seems more reflective in approache, but I'd really like us to put our
heads together on this assignment and develop some great in-class
activities. Students like movies/TV, maybe we could identify some
helpful YouTube clips to illustrate these ethical concepts.

CIs, we also really need to explicate how we're grading for this
ethical lens. We've somewhat disagreed on this in the past. The 1.2
seems suggests that students need to explore his/her issues through
this ethical lens. Therefore, every body paragraph needs to be
organized around this ethical idea. Do you all agree? I think the 1.1
was somewhat misleading because it asked students write a single
paragraph toward the end of the essay on ethics. I think these ideas
need to be first appear in the introduction and then integrated
throughout the essay. Do you all agree?

I hope every one has a Happy Thanksgiving. Monday and Tuesday CIs,
what do you have planned for class? Since I also teach on Wednesday,
I'm taking my Tuesday sections to the library to work on locating
additional sources for the 1.2. For their last participation grade,
each student has to submit an analysis of this additional source and
describe how they plan to integrate it into their 1.2.

-Ryan

Objective: To practice reevaluating your understanding of ethics in
your 1.1 draft.

Description: For this assignment, critically reexamine Cavanagh's
article on pp. 384 and write an analysis of how you approached ethics
in the 1.1 draft. As you've been revising your 1.1, how has your
approached to ethics changed? Do you agree with any of the three
ethical theories? Do you disagree? What approach to ethics do you
typically take towards issues in your life? As you write your 1.2,
will you be changing your approach that you used in the 1.1? Why or
why not? Be sure to fully support your answers.

[Shelley Alvarez]

Hi, Folks,

I'm happy to hear that the rubrics can be used for the 1.2. I'd be
happy to help write one of the rubrics but I have to admit I'm
clueless where to start. I've never written one.

Ryan, I agree that common error patterns I'm seeing are comma splices
and fused sentences. Also, I'm seeing quite few homonyms errors and
instances where the student is not proofreading and using words such
as "where" instead of "were." Instructors might want to reiterate the
importance of proofreading (just one of my pet peeves).

Regarding the ethical lens, students should at least "attempt" to
organize their arguments around the lens. I was a bit surprised that
in the 1.1 drafts many students failed to even mention one of the
lenses. I agree that the ethical lens needs to be introduced in the
introduction and integrated throughout the response.

I'm actually sitting in my hotel room in Lubbock right now. I hope to
see some of you at tomorrow's meeting!

Shelley

[TTUEngl...@gmail.com]

Below is the supplementary assignment explanation that I was thinking.
It's not as "cut and dry," but I want to preempt students from only
giving brief responses to the assignment. I was hoping to integrate
some of the Toulmin lesson for this response too. However, I'm still
thinking about it. If a Q and A format is preferred, I'll change my
plan accordingly. I do have some specific questions for the group.

I'm not sure how long this assignment is, any suggestions? I was
thinking somewhere between 300 and 500 words. Also, how comprehensive
are DIs looking into these assignments? Are there specific keywords or
key ideas that students should be noting for this assignment?

I will also post up my tentative class plan on the pages section of
our google group page. I included a section for grammar. Feel free to
comment, borrow, or criticize.

Would Sunday be too late for the Introduction Rubric? I was hoping to
focus on other assignments over the break.

mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA 10
DUE: FRIDAY, NOV 10
WORD COUNT: ???
Some questions to consider:
[As you've been revising your 1.1, how has your approached to ethics

changed? Do you agree with any of the three ethical theories? Do you
disagree? What approach to ethics do you typically take towards issues
in your life? As you write your 1.2, will you be changing your

approach that you used in the 1.1? Why or why not? ]

Compare and contrast your approach to ethics from then until now.
Provide your response as a brief but complete essay, with an
introduction, body, and conclusion. Refer to the Toulmin FORMAT for
guidance. DO NOT simply respond with single line answers.

Questions that may arise in class may also be used for this assignment
so long as they are justified.

Suggested format

Introduction
[Discussion of your original 1.1 approach to ethics]

Body Paragraphs
[What are some of changes or thoughts regarding your perspective of
ethics now? Refer to the questions above for further ideas]

Conclusion
[Summarize the most significant observations and how you might apply
them to your Draft 1.2 essays]

On Nov 15, 6:11 pm, "Shelley Alvarez" <chiparo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Folks,
>
> I'm happy to hear that the rubrics can be used for the 1.2. I'd be
> happy to help write one of the rubrics but I have to admit I'm
> clueless where to start. I've never written one.
>
> Ryan, I agree that common error patterns I'm seeing are comma splices
> and fused sentences. Also, I'm seeing quite few homonyms errors and
> instances where the student is not proofreading and using words such
> as "where" instead of "were." Instructors might want to reiterate the
> importance of proofreading (just one of my pet peeves).
>
> Regarding the ethical lens, students should at least "attempt" to
> organize their arguments around the lens. I was a bit surprised that
> in the 1.1 drafts many students failed to even mention one of the
> lenses. I agree that the ethical lens needs to be introduced in the
> introduction and integrated throughout the response.
>
> I'm actually sitting in my hotel room in Lubbock right now. I hope to
> see some of you at tomorrow's meeting!
>
> Shelley
>

[Shelley Alvarez]

Ryan,

I actually agree that students need to be introduced to the Toulmin
structure, especially because knowing how to use this format will
become even more important in 1302. Also, 300-500 words is fine for
length requirements.

Finally, I would like to see the students' explanations focus on how
they will incorporate the ethical lens in the final draft. Since many
students failed to even attempt to incorporate at least one lens, the
analysis should focus on the changes they will make.

Shelley

[eric....@ttu.edu]

Hello all,

I think 3-500 words should be fine. As for recurring issues with the
student papers, I am seeing the same homonym/wrong word problems and
some faulty sentence structures. Additionally, I come across many
fused sentences and vague pronoun references. I hope this helps. Do
y'all have any other questions for the DI's?

Sincerely,
Eric

On Nov 21, 10:11 pm, "Shelley Alvarez" <chiparo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> I actually agree that students need to be introduced to the Toulmin
> structure, especially because knowing how to use this format will
> become even more important in 1302. Also, 300-500 words is fine for
> length requirements.
>
> Finally, I would like to see the students' explanations focus on how
> they will incorporate the ethical lens in the final draft. Since many
> students failed to even attempt to incorporate at least one lens, the
> analysis should focus on the changes they will make.
>
> Shelley
>

[Israel "izzy" Cohen]

To see my thoughts about homonyms, Google
< homonyms "izzy cohen"

Best regards,
Israel "izzy" Cohen
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BPMaps/

[kandkg...@gmail.com]

Sounds great. I'll let my students know about the word count, the
suggested outline, and an introduction to the Toulmin arguement.
However, I don't think we should grade their assignment based on the
Toulmin argument since it will be covered more fully next semester. As
for my class activity, I plan on making a class debate, where I will
ask one side of the classroom to argue from one ethical view point and
then have the other side argue another. I won't have the specifics yet
until I get back to Lubbock tomorrow, but I thought my might help
spawn some inspiration.
Thanks,
Katherine

PS. Sorry for the late reply. I don't have easy access to the net here
in San Angelo. :)

On Nov 24, 12:04 am, "Israel \"izzy\" Cohen" <cohen.i...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Walki...@gmail.com]

Sorry to reply so late. I just got back into town. This all sounds
great. For class on Wednesday I am going to have students bring in
revised versions of Draft 1.1 and we are going to do a number of
revision exercises. In particular, I'll have students focus on how to
integrate Cavanagh's principles into their essays a bit more.

-katie