https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/25c65f97956b2d16c15e405c4d3b30ed.pdf 5a3cf62bcc80beb0659b92dcdb84aad5 PDF Text Text From PeerScholar http://absurdium.utsc.utoronto.ca/peerScholar/demo/index_demo.html Evaluation Phase (Phase 2) In this part of the assignment you will be marking 5 of your fellow students' writing assignments from Phase 1, and justifying those grades with appropriate comments. (Be nice! Constructive comments are helpful!). The success of PeerScholar rests on you marking each other fairly and, as a result, feeling like your answers were marked fairly. Please take this part of the assignment seriously and try your best to be a fair evaluator. Students should first read all 5 answers carefully. Once you have read the answers you will be required to give a score out of 10 for each answer according to the rubric presented below. Remember, you must complete the evaluation phase appropriately in order for your mark to count! Marking Rubric for the Critical Thinking Piece When evaluating please remember that you are evaluating how well the author has composed, supported and justified their argument. You do not necessarily have to agree with it, just judge how well the point was articulated and justified. Component 1: Content and Organization (marked out of 8) 7,8 Excellent • A novel position is taken, (rather than a summary of existing arguments in the article) • The position is clearly stated and coherently developed. • The position is precise and comprehensive and counter- arguments are anticipated and addressed effectively. • Compelling, logically sound arguments shows excellent, thorough understanding of topic • Well referenced examples are used as support. • References are from reliable sources • Strong command of focus, organization, & development. • Introduction draws reader in very effectively. • Discussion presents a sustained, logical progression of ideas. • A strong conclusion. 5-6 Average –Good • A competent and somewhat novel position on topic, perhaps not comprehensive. • The position is somewhat unclear and, although developed, not coherently • Some counter-arguments are anticipated, but not addressed effectively • Good understanding & some depth of thought • Most arguments are strongly supported. • Sources of some references may be questionable. • Good control of focus, organization, & development • Intro tries to draw reader in with some success • Discussion may not be sustained consistently �• Conclusion may not be completely satisfying 3,4 • • • • • • • • Some effort to be novel, but lacking in clarity and conciseness A partly successful position presented in general terms but inadequately developed. Few counter arguments are addressed, but not effectively Broad understanding, but inconsistent depth of thought Support of argument is rarely strong, sometimes inadequate Some control of focus, organization, & development Some reliance on formulaic devices in introduction, discussion, or conclusion May wander or shift topics abruptly at times 0,1,2 Poor • An unclear or illogical position, responding partially, or simply summarizing arguments in the articles. • Little or no effort to anticipate & address counter-arguments • Weak or limited understanding, minimal depth of thought • Argument shows faulty logic, or lacks evidence in support • Shows weak control of focus, organization, & development • Rambling, repetitious, or hard to follow in places • No effective conclusion Component 2: Language and Grammar (marked out of 2) 2 Excellent Consistently clear, accurate, and concise. Minor grammatical problems or spelling that do not interfere with the meaning of the work 1 – Good Less concise and clear, some grammatical problems and spelling mistakes that somewhat interfere with understanding. 0 - Poor Many grammatical and spelling mistakes that interfere with understanding Include comments in each appropriate box and your grade. Then add the grades together and enter the final grade out of 10 in the appropriate box. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Review Assessment Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y2bb4GM01t4nHm-JmlHIZn5uN7xTVC8pozxWRvxsX_Y/edit?usp=sharing" title="Peer Scholar Peer Review Assessment" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Peer Scholar Peer Review Assessment</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Scholar Peer Review Assessment Marking Rubric Peer Review Peer Scholar