A Exceptional. Entries reflect in-depth and insightful engagement with readings and topics. Posts are focused and coherently assess rhetorical situations and textual evidence. Posts demonstrate awareness of audience, and consider multiple perspectives when appropriate. Organized and easy to follow. Links are frequently provided. Excellent analysis of others’ posts, with connections made to readings and/or classroom/online discussions.
B Satisfactory. Posts reflect moderate engagement with readings and topics. Posts meet but do not go beyond minimum requirements. Posts are reasonably focused, with some assessment of rhetorical situation and textual evidence. Fewer connections are made between ideas, and though new insights are offered, they are not fully developed. Posts demonstrate some awareness of audience. Organized and thoughtful. Links are sometimes provided, and there is some analysis of others’ posts.
C Underdeveloped. Posts reflect passing engagement with readings and topics. Blog posts are mostly description or summary, without reflection or analysis, and few connections are made between ideas. Posts do not enrich discussion. Audience awareness is not sufficiently demonstrated. Some spelling/grammar errors. Some difficulty with organization. Few links are provided, and others’ posts are mostly summarized, not analyzed.
D Limited. Blog posts are unfocused, or simply rehash previous comments, or display no evidence of student engagement with the readings/topics. Unclear and unedited. Few comments on others’ posts. Few links included connecting your ideas to those of others.
U No Credit. Blog posts are mostly missing, or are irrelevant/tangential to class topics, or consist of one or two disconnected sentences. Blog entries use incorrect grammar and syntax consistently, making it difficult for others to follow. No or few comments on posts of others. No links are included connecting your thoughts to those of others.
WRT 102.22: Science & Society 