Grading criteria for SQ individual essays (K. Carmichael)
Grading criteria for the SQ individual paper--Carmichael EDC-SQ 2009
Below you will find a breakdown of the elements on which your individual paper has been graded.
1) Demonstration of the writing skills and strategies as set forth in the WQ grade guide.
2) Persuasive and professional presentation that a) points up the significance of your ethical concerns and b) highlights the appropriateness and feasibility of your recommendations. Credit will be given for the originality, significance, and utility of the topic and your recommendations.
3) Translation of recommendations into benefits (short- and long-term), backed up with appropriate evidence (see below).
4) Use of relevant, specific, and quantified data and documentation derived from appropriate primary and secondary research to establish your credibility and bolster your argument (including any of the following, as appropriate):
§ Compelling account of ethical problems with the current system or design, including “unintended consequences”—e.g. design misuse, failure modes and effects, waste removal issues, potential hazards, impact on non-users, etc.
§ Assessment of the costs and feasibility of your recommendations
§ Consideration of materials, manufacturing, maintenance, distribution, personnel and education/training issues
§ Historical precedents that support your claims about ethical problems associated with the design or the likely success of your recommendations
§ Plan and estimated timeframe(s) for implementation of your recommendations
§ Acknowledgement of the weaknesses and/or limitations of your recommendations
§ Anticipation of questions and/or objections from interested parties
An “A” paper demonstrates mastery of all four elements.
An “A-” through a “B” paper shows awareness of the four elements, but not perfect mastery. The paper may show insufficient attention to the interests of users, non-users, and stakeholders, or non-users; fail to fully establish the significance of the problem; be inconsistent in terms of its rhetoric, organization, or professional presentation; fall short in its discussion of feasibility including costs, implementation, unintended consequences, or related issues; or fail to make a fully convincing case for the merits of your recommendation.
A “B-” through a “C-” paper does one or more of the following: neglects several elements of persuasive rhetoric and professional presentation; does not establish the importance of the problem; does not acknowledge key users, non-users, or stakeholder; describes recommendations in merely general terms with no effort to discuss costs, manufacturing, implementation, unintended consequences or related issues; bases its conclusions and recommendations on flawed/inadequate research or unreliable sources; is either unconvincing or makes recommendations of such limited significance that they are virtually uncontestable.
A “D” paper largely ignores the four elements. Such papers typically fall into the trap of documenting a problem but shy away from making recommendations.
An “F” paper fails to meet any objectives of the assignment.
