|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Generic writing proficiency counts 25% of the midterm grade and is evaluated on the back of this page. The other 75% of the midterm grade evaluates, using the scoring guide on this page, how the content of your writing demonstrates your command of the knowledge that is the focus of this course: the nature and origins of sustainable environmentalism, particularly as illustrated in the life and work of Alexander von Humboldt, and its relation to other areas of knowledge and experience, including the learner's own life (formal education and otherwise). Each of the three parts counts 25% of the grade, for a total of 75%. 6 Exemplary (A+): Shows, at many places in the writing, general and detailed knowledge of: a) Humboldt's life and work as presented in the primary sources (Helferich, Jaguars & Eels, shorter sources); b) what went on in the classroom: the information that was presented and the discussions that occurred. "Interprets the past" in both senses: explains the past from our later perspective (time and locations); applies knowledge of the past to the issues of our time and location. Evidence of major gain in knowledge and insight since the start of the course, or else explanation how previous learning and experiences had provided that capability before the course. Opinions are regularly accompanied by facts and facts by opinions. Likely refers several times to specific incidents in Humboldt's life and specific examples of his work. Instructor gains knowledge and insight from the writing. Learner can be trusted to "interpret the past" of Humboldt and the origins of sustainable environmentalism to a larger public. 5 Outstanding (A-): Clearly closer to (6) than to (4) 4 Sufficient (B-): Shows broad knowledge of the primary sources but is vague about some (not all) details. Shows factual thinking about what went on in the classroom, though with several holes (example: refers to navigation, mapping, plants, but ignores animals and indigenous peoples). "Interprets the past", but either focuses only on the past or the present, or else relates the two in only a general way. Some evidence of some gain in knowledge and insight since the start of the course, but intense thought and self-examination are not strongly evident; or else refers briefly and vaguely to previous knowledge. Probably heavy on opinions but light on facts, or vice versa. May seem to be substituting other knowledge for the knowledge delivered by the course. Can contribute something substantial about this topic to discussions that occur among people who were similar to the learner before the learner entered the course. 3 Almost sufficient (C+): Clearly closer to (4) than to (2) 2 Deficient (C): Appears to have read very little of the primary sources and probably neglects details or distorts them severely. Only slight evidence of having absorbed knowledge and discussion from the classroom. Multiple holes in the major sub-topics of the course (plants, animals, climate, measuring, mapping, other applied math, society and culture). Appears to have gained little from the course; may convey a sense of making it up on the spot. Probably very light on facts to support opinions, and possibly even lacking in specific opinions. Could not add much to a discussion of sustainable environmentalism and its origins that might occur among people who were similar to the learner before the learner entered the course, and might find that some of those people possessed superior knowledge even of the specific matters that came up during the course. 1 Severely deficient (D): Clearly closer to (2) than to (0) 0 Unacceptable (F): Sample is very brief, non-existent, or severely off-topic. |