Academic Reading and Writing Final Assessment Instructions Spring 2020

short comprehension questions, rhetorical analysis and an arugment + citations. check the final reading instructions to seeENGL 135: Academic Reading and Writing
Final Assessment Instructions
Spring 2020
THIS PAPER HAS 9 PAGES: THIS COVER PAGE (1 PAGE), INSTRUCTIONS (2 PAGES),
A POPULAR PRESS ARTICLE FOR ANALYSIS (2 PAGES), AND A GRADING RUBRIC (4
PAGES).
GENERAL EXAM INSTRUCTIONS
1. Read all questions carefully before you begin.
2. Answer all questions in a word processing document where you can save your work. Do
not try to work online in CourseSpaces since your work could be lost if the system
crashes.
3. You can address questions in any order you like, but please label your work clearly to
facilitate accuarate marking.
4. Make sure you use a normal font – Times New Roman, Calibri, or Georgia are examples
of a normal font, but Zapf Dingbatsis not. Please double space your document.
5. When you are finished, make sure that the first page of your document indicates your
NAME, STUDENT NUMBER, INSTRUCTOR NAME, AND COURSE/SECTION
NUMBER (ENGL135.A04, for example).
6. Before you submit your document, save it an a format that will be accessible to your
instructor: a Word document (.doc or .docx) as well as an .rtf or .pdf document is fine. Do
not try to submit .pages documents or other formats. If you are unsure of how to save a
document in a different format, please email the computer helpdesk (helpdesk@uvic.ca).
7. Please upload to the CourseSpaces site titled “ENGL135 Final Assessment.” Your work
is due on Wednesday April 8 before the time allotted in the dropbox on CourseSpaces.
8. Keep an eye on the time, and be sure to leave yourself enough time to revise and
proofread your answers.
9. We strongly advise you do not look up material online. There is a great deal of
misinformation out there; instead, stick with the course materials your instructor has
provided.
10. Of utmost importance is your own health and well-being. Please do not stress over this
final assessment at this difficult time. You can do this.
Section one: Reading comprehension – short answer questions
Length: 3 questions; weight: 10%
The questions below test your comprehension of the article you read in preparation for this exam
“How college students evaluate and share ‘fake news” stories” and your ability to summarize key
information from the article. Your work will be marked for accuracy, comprehension, concision,
and effectiveness of written expression.
1. What is the main argument of the peer review article “How college students evaluate and
share ‘fake news’ stories?” State this point in your own words. In other words, briefly
summarize the argument. Write your answer in one or two full sentences. (2 points)
2. Describe the methodology used by the author of the article (that is, how the study was
conducted), and list two specific findings. (5 points)
3. Explain what strategies the authors of the article use to address possible counterarguments. What opposing arguments and/or criticisms do they anticipate, and how do
they handle these issues? (3 points)
Section two: Rhetorical analysis
Length: 3-5 paragraphs totaling approximately 300 words – you do not need to write a
fully developed essay; weight: 40%
Analyze the effectiveness of the popular press article “Why fake news on social media travels
faster than the truth” focusing on how the author uses rhetorical strategies to persuade the
audience (that is, the primary audience of the article, which you need to identify). You are not
required to include introduction or conclusion paragraphs, just 3 to 5 “body” paragraphs of
analysis. Your paragraphs should describe specific rhetorical strategies the author has used to
achieve their purpose and how these strategies are used to persuade readers. To support your
claims, you must provide specific textual evidence in the form of examples from the text, which
can take the form of quotations or paraphrases. (Please do not simply summarize the article.)
Where appropriate, you should include in-text references in a citation format that you learned
this term.
Section three: Argument
Length: A short essay totaling approximately 500 to 750 words; weight: 40%
Write your own short argumentative essay on a subject related to the topic discussed in the
popular press article “Why fake news on social media travels faster than the truth” and the peerreviewed scholarly article “How college students evaluate and share ‘fake news’ stories.” To
develop and support your argument, you must use both of these articles as evidence in the form
of quotations, paraphrases, and/or summaries accompanied by appropriate citations. Be sure that
you have an arguable claim or “thesis.” At the end of your essay, include a paragraph that briefly
describes the primary audience you imagined you were writing to.
Section four: Documentation and citations
Weight: 10%
Following one of the sets of documentation guidelines below, you must offer a correctly
formatted works cited/references list that includes the peer-reviewed scholarly article “How
college students evaluate and share ‘fake news’ stories” and the popular press article “Why fake
news on social media travels faster than the truth.” Your mark for this section will also take into
account whether you have cited your sources correctly in sections 2, 3, and 4 above.
APA
Journal article:
Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Periodical, volume
number(issue number), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy
Newspaper article:
Author, AA. (Year, Month Day). Title of article. Title of Newspaper, pp. pages, https://URL.
Citations:
(Author, date)
MLA
Journal article:
Author, First-name and First-name Author. “Article Title.” Title of Journal, vol. #, issue #, year,
pp. pages. DOI.
Newspaper article:
Author, First-name. “Article Title.” Newspaper Title, Day Month Year, pp. pages. URL.
Citations:
(Author page#)
CSE
Journal article:
Author, A., Author, B. Author, C. Year. Article title. Journal Title. Vol(issue):pages. Available
from: DOI or URL.
Newspaper article:
Author, A. Day Month Year. Article title. Newspaper Title. Pages. Available from: DOI or URL.
Citations:
(Author date)
Popular Press Article:
Author: Paul Chadwick
Article Title: Why fake news on social media travels faster than the truth
Newspaper: The Guardian
Date: March 19, 2018
URL: https://link-galecom.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/apps/doc/A531496714/ITBC?u=uvictoria&sid=ITBC&xid=e6bbaf7
a
False news is more novel than true news, and that may be why we share the false much faster
and more widely. Prominent responses to false news include surprise, fear and disgust. True
news tends to be met with sadness, joy, anticipation and trust. Humans are more likely than
automated processes to be responsible for the spread of fake news.
These insights emerge from a large and impressive study published on 9 March in the journal
Science. Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, interested in how and why true
and false news stories spread differently, used 126,000 stories that had been tweeted by 3 million
people a total of 4.5m times. The data spanned 2006, when Twitter began, to 2017.
The study is unsettling reading, especially in light of what has so far emerged from US
intelligence agencies, congressional inquiries and the special prosecutor Robert Mueller about
use of social media to distort the 2016 presidential election. I hope the research helps to persuade
more people that fake news powered by social media is a serious threat to all democracies’
health. A growing bundle of studies shows that this is a qualitatively and quantitatively new
problem, not just a digital manifestation of the yellow press of old. Apart from effects on
elections and referendums, fake news in social media can assist hate speech to turn into
communal violence more quickly. And some government responses are troubling on free-speech
grounds, such as Sri Lanka’s week-long ban on social media, or “digital curfew”.
More openness by the social media giants and greater collaboration with suitably qualified
partners is essential. The MIT researchers studied what they called “rumour cascades”. A cascade
starts with a Twitter user making an assertion about a topic — with words, images or links — and
continues in an unbroken chain of retweets. The researchers analysed cascades about news
stories that six fact-checking organisations agreed were true or agreed were false. The study
found that “falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than truth in
all categories of information”. False political news reached more people faster and went deeper
into their networks than any other category of false information.
The study compared the emotional content of replies to true and false rumours by using about
32,000 Twitter hashtags and a lexicon of about 140,000 English words that associate with eight
basic emotions: anger, fear, anticipation, trust, surprise, sadness, joy and disgust. Were
automated processes, or “bots”, the main culprits in spreading falsity? No — the researchers
found, it’s humans.
Calling for more effort to identify the factors in human judgment that spread true and false news,
including interviews with users, surveys, lab experiments and neuroimaging, the paper points to
some obvious reasons to look deeper. “False news can drive misallocation of resources during
terror attacks and natural disasters, the misalignment of business investments, and misinformed
elections.”
Two features of this study, besides its published results, are heartening. Artificial intelligence
was successfully deployed to good effect, for example, a bot-detection algorithm. And Twitter
provided access to its data, some funding, and shared its expertise. The researchers have
conditionally offered to share their dataset.
More openness by the social media giants and greater collaboration by them with suitably
qualified partners in tackling the problem of fake news is essential. Traditional journalism
organisations are potential partners too. They find, check and disseminate news, are well placed
to assess veracity, attract masses of comment online and discussion on social media platforms,
and have a clear incentive to maintain trust in their own contributions to democratic life.
* Paul Chadwick is the Guardian’s readers’ editor
ENGL135 Final Exam Marking Rubric
Section one: Reading comprehension – short answer questions (10%)
Question one (2 points total):
• Up to 1 point for accurate content (statement of the article’s main point)
• Up to 0.5 point for writing one full sentence in their own words
• Up to 0.5 point for grammatical and mechanical correctness
Question two (5 points total):
• Up to 3 points for accurate content (description of methodology and overview of two
specific findings)
• Up to 1 point for writing full sentences in their own words
• Up to 1 point for grammatical and mechanical correctness
Question three (3 points total):
• Up to 2 points for accurate content (explanation of the study’s self-imposed limitations)
• Up to 0.5 point for writing full sentences in their own words
• Up to 0.5 point for grammatical and mechanical correctness
Section two: Rhetorical analysis (40)
(A)
32
and
above
(B)
28 to
31
(C)
24 to
27
Content

Accurate discussion of the key rhetorical
features which may include purpose and
audience, appeals, and other strategies.

Effective assessment of the use of rhetorical
features to support the article’s purpose
supported with well-chosen textual examples

The discussion, assessment and examples
show depth of understanding.

Quoted, paraphrased, and summarized (QPS)
material is well-integrated and documented

Substantial analysis of the key rhetorical
features

Effective assessment of the use of rhetorical
features to support the article’s purpose

Analysis supported with relevant examples

QPS material is mostly well integrated and
correctly documented
Organization

Logical and coherent
overall sequence

Thorough grasp of
paragraphing

Effective use of
transitions and other
features to reinforce
organization
Usage

Precise language

Sentences are well
constructed, varied in length
and structure

Thorough grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
usage and mechanics

No errors, or only minor,
mechanical errors








Adequate analysis of the rhetorical features
Adequate assessment of the use of rhetorical
features
Analysis supported with some relevant
examples
Some QPS material is poorly integrated and/or
incorrectly documented, or it is not clear how
it supports the analysis




Logical and coherent
sequence across
paragraphs
Good grasp of
paragraphing
Generally effective use
of transitions and other
features to reinforce
organization
Flow of logic may not
be clear
Reasonable grasp of
paragraphing
Overall coherence may
be impaired by missing
transitions or errors in
logic






(D)

20 to
23





Limited but accurate analysis of some of the
rhetorical features
Limited assessment of effectiveness
Errors in understanding or terminology
Analysis supported with few specific
examples
QPS material is poorly integrated, or it is
unclear how it supports the argument
Some documentation lacking or incorrect



Ideas often seem
loosely connected to
one another
Basic grasp of
paragraphing
Some paragraphs lack
coherence




(F)
19
and
below







Little or inaccurate analysis
Little or inaccurate assessment of
effectiveness
Significant or numerous errors in
understanding or terminology
Analysis not supported with examples
Inadequate use of QPS material
Missing citations
More of a summary than an analysis



Lacks a clear direction
Poor grasp of
paragraphing
Connections between
ideas must be inferred


Language is mostly precise
Sentences are well
constructed and varied
Good grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
usage, and mechanics
Errors are few, mostly
mechanical, and do not
impede comprehension
The language is general,
functional, and
comprehensible, but has
little impact or style
Sentence structure is
primarily simple but correct
Reasonable grasp of
spelling, punctuation,
grammar, usage, and
mechanics
Obvious errors, although
few impede comprehension
The language is general,
functional, and
comprehensible with some
effort on the part of the
reader
Sentence structure may be
incorrect or overly simple
and predictable
Basic grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
usage, and mechanics
Obvious errors, some of
which impede
comprehension
Major deficiencies
throughout in one or more of
clarity, coherence, syntax, or
vocabulary
Errors in spelling,
punctuation, usage,
grammar, and mechanics
consistently impede
comprehension
Section three: Argument responding to the article(40)
Content (1/3 of credit)
*Essay responds to the editorial’s specific
ideas with a strong, clear argument
*Essay engages directly with the
editorial’s main points
*Essay is appropriate for and should be
persuasive to the intended audience
(readers of the original editorial)
*Evidence from academic article is used
accurately and effectively
*QPS material is well integrated and
documented
*Essay responds to some specific aspects
of the editorial with a clear argument
*Essay engages with the editorial’s main
points
*Essay is appropriate for the intended
audience (readers of the original editorial)
*Evidence from academic article is used
accurately
*QPS material is mostly well integrated
and documented
Organization (1/3 of credit)
*Effective, attention-getting
introduction
*Logical and coherent
sequence of body paragraphs
*Thorough grasp of
paragraphing
*Effective use of transitions
and other features to reinforce
organization
*Memorable and effective
conclusion
*Effective and appropriate
introduction
*Logical and coherent
sequence across paragraphs
*Good grasp of paragraphing
*Generally effective use of
transitions and other features
to reinforce organization
*Effective and appropriate
conclusion
(C)
24 to
27
*Essay offers an argument that responds
to the general topic of the editorial
*Essay engages with some of the
editorial’s main points
*Essay seems adequate for the intended
audience (readers of the original editorial)
*Evidence from academic article is used
adequately
*Some QPS material is poorly integrated
and/or incorrectly documented, or it is not
clear how it supports the analysis
*Functional introduction
*Flow of logic may not be
clear
*Reasonable grasp of
paragraphing
*Overall coherence may be
impaired by missing transitions
or errors in logic
*Functional conclusion
(D)
20 to
23
*Essay offers an argument but does not
respond to the editorial OR offers an
inappropriate, ineffective argument
*Essay engages with few of the editorial’s
main points
*Essay seems likely to confuse or offend
the intended audience (readers of the
original editorial)
*Evidence from academic article is used
inappropriately or inadequately
*QPS material is poorly integrated, or it is
unclear how it supports the argument
*Some documentation lacking or incorrect
*No clear argument
*Failure to understand or engage with the
editorial’s main points
*Essay is inappropriate or fails to take into
consideration the intended audience
*No evidence from the academic article is
used or it is misrepresented or it seems to
have been misunderstood
*Inadequate use of QPS material
*Missing citations
*Introduction is inappropriate
for the essay
*Ideas often seem loosely
connected to one another
*Basic grasp of paragraphing
*Some paragraphs lack
coherence
*Conclusion is inappropriate
for the essay
(A)
32
and
above
(B)
28 to
31
(F)
19
and
below
*No introduction or an
introduction that drives readers
away from the essay
*Lacks a clear direction
*Poor grasp of paragraphing
*Connections between ideas
must be inferred
*No conclusion or a
conclusion that contradicts the
essay
Correctness & style (1/3 of credit)
*Precise language
*Sentences are well constructed,
varied in length and structure
*Thorough grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar, usage and
mechanics
*No errors, or only minor,
mechanical errors
*Perfectly formatted references list
appears at the end of the essay
*Language is mostly precise
*Sentences are well constructed and
varied
*Good grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar, usage, and
mechanics
*Errors are few, mostly mechanical,
and do not impede comprehension
*Almost perfectly formatted
references list appears at the end of
the essay
*The language is general,
functional, and comprehensible, but
has little impact or style
*Sentence structure is basic but
correct
*Reasonable grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar, usage, and
mechanics
*Obvious errors, although few
impede comprehension
*References list appears at the end
of the essay – with some minor
errors
*The language is general,
functional, and comprehensible with
some effort on the part of the reader
*Sentence structure may be
incorrect or overly simple and
predictable
*Basic grasp of spelling,
punctuation, grammar, usage, and
mechanics
*Obvious errors, some of which
impede comprehension
*References list appears at the end
of the essay – with significant errors
*Major deficiencies throughout in
one or more of clarity, coherence,
syntax, or vocabulary
*Errors in spelling, punctuation,
usage, grammar, and mechanics
consistently impede comprehension
*References list with major errors
appears at the end of the essay OR
there is no references list
Section four: Citations (10)
A level (8 and above): Documentation style is clearly identified; works cited or reference list
presents accurate information and is perfectly formatted; citations appear when necessary and are
perfectly formatted.
B level (7): Documentation style is clearly identified; works cited or reference list presents
accurate information but has some small format…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Leave a Comment