Final Portfolio

Paper-level Organization 

The paper is well-organized. The observation section has a clear organizational approach, the research section has a clear thesis, and both follow a logical path through the subtopics. The paper includes transitions between the various parts of the paper, background information (if needed), several sub-topics, and a conclusion. 

Point Breakdown 

• 5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • This paper is well organized.

• 2.5 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • Paper is generally well organized, but some of the parts may have issues, such as the thesis not being clear or some points not seeming related to a main point about the community or to the thesis (depending on the section of the paper).

• 1 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • Paper is missing required elements, such as clear sub-topics throughout the observation section, an introduction to the research topic with a thesis, a conclusion (that is not bringing up new research), or the paper does not transition from sub-point to sub-point using transitions.

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • Paper has substantial issues with paper-level organization, such as not including expected parts of the paper or issues that are causing readability issues (for example, many short paragraphs that aren't developed throughout the scholarly section or long paragraphs that meander through information but do not seem to have a main point).

Paragraph-level Organization

Paragraphs in the OBSERVATION section have a clear point/topic. There can be more flexibility with length and flow to these paragraphs, but the choices made should work with the genre.

Paragraphs in the RESEARCH section of this paper follow the conventions of academic research writing. They have the following parts:

1. Topic Sentence (this is the main point you are making; should be the first sentence)

2. Evidence/Claims

3. Discussion of evidence/wrapping it up (or building a transition to the next major point)

Point Breakdown 

• 5 to >2.5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • Paragraphs in this paper are well organized and fit the conventions that are expected for this paper.

• 2.5 to >1.25 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • Paragraphs are generally well organized, but some may need improvement, such as too many topics being covered in one paragraph, the topic sentence being slightly different than the content of the paragraph, or the discussion of the research or observation being missing. For this category, these elements will mostly be present, but may be missing in a few spots.

• 1.25 to >0 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • Paragraphs in the research section are frequently missing one or more of the following elements: topic sentences (that are related to the paragraph's main point), supporting evidence, or discussion and transitions to the next sub-point. AND/OR Paragraphs in the observation section do not seem to have a clear purpose (e.g. appears to be meandering through random thoughts).

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • Paper has substantial issues with paragraph-level organization, such as missing research (when applicable), not having a clear purpose, not employing topic sentences and/or completely missing discussion of the research (in the research section). 

In-text Citations and sentence-level APA style

The paper uses in-text citations to cite research used. The in-text citations are correctly formatted in APA and are used appropriately. Additionally, quotes include a lead-in, and both quotes and paraphrases are clear.

Point Breakdown 

• 5 to >2.5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • The paper uses in-text citations to cite research used. The in-text citations are correctly formatted in APA style, including using the expected parts of a citation (such as author's last name, year, and page number (when needed). Additionally, quotes are formated and punctuated correctly.

• 2.5 to >1.25 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • In-text citations are mostly correct, but occasionally are including too much information about the source in a way that makes the writing have less flow. Or the in-text citations or quotes occasionally have small issues, such as punctuation being incorrect.

• 1.25 to >0 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • The paper has one or more of the following issues: In-text citations are incorrect in some areas or seem to be missing in spots. Quotes are not formatted correctly and might not include a lead-in. The wrong elements are used for the in-text citations (such as using a title when the author name is available).

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • The paper has one or more of the following issues: In-text citations have substantial issues. May be consistently incorrect, missing information, or missing altogether. Quotes are too long and/or taking up substantial space in the paper to the point that it is impacting the readability and effectiveness of the paper. 

Flow, transitions, and readability 

The paper uses transitions to move through the various parts of the paper (observations, interview(s), and scholarly research), from point to point and from one source to the next (in the scholarly section of the paper). The interview is formatted as dialogue and uses summarizing or exposition as needed to shorten unneeded parts. Quotes in the scholarly section employ lead-ins and lead-outs; paraphrases are introduced in a way that does not impact readability. The sentence structure is concise and not overly confusing.

Point Breakdown 

• 5 to >2.5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • The paper has good flow and is easy to read. The ideas flow from topic to topic. There are no major issues with confusing sentence structures.

• 2.5 to >1.25 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • Paper occasionally has one or more of the following issues: Sentence structure is overly complex, transitions are missing, the interview has too much unnecessary information, or quotes or paraphrases (in the scholarly section) are not transitioned in and out of effectively.

• 1.25 to >0 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • The paper has more than one of the following issues: Quotes are often missing lead-ins and lead-outs. Paraphrases are not being transitioned into smoothly (this may include too many details about the sources being included). The interview is not formatted correctly (i.e. is formatted as a transcript instead of dialogue). There may also be issues with the sentence structure.

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • Paper has major flow and readability issues. There are frequent issues with sentence structure, the incorporation of quotes, and/or the order of ideas being presented at the paragraph-level.

Scholarly Section, academic style, approach, and tone

The paper is scholarly in tone and conventions. The introduction (to the scholarly section) and conclusion are focused on the ideas and content of the topic, not the author or opinions.

The author presents information logically and with little bias. Language is academic and not overly opinionated or leaning too heavily on pathos. Additionally, the topic of the paper is approached in an academic and complex way. It is not overly simplified and is appropriate for college-level work.

Point Breakdown 

• 5 to >2.5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • The paper meets these criteria consistently.

• 2.5 to >1.25 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • Paper occasionally has issues with academic style and tone, such as sounding biased or using opinionated language and tone. The topic of the paper is being approached too simply, not using the research to examine the complexity of the topic. Or the author may bring themselves too much into the paper (you can use the word "I" in the scholarly section of your paper—but the focus should be on the topic, research, and community not your process of doing the scholarly research or your opinions)

• 1.25 to >0 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • The paper has frequent issues with academic style and tone, such as taking a narrative approach to the writing about the scholarly research or presenting the information with a moderately biased tone.

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • Paper has major issues with academic style and tone. It may not be written in a way that reads like a research paper/research ethnography or presents information with a strong bias.

Formatting and APA

The paper is formatted in APA format (title page, font, etc) and employs APA citations throughout when evidence is referenced. A reference page is included and has sources corrected cited.

Point Breakdown 

• 5 to >2.5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • APA formatting is present and correct.

• 2.5 to >1.25 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • There are some issues with the APA formatting, such as a few issues on the reference page or with the paper-level formatting.

• 1.25 to >0 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • There are major issues with the APA formatting for sections of the paper. The reference page may not be formatted correctly, multiple sources are not formatted correctly, or several of the reference list citations are missing information.

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • APA formatting is missing throughtout paper (such as no title page and page numbers), text is formatting incorrectly across-the-board (such as using a non-standard font, spacing, or size), and/or the reference page has significant issues that have not been addressed.

Scholarly Research

The paper uses at least five scholarly resources throughout the paper. The resources support the points being made. The resources are academic/scholarly in nature and appropriate for the topic. The resources are also recent enough for the topic.

Point Breakdown 

• 10 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • The scholarly research is appropriate for this topic and used effectively.

• 5 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • The paper uses five scholarly sources, but there are some issues with the scholarly research, such as one or two of the sources not being relevant or timely to the topic. Or one or two of the sources research being used in a way that doesn't appear to work/be relevent for the topic.

• 2.5 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • The paper cites five scholarly sources, but there are significant issues with the scholarly sources, such as multiple sources not being appropriate for the topic, using non-scholarly sources as secondary resources,

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • Paper does not have five scholarly sources and/or the paper is using multiple non-scholarly sources as secondary research instead of using scholarly sources to make their argument.

Primary Research

The paper includes specific points about the community, using specific observations to support those points. The paper includes at least one interview.

Point Breakdown 

• 5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • The paper includes specific observations, specific points/sub-topics about the community, and includes at least one interview.

• 2.5 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • The paper includes an interview and information about the community, has an issue with one of the following: either specific observations are missing or specific observations are present but there are no clear points being made about the community (for example, the paper summarizes the observations without presenting the information in a way that informs the reader about the community).

• 1.25 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • The paper fits one of the following: 1) the paper does not include an interview but does incorporate observations and sub-points about the observations well, OR 2) the paper does include an interview, but does not include specific observation or clear points about the community.

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • The paper does not clearly make points about the community, does not use specific observations, and also does not include an interview.

Revision and Proofreading

The paper has been revised since the rough draft was turned in last week, taking into consideration the feedback received. All major issues that were commented on for your rough draft (by your professor) have been addressed. The paper has been proofread and is relatively free of grammatical and mechanical errors.

Point Breakdown 

• 5 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • Paper has been effectively revised and proofread. Any issues from the rough draft have been resolved, and the paper is mostly error-free.

• 2.5 pts

  • Needs Improvement

  • Paper has been revised, but still has some issues with grammar/errors/typos or an issue from the rough draft that wasn't been addressed.

• 1.25 pts

  • Missing criteria in some areas

  • Some revision appears to have been done, but the paper still has substantial issues, such as lack of proofreading that is impacting readability or a major issue from the rough draft that has not been addressed.

• 0 pts

  • Criteria Not Met

  • Paper has not been revised at all and has substantial issues from the rough draft that has not been addressed or major issues with errors, typos, or grammatical issues that is impacting readability.

Revised Ethnography Requirements

The revised ethnography meets the minimum requirements of the original assignment: 

✻ 2600-3000 words.

✻ Includes specific observations about the community.

✻ Includes at least one interview.

✻ Includes a minimum of five scholarly sources.

✻ For the scholarly section of the paper: follows research paper conventions, such as: having an introduction and conclusion, body paragraphs with topic sentences and evidence.

✻ Be written in a style that is both appropriate for the genre of ethnography and is readable.

✻ Be formatted in APA style and using APA citations.

✻ Include an APA reference page and title page.

Point Breakdown 

• 35 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • Paper meets all minimum requirements for this assignment (see above).

• 17.5 pts

  • Missing minor criteria

  • Paper attempts but is not effective in one of the following requirements: APA formatting or citations, has some issues with the conventions of academic writing (like missing one part, such as the conclusion, but all other parts are present), is missing the interview, or specific observations are missing but the paper still covers the community in broad terms.

• 0 pts

  • Missing major criteria

  • Missing major criteria, such as not meeting the requirements for one or more of the following: paper length, including scholarly research from 5 academic sources, observations, basic research writing conventions in the scholarly section, and/or the paper is missing APA formatting altogether.

Final Reflection

The final reflection requirements:

✻ Is written/created using the expected conventions of the chosen genre.

✻ Covers the required prompts.

✻ Is well-organized and developed.

✻ Explains specific revisions that were done, including at least one HOC/MOC style revision and one LOC revision.

Point Breakdown 

• 15 pts

  • Meets Criteria

  • The final reflection meets the requirements for the assignment, is well developed, is well organized, and uses the expected conventions of the chosen genre.

• 7.5 pts

  • Missing minor criteria

  • Reflection attempts but is not effective in one of the following requirements: is missing one of the prompts, doesn't include details or an example for one of the types of revision (for example, the paper is vague about either the HOC/MOC revision or LOC revision), OR the reflection is not successfully using the conventions for the chosen genre. All other criteria are met.

• 0 pts

  • Missing major criteria

  • Missing major criteria, such as not meeting the requirements for one or more of the following: is covering the prompts, specifically explaining the revisions that were done on the paper, organization, development, or the reflection has substantial revision needs.

Total Points: 100 possible