Comparative Analysis

Description

Assessment Specifics Cover Letter Minimum 150 words (successful cover letters are often longer) Address letter to your instructor In a couple sentences only, explain your primary motivation or purpose for writing your draft and describe your audience. Answer at least 2 of the 5 questions below; (where applicable) provide brief, specific examples of the following in your cover letter: What specific revisions did you make in order to improve how you accomplish this purpose and/or appeal to this audience? Why were these revisions important to make? What feedback did you receive from your peers? How did you use this feedback to revise your draft? How do these revisions improve your draft? What feedback did you receive from other sources, such as your instructor or tutors? How did you use this feedback to revise your draft? How do these revisions improve your draft? What have you decided to revise in your draft, apart from feedback you received? Why? How do these revisions improve your draft? What valuable lessons about writing effectively have you learned as a result of composing this project? Place the cover letter on a page just before the first page of your Analysis draft (If following MLA style, this will be the first page of your draft document; if following APA style, this will be the second page of your draft document, just after the title page). Remove your Purpose Statement. Final Draft – Rhetorical Analysis (Check in Module 4 to confirm which analysis your instructor has assigned). Rhetorical analysis of the core reading you wrote about for Writing Project 1 Clear identification, early in the draft, of the core reading by full author name and full article title (following MLA or APA style for formatting titles) and brief overview of the article’s content (This is usually part of the introduction.) Introductory paragraph, body paragraphs that analyze the rhetorical strategies and features of the core reading, and a concluding paragraph, with topic sentences and transitions. Clearly developed thesis statement making a claim about the purpose or effectiveness of rhetorical features of the core reading Well-reasoned analysis of the core reading’s rhetorical strategies, illustrated and supported with evidence from the core reading and your outside source Well-reasoned analysis of the core reading’s rhetorical strategies, supported with evidence Use of at least one additional source found using the Ivy Tech Virtual Library databases Use of at least 10 paraphrases and/or quotes of the core reading and/or your outside source, correctly cited in-text APA or MLA manuscript style formatting, as specified by your instructor, with in-text citations and a References or Works Cited list including ALL sources used. (References or Works Cited list does not count in the minimum word-count requirement) Observation of the conventions of Standard English 1000 words minimum for final draft (the minimum 150 words for the cover letter is not included in this count) Final Draft – Comparative Analysis (Check in Module 4 to confirm which analysis your instructor has assigned). A comparative analysis of the two of the core readings, including the one you wrote about for Writing Project 1 Clear identification, early in the draft, of the core readings by full author name and full article title (following MLA or APA style for formatting titles) and brief overview of each article’s content (This is usually part of the introduction.) Introductory paragraph, body paragraphs that analyze the rhetorical strategies and features of the core reading, and a concluding paragraph, with topic sentences and transitions. Clearly developed thesis statement making a significant claim about the similarities and differences between the two core readings Well-reasoned analysis based on relevant and complex comparisons, illustrated and supported with evidence from the core readings and/or your outside source Use of at least one additional source found using the Ivy Tech Virtual Library databases Use of at least 10 paraphrases and/or quotes of the core reading and/or your outside source, correctly cited in-text APA or MLA manuscript style, as specified by your instructor, with in-text citations and a Works Cited or References list including ALL sources used. (Works Cited or References list does not count in the minimum word-count requirement) Observation of the conventions of Standard English 1000 words minimum for final draft (the minimum 150 words for the cover letter is not included in this count) Rubric Writing Project 2 Analysis Final Draft Rubric Writing Project 2 Analysis Final Draft Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCover Letter Thoughtful cover letter, describing and explaining revisions made, implementation of peer feedback, and how these changes made improved the draft 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThesis Rhetorical Analysis: Clear thesis that makes a claim about the purpose or effectiveness of rhetorical features analyzed in the core reading Comparative Analysis: Clear thesis that makes a significant claim comparing the core readings 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction / Conclusion Rhetorical Analysis: Introduction Introduction identifies the core reading being analyzed and attempts to express relevance of the analysis to the audience. Conclusion effectively summarizes the content and conveys the significance of the analysis to the audience. Comparative Analysis: Introduction attempts to express relevance of the comparison to its audience. Conclusion effectively summarizes the content and conveys the significance of the comparison to the audience. 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization Logical arrangement supported with helpful and effective transitions and with coherent arrangement. 15.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis Rhetorical Analysis: Effective analysis of rhetorical strategies, with sufficient evidence used to illustrate the analysis and support the thesis Comparative Analysis: Effective analysis of the core readings demonstrated, using well-developed, relevant, and complex points of comparison and supplying sufficient evidence to support the thesis. 30.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle Voice, tone, and stance are appropriate and effective for material, purpose, and audience. Style is clear, consistent, and cohesive, appealing appropriately to the intended audience. 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConventions Clear control of language conventions with few distracting typos or errors 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence and Citations Appropriate use of at least 10 quotes (words, phrases, or key sentences) and/or paraphrases (key details or ideas rephrased in your own words) from the core readings and/or additional outside source, cited using correct in-text citations 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOutside Source Use of at least one relevant additional source found using the Ivy Tech Virtual Library databases. The writer’s voice is discernible from the author of the source and discussion of source information is discernible from source information itself. 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDocument Style Correct document format in APA or MLA style, as specified by your instructor, including correct References page (APA) or Works Cited page (MLA)